Who wrote the bible?

[koshergrl]

He didn't blow me away.

If he blew you away, it's just (more) proof that your brain is as tiny as your dick. His post is vapid nothingness, as all his, and your, posts are.

You guys need to grow up and start putting some substance behind your narcissistic droning. I'm not the only one who skips over your posts. Which is why you are so dependent upon each other...if you didn't support each other you'd never have any positive feedback at all...

 

[percysunshine]

Why are we talking about Mormons and popes?

Because all of the athiests never learned grammar or spelling.

 

[The Irish Ram]

No, they weren't worshiping the Bible, they were worshiping the author of the Bible.
If you don't accept the knowledge in the Bible, you are left to your own understanding of who you are worshiping. That is where we get into trouble. Without knowledge, God becomes a figment of your imagination. You end up giving him the attributes that you think he should have. You worship him the way you determine he should be worshiped. You customize God to suit your taste.
For instance, you may pray all the time, but if you don't repent of your sins first, God won't hear one word of what you say. Not one word. That is Biblical.
So, if your God isn't the one that authored the Bible, tell me about your God, and how you know you are worshiping God, and not some idea of a God that Satan has planted in your head.

If you equate an object to the God behind it, you are worshiping the object.

Your entire second paragraph is not biblically supported. Not one word. It's the ravings of a fear based selective fire and brimstone religion, mere steps away from Westboro Baptist Church crap. God is all inclusive. He doesn't discriminate. God listens to EVERYONE. He answers EVERY prayer. He just sometimes says no and we fragile humans interpret that as not listening.

The Bible is, as I said before, merely the first small step in understanding God. Read it, learn it, then move on. Raise your head from the book and turn directly to God. Let His Will, not the book, guide your life. If me truly believes that God has a plan for their life, then trusting God, not some book, is an essential part of faith.

If you equate an object to the God behind it, you are equating an object to the God behind it. It has nothing to do with worshiping the object. Christ died on a wooden cross. I worship neither wood nor crosses. I worship Christ, who died on a cross.
If he would have been hit by a bus, I would worship Christ.

My second paragraph proves why you should NOT rely on your own understanding.
For instance, you have believed all this time that God hears all of your prayers. Satan has mislead you into believing that, because you lack the knowledge to dispute what Satan wants you to believe.
Unless you repent God doesn't hear one word. Not one word.
If the Bible points you in the direction of understanding God, then indeed you should start there, because you aren't ready to move on.
Here are a few of the verses in the Bible pertaining to sin and prayer.
Psalm 66:18
1Peter 3:12
Isaiah 59:1-2
John 9:31
How many times do you have to read, God heareth not, before you realize that leaning on your own understanding gets you no where?
Studying the Lord's prayer might be a good place to start. Don't say it. It is not YOUR prayer. STUDY it so you will understand HOW to pray:
Praise
Repent
Intercede
Self
Try praying in that order, and God will indeed hear you.
Once God has heard you, He has 3 responses. Yes, no, and, when the time is right.

 

[koshergrl]

Here's the thing, Irish...the Bible is the actual word of God.

And the Word of God..is Holy, and embodies the Holy Spirit.

That is scripturally sound.

There is nothing in the Bible about wood or crosses embodying the spirit.

That's the difference. The word of God contains the Holy Spirit, which is why the Bible itself is holy.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I agree 100% Kosh, which is why Vid needs to go back to the Bible and stop relying on limited human understanding to know God. Vid's discription of God, comes from Vid's mind, NOT the Bible. If the Bible says unrepentant sin keeps God from hearing prayer, and Vid says He hears you regardless, I think I'll stick with the Bible and repent. I want my prayers to be heard.

 

[Dragon]

I agree 100% Kosh, which is why Vid needs to go back to the Bible and stop relying on limited human understanding to know God.

The Bible IS limited human understanding. What's worse is that it's third-hand limited human understanding. Vid, relying on "his own mind," has as good a potential understanding of God as any of the Bible's AUTHORS, and much better than a mere READER.

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong, and indicative of your really limited knowledge of scripture. You obviously don't have even the most basic knowledge of the bible, and yet you count yourself as qualified to debate its veracity?

What a moron.

 

[Dragon]

Here's what it really comes down to.

We have a set of books called the Bible.

We have certain people, living and dead, who say that the Bible was written, or dictated or inspired or some such, by God. The claim of these people is the only tangible evidence along those lines that we possess. So in the end, relying on the Bible as God's word/infallible/whatever, is relying on the testimony of those human beings, living and dead, who say that it is.

What's more: Assume for the moment, arguendo, that these claims are correct, and that the Bible was inspired by God -- all however-many books of it. Set aside the rather extreme improbability of that being true.

Now, how did this happen? We know for certain that each book of the Bible had one or more human authors. If those human authors received the word of God, then they did so nonetheless as human beings, using mere limited human minds. There is no inherent reason why what one of them did, one of us cannot also do.

So it all comes down in the end to trusting the judgment and testimony of limited, fallible human beings as to the Bible being God's word, and also to trusting the ability of limited, fallible human beings to receive God's word and record it in utterly limited and fallible human languages without a single error. And all of this is at third hand.

How is this somehow more reliable than one's own firsthand experience of the holy?

 

[koshergrl]

You get back to me when you've actually read the bible and done a little bit of study on it.

Until then, you're really too ignorant to discuss it with. We can't have a discussion about the veracity of the bible when you obviously come from a position of having zero understanding of what's in it.

 

[Dragon]

And here's another thing. Consider just exactly who's testimony regarding the sacredness of the Bible we're relying on. in regard to the Old Testament, there's the ancient Jewish priesthood, whose status and authority among Jews depended on the basis of their religion being accepted by the people. In regard to the New Testament, there's the early authorities of the Imperial Church, tied as it was to the Roman Empire, who had the same motivation as those of the Jewish priests writ large, and in addition the political motivations of the Emperors whom they supported.

On the basis of the testimony of these people, and in the end nothing else at all, we're to accept the extremely unlikely claim that these highly diverse books written over a period of several thousand years by diverse authors are all dictated by God and infallible in every particular?

I hardly think so. In the first place I would be dubious accepting the claim of the very holiest and wisest of people on something so inherently unlikely (and truth be told, no such claims have ever been made by such people about ANY writings), and in the second place these people were NOT the holiest and wisest of people, they were politicians, each and every one.

If you think about it, the authority of the Bible rests on very, very shaky foundations of evidence indeed.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Here's the thing, Irish...the Bible is the actual word of God.

And the Word of God..is Holy, and embodies the Holy Spirit.

That is scripturally sound.

There is nothing in the Bible about wood or crosses embodying the spirit.

That's the difference. The word of God contains the Holy Spirit, which is why the Bible itself is holy.

Actually, only the first 5 books of the OT are the Word of God, but then again, only if they're in the form of a Torah.

The rest of the OT is the history of the Jewish people.

The NT is the re-write Rome used as their basis for Christianity, which is a mix of pagan practices and Judaic theology.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, not true.

And your ignorance makes it impossible to have a discussion with you on this topic.

Start here:

"Some people have the idea that the New Testament has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.
For instance, we know the New Testament we have today is true to its original form because:
1. We have such a huge number of manuscript copies -- over 24,000.
2. Those copies agree with each other, word for word, 99.5% of the time.
3. The dates of these manuscripts are very close to the dates of their originals (see link at end of this section).
When one compares the text of one manuscript with another, the match is amazing. Sometimes the spelling may vary, or words may be transposed, but that is of little consequence. Concerning word order, Bruce M. Metzger, professor emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary, explains: "It makes a whale of a difference in English if you say, 'Dog bites man' or 'Man bites dog' -- sequence matters in English. But in Greek it doesn't. One word functions as the subject of the sentence regardless of where it stands in the sequence."5
Dr. Ravi Zacharias, a visiting professor at Oxford University, also comments: "In real terms, the New Testament is easily the best attested ancient writing in terms of the sheer number of documents, the time span between the events and the documents, and the variety of documents available to sustain or contradict it. There is nothing in ancient manuscript evidence to match such textual availability and integrity."6"

Who Wrote the Bible - Is the Bible Reliable?

 

[Dragon]

"Here's the thing, Irish...the Bible is the actual word of God.

And the Word of God..is Holy, and embodies the Holy Spirit.

That is scripturally sound."

This is a perfect example of a circular argument. The Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so. Nonsense, of course.

 

[koshergrl]

No, I don't say that fact that the bible says it's the word of God proves it's the word of God (this is where your muddy thinking gets you in trouble). I said that scripture SAYS it is the word of God and therefore holy. Therefore believing that the Bible is the Word and Holy has a sound basis in the scripture. It isn't just plucked out of left field.

This is how it becomes obvious you have very limited knowledge or understanding of the Bible, or even debate tactics. You get stuff like this wrong all the time, and you run with it.

It's a sign of an untrained mind and limited scholarly endeavor.

 

[Vidi]

Kosher,

Sorry but that is probably false.

Go to Logos.com

It shows side by side comparisons of different translations. And while they are similar in most areas, there are subtle differences that change the meaning of individual scriptures.

This leads to different interpretations which leads to different sects that all fall under the Christian moniker.

Our King James version is in fact at least the third iteration.

First there was the Great Bible.

Great Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Bible was finished and published under Henry the 8th. And added entire phrases or deleted entire verses that didn't support Henry's divine right to the throne and his divine right to be head of the church instead of the Roman Pope.

This was eventually replaced by:

Bishops' Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bishops Bible was eventually replaced by the King James version BUT translators were specifically order to use the Bishops Bible as their basis for the King James version.


Here's a list of various edits and/or complete omissions from various Bibles:

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

If they are different, then they can't ALL be the Holy Word of God. Even Youngs Literal Translation admits in the preface that some words simply don't translate properly AND there are serious issues with tense ( past, present, future ) with ancient Hebrew, so in those verses, it's only a close approximation of intent as distinguished by the translator themselves.

 

[koshergrl]

Kosher,

Sorry but that is probably false.

Go to Logos.com

It shows side by side comparisons of different translations. And while they are similar in most areas, there are subtle differences that change the meaning of individual scriptures.

This leads to different interpretations which leads to different sects that all fall under the Christian moniker.

Our King James version is in fact at least the third iteration.

First there was the Great Bible.

Great Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Bible was finished and published under Henry the 8th. And added entire phrases or deleted entire verses that didn't support Henry's divine right to the throne and his divine right to be head of the church instead of the Roman Pope.

This was eventually replaced by:

Bishops' Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bishops Bible was eventually replaced by the King James version BUT translators were specifically order to use the Bishops Bible as their basis for the King James version.


Here's a list of various edits and/or complete omissions from various Bibles:

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations

If they are different, then they can't ALL be the Holy Word of God. Even Youngs Literal Translation admits in the preface that some words simply don't translate properly AND there are serious issues with tense ( past, present, future ) with ancient Hebrew, so in those verses, it's only a close approximation of intent as distinguished by the translator themselves.

Yes, the all can be the Holy Word of God, and the error is in our understanding, not in the Word.

 

[koshergrl]

But that's neither here nor there...my point wasn't whether or not the word was in and of itself inerrant...it was that scripture tells us that it is, and according to scripture, we aren't to spend a little time in the Word and then discard it.

 

[Vidi]

I agree 100% Kosh, which is why Vid needs to go back to the Bible and stop relying on limited human understanding to know God. Vid's discription of God, comes from Vid's mind, NOT the Bible. If the Bible says unrepentant sin keeps God from hearing prayer, and Vid says He hears you regardless, I think I'll stick with the Bible and repent. I want my prayers to be heard.

You want to study the Bible?

Ok let's:

Why were Adam and Eve removed from the Garden of Eden?

A) because they were naked
B) because they ate from the tree of knowledge
C) to prevent them from eating from the Tree of Life

Is Jesus the only son of God?

A) yes
B) no


Please provide scripture to back up your answers.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Old Testament remains unchanged and is where you find the Bible Code. Every letter had to be exactly where God wanted it to be to create the code. It is reliable.
Someone asked which Bible? NKJ or.......or.......... And that is an extremely important question.
AB had the answer. You need a Hebrew and an ancient Greek translation to your Bible to be sure you are getting the correct meaning of a verse, or a word.
For example, in English, you may read the word "love". In Greek when you read it you'll know whether it means brotherly love or carnal love because they had specific words for every type of love...... Philios, eros, etc. Ancient Greek is a very crisp clear language. It maintains the integrity of the New Testament. The KJ Bible is the closest to the Textus Recptus, and is reliable.

Here is why the Bible should never be worshiped.
While it may be holy, it falls under the same category as Mary, the mother of Christ. She was also holy, but why would you pray to her? She has no special power. Why pray to a creation when you can (Thanks to Good Fri.) pray directly to the creator?

There was a veil that separated man from God in the Holy Temple. It was linen. 60 feet high and over a foot thick. Layer sewn on layer of fine linen. That veil was torn, from the top down when Christ died. Try to tear one piece of linen and you'll see that the more you try the tighter the weave gets. The blood of Christ was sprinkled on the alter. The blood of a lamb would temporarily cover up sin. Christ's blood erased it permanently. Christ gave us a direct access to God. Even Jesus said not to pray to Him, but to the Father, by way of Him.

I am with Kosher on this one, but if she makes the same statement next year, I will wholeheartedly disagree.
In an effort to be politically correct, 2 major Bible printers are removing the 91 verses that proclaim Christ is the Son of God, and so not to offend anyone, they will be replacing the word God, with Allah. That Bible would be better used to start a campfire with..........

 

[Vidi]

The Old Testament remains unchanged and is where you find the Bible Code. Every letter had to be exactly where God wanted it to be to create the code. It is reliable.
Someone asked which Bible? NKJ or.......or.......... And that is an extremely important question.
AB had the answer. You need a Hebrew and an ancient Greek translation to your Bible to be sure you are getting the correct meaning of a verse, or a word.
For example, in English, you may read the word "love". In Greek when you read it you'll know whether it means brotherly love or carnal love because they had specific words for every type of love...... Philios, eros, etc. Ancient Greek is a very crisp clear language. It maintains the integrity of the New Testament. The KJ Bible is the closest to the Textus Recptus, and is reliable.

Here is why the Bible should never be worshiped.
While it may be holy, it falls under the same category as Mary, the mother of Christ. She was also holy, but why would you pray to her? She has no special power. Why pray to a creation when you can (Thanks to Good Fri.) pray directly to the creator?

There was a veil that separated man from God in the Holy Temple. It was linen. 60 feet high and over a foot thick. Layer sewn on layer of fine linen. That veil was torn, from the top down when Christ died. Try to tear one piece of linen and you'll see that the more you try the tighter the weave gets. The blood of Christ was sprinkled on the alter. The blood of a lamb would temporarily cover up sin. Christ's blood erased it permanently. Christ gave us a direct access to God. Even Jesus said not to pray to Him, but to the Father, by way of Him.

I am with Kosher on this one, but if she makes the same statement next year, I will wholeheartedly disagree.
In an effort to be politically correct, 2 major Bible printers are removing the 91 verses that proclaim Christ is the Son of God, and so not to offend anyone, they will be replacing the word God, with Allah. That Bible would be better used to start a campfire with..........

Sorry, youll have to disagree with her now.

Even the Old Testment has undergone "revisions"

Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Genesis 4:7, LXX (NETS)
If you offer correctly but do not divide correctly, have you not sinned? Be still; his recourse is to you, and you will rule over him.

Genesis 4:7, Masoretic and English Translation from MT (Judaica Press)
הֲלוֹא אִם תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל בּוֹ: Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."


Genesis 4:7, Latin Vulgate (Douay-Rheims)
If thou do well, shalt thou not receive? but if ill, shall not sin forthwith be present at the door? but the lust thereof shall be under thee, and thou shalt have dominion over it.

Evidence of this can be found throughout the Old Testament. Most obvious are major differences in Jeremiah and Job, where the LXX is much shorter and chapters appear in different order than in the MT, and Esther where almost one third of the verses in the LXX text have no parallel in the MT. A more subtle example may be found in Isaiah 36.11; the meaning ultimately remains the same, but the choice of words evidences a different text.