Who wrote the bible?

[Ariux]

How about if you cut off its head and its left foot, and drill holes all through the torch? That comes a lot closer to describing what's been done to the Bible.

A mitten over the Statue of Liberty is a better analogy. There were original texts. Those texts have not been changed. No one took an editing pin to those original texts. What we have of the Bible today is only very minor variations resulting from centuries of painstaking copying. Add to that the translation process, which is the biggest obstacle to the common American.

The rest of your post is just bigoted judgement of the contents of the Bible.

 

[Gadawg73]

How about if you cut off its head and its left foot, and drill holes all through the torch? That comes a lot closer to describing what's been done to the Bible.

A mitten over the Statue of Liberty is a better analogy. There were original texts. Those texts have not been changed. No one took an editing pin to those original texts. What we have of the Bible today is only very minor variations resulting from centuries of painstaking copying. Add to that the translation process, which is the biggest obstacle to the common American.

The rest of your post is just bigoted judgement of the contents of the Bible.

And how many ommissions from the numerous books that are not in the Bible?
Most all of the original translations were influenced by the politics of that time.

 

[koshergrl]

Says you.

You're entitled to your opinion. Of course it's wrong.

 

[Vidi]

How about if you cut off its head and its left foot, and drill holes all through the torch? That comes a lot closer to describing what's been done to the Bible.

A mitten over the Statue of Liberty is a better analogy. There were original texts. Those texts have not been changed. No one took an editing pin to those original texts. What we have of the Bible today is only very minor variations resulting from centuries of painstaking copying. Add to that the translation process, which is the biggest obstacle to the common American.

The rest of your post is just bigoted judgement of the contents of the Bible.

Which Bible do you claim has only "minor varirations"?

We have multiple Bibles today that do not agree with one another...and thats just the ones IN ENGLISH.

 

[Vidi]

Says you.

You're entitled to your opinion. Of course it's wrong.

Sigh.

Apply logic to your statement.

If any of the Biblical translations were not a variant on the original, there would be no need for MORE translations, would there?

The very fact that there still continues to be multiple translations into the same language is evidence that there is some "drift" from the original texts.

 

[koshergrl]

Wrong. We translate in order to improve accuracy, not diminish it.

We still have ancient texts to compare to...

 

[Dragon]

The rest of your post is just bigoted judgement of the contents of the Bible.

Huh. Well, I guess my views on genocide, slaughtering innocents by the thousands instead of the guilty, and gang-raping teenage virgins exhibit my bigotry. No doubt you approve of these things. The Old Testament says God does.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The rest of your post is just bigoted judgement of the contents of the Bible.

Huh. Well, I guess my views on genocide, slaughtering innocents by the thousands instead of the guilty, and gang-raping teenage virgins exhibit my bigotry. No doubt you approve of these things. The Old Testament says God does.

Ready to battle ?

Give me your scriptures that support your comments then I will show you how you are wrong again.

 

[Vidi]

Wrong. We translate in order to improve accuracy, not diminish it.

We still have ancient texts to compare to...

Which ancient texts?

As I've pointed out, the ancient texts don't agree with each other either.

 

[techieny]

Books of the NT:

"Their authors were associates of Jesus or his immediate followers, men to whom Jesus had entrusted the leadership of the early church. The Gospel writers Matthew and John were some of Jesus' closest followers. Mark and Luke were companions of the apostles, having access to the apostles' account of Jesus' life.
The other New Testament authors had immediate access to Jesus as well: James and Jude were half-brothers of Jesus who initially did not believe in him. Peter was one of the 12 apostles. Paul started out as a hater of Christianity, but he became an apostle after he had a vision of Christ. He was also in communication with the other apostles."

These are not Roman or Greek philosophers. Though some of the bible was written in Greek.

"Our modern translations are confirmed by a huge number of ancient manuscripts in both Hebrew and Greek, including the mid-20th century discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls hold the oldest existing fragments of almost all of the Old Testament books, dating from 150 B.C. The similarity of the Dead Sea manuscripts to hand copies made even 1,000 years later is proof of the care the ancient Hebrew scribes took in copying their scriptures."

Who Wrote the Bible - Is the Bible Reliable?

Reverend Wright

 

[Vidi]

Wrong. We translate in order to improve accuracy, not diminish it.

We still have ancient texts to compare to...

Which ancient texts?

As I've pointed out, the ancient texts don't agree with each other either.

 

[Ariux]

And how many ommissions from the numerous books that are not in the Bible? Most all of the original translations were influenced by the politics of that time.

If you want to throw out the books that we have in the Bible, why would object to leaving the books out that were left out?

Yes, the books of the Bible reflect contemporary politics. Why do you object to books being relevant to the time periods in which they were produced?

 

[Ariux]

Which Bible do you claim has only "minor varirations"?

We have multiple Bibles today that do not agree with one another...and thats just the ones IN ENGLISH.

My post clearly shows that I was not speaking of translations when I mentioned minor variations. I don't consider that the Bible exists in English, except as a paraphrase.

 

[Ariux]

Huh. Well, I guess my views on genocide, slaughtering innocents by the thousands instead of the guilty, and gang-raping teenage virgins exhibit my bigotry. No doubt you approve of these things. The Old Testament says God does.

Your mischaracterization aside, your complaint is that the Bible doesn't reflect your Liberal values. Isn't imposing your values on someone else the Liberal's definition of bigotry?

 

[Vidi]

Which Bible do you claim has only "minor varirations"?

We have multiple Bibles today that do not agree with one another...and thats just the ones IN ENGLISH.

My post clearly shows that I was not speaking of translations when I mentioned minor variations. I don't consider that the Bible exists in English, except as a paraphrase.

Which is what Im saying.

A paraphrased version of the Truth is not Holy, or Divine or Infallible. At that point it becomes a guide, nothing more, to point the way towards God, so the individual can find God and have a personal relationship with Him.

The Word of God ( as spoke of in John 1:1 ) is the whole of creation. Not some ancient texts.

believing that its refering to the Bible itself diminishes God. The whole of creation glorifies Him.

 

[Dragon]

The rest of your post is just bigoted judgement of the contents of the Bible.

Huh. Well, I guess my views on genocide, slaughtering innocents by the thousands instead of the guilty, and gang-raping teenage virgins exhibit my bigotry. No doubt you approve of these things. The Old Testament says God does.

Ready to battle ?

Give me your scriptures that support your comments then I will show you how you are wrong again.

I'm sure you know them already. I'm also sure that your interpretations and/or excuses would not convince me. Why waste your time?

 

[Dragon]

Huh. Well, I guess my views on genocide, slaughtering innocents by the thousands instead of the guilty, and gang-raping teenage virgins exhibit my bigotry. No doubt you approve of these things. The Old Testament says God does.

Your mischaracterization aside, your complaint is that the Bible doesn't reflect your Liberal values.

There was perhaps a time when opposition to genocide, support for justice instead of scapegoating, and having a problem with gang rape could be considered "liberal values." Today, I doubt you'd find many conservatives who would disagree with me about these things.

Oh, in case anyone wishes to tie themselves into a pretzel justifying the unjustifiable:

The genocide I refer to was of the Amalekites, whom the Children of Israel were instructed to annihilate down to the last child and even the domesticated animals.

The injustice I refer to was the last plague God sent against the Egyptians, which killed thousands of innocent firstborn children, while sparing the life of Pharaoh, who was the one keeping the Israelites captive.

The gang-rape I refer to was offered to a mob in Sodom by Lot, who was nonetheless characterized as a righteous man.

One must either try to argue that God did not actually do or approve these things (good luck with that one), or else claim that they were justified. In the latter case, you brand yourself as someone utterly lacking in moral sense.

 

[Ariux]

The genocide I refer to was of the Amalekites, whom the Children of Israel were instructed to annihilate down to the last child and even the domesticated animals.

The Amalekites had repeatedly attacked the Israelites. The Amalekites were also some of history's most corrupt and cruel people. War against them was justified. And, they were not wiped out.

The injustice I refer to was the last plague God sent against the Egyptians, which killed thousands of innocent firstborn children, while sparing the life of Pharaoh, who was the one keeping the Israelites captive.

Since when is a liberal against abortion? Anywho, you ignore is that all life is God's to take, and all people die.

The gang-rape I refer to was offered to a mob in Sodom by Lot, who was nonetheless characterized as a righteous man.

Lot was trying to prevent a greater evil. And, this was Lot's doing, not God's.

One must either try to argue that God did not actually do or approve these things (good luck with that one), or else claim that they were justified. In the latter case, you brand yourself as someone utterly lacking in moral sense.

....utterly lacking the Liberal's perverse moral sense.

 

[Dragon]

One must either try to argue that God did not actually do or approve these things (good luck with that one), or else claim that they were justified. In the latter case, you brand yourself as someone utterly lacking in moral sense.

Let's see how that prediction holds up.

The Amalekites had repeatedly attacked the Israelites.

So that in your mind justifies God's command to commit genocide against them. So far, one attempt to justify.

Anywho, you ignore is that all life is God's to take, and all people die.

And we have another attempt to justify.

Lot was trying to prevent a greater evil.

And a third attempt to justify. I don't think anyone with a sound conscience would approve handing one's virgin teenage daughters over to a mob for purposes of gang rape justified in order to protect the tender asses of some house guests.

And, this was Lot's doing, not God's.

God nonetheless found Lot to be righteous, indicating that he approved.

utterly lacking the Liberal's perverse moral sense.

So now you're saying that objecting to genocide, scapegoating, and gang rape is not only "liberal" but "perverse."

I'd say my prediction has come true. You have branded yourself as someone utterly lacking in moral sense.