God

[KRCummings]

And mysteriously, they didn't put their names to their work...

Not exactly a trustworthy source.

For the most part the books are named after the authors. There is no mystery over who wrote the original books but over who made revisions later on.

 

[KRCummings]

Looked this up. Not mine. Liked it.

Some say that the Bible is nothing more than fairy tales. But this cannot be for it contains great wisdom and truth and it has been verified throughout history as being accurate. Its historical accounts are flawlessly accurate. In fact, archaeology routinely demonstrates the accuracy of the biblical records concerning locations and events recorded in the Bible.

Yeah, no.

 

[richard_daily]

For the most part the books are named after the authors. There is no mystery over who wrote the original books but over who made revisions later on.

In that case, name all of the authors.

 

[KRCummings]

In that case, name all of the authors.

I just told you.
If you want who made revisions then you're out of luck. With a few exceptions nobody knows.
If you want who wrote most of the Torah then it's either Moses or anonymous depending on who you ask.
Ruth was not written by Ruth and Esther is unknown and the gospels are a source of contention. Samuel did a lot of OT writing as did Isaiah, Jeremiah and Joshua.
The letters were written by Paul as advertised except the letters to the Hebrews.

Again, the authors are less of a mystery than the editors.

 

[richard_daily]

I just told you.
If you want who made revisions then you're out of luck. With a few exceptions nobody knows.
If you want who wrote most of the Torah then it's either Moses or anonymous depending on who you ask.
Ruth was not written by Ruth and Esther is unknown and the gospels are a source of contention. Samuel did a lot of OT writing as did Isaiah, Jeremiah and Joshua.
The letters were written by Paul as advertised except the letters to the Hebrews.

Again, the authors are less of a mystery than the editors.

So some guy named Judges wrote two books?


There's no proof that most of those people even existed... so I'd say, try again... There's ample evidence that almost all of the books were penned by random monks, and many of the footnotes that they wrote made their way into the king james bible, unattributed.

Even if what you claim is true, how can you prove the words of 100 or so random dudes (3 or 4 issiah's for instance) is the word of god, even when it's in direct conflict with another part of the bible? A dubious claim at best.

The bible is a fully man-made construction, and it deserves no more worship than a dr. suess book.

 

[Tryharder62]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mdmMYgIAE5Y/TsyWtZ7G7GI/AAAAAAAAACs/M9LOvp6PG2c/s320/DrSeussQuote.jpg

 

[KRCummings]

So some guy named Judges wrote two books?


There's no proof that those people even existed... so I'd say, try again... There's ample evidence that almost all of the books were penned by random monks, and many of the footnotes that they wrote made their way into the king james bible, unattributed.

Even if what you claim is true, how can you prove the words of 100 or so random dudes (3 or 4 issiah's for instance) is the word of god, even when it's in direct conflict with another part of the bible? A dubious claim at best.

The bible is a fully man-made construction, and it deserves no more worship than a dr. suess book.

Judges is a group of stories. Probably written by several people. I don't know what you mean by two books.
Proof of who exisiting? The prophets? No reason to doubt many of them. More evidence for them than Jesus and Jesus is generally accepted as having lived. The prophets wrote a large portion of the original OT. Again, it's not a mystery. What happened to the books before they became part of the Bible is what is unknown. The revisions are numerous and not always obvious.
The King James Bible is essentially a laymans Bible. Not far off of the Living Bible. No scholar accepts it as accurate.
Whether or not someone decides the Bible is the true word of God is their own business. You said the authors were unknown and that is what I addressed.
It is however the single most important and influential work ever published and to dismiss it is ignorant.

 

[Trace_Element]

I'd be interested in the direct conflicts thing...some examples?

 

[KRCummings]

I'd be interested in the direct conflicts thing...some examples?

Most conflicts are between the OT and NT which really makes them meaningless. Others exist in varying degrees within different tellings of the same story like the gospels. Mostly pretty minor stuff there though. The OT has a lot if I remember right but unless you're Jewish or Muslim then who cares?
I think Paul wrote some things that contradicted Jesus and/or the gospels but I'd have to check because I can't think of any at the moment.

 

[Trace_Element]

Most conflicts are between the OT and NT which really makes them meaningless. Others exist in varying degrees within different tellings of the same story like the gospels. Mostly pretty minor stuff there though. The OT has a lot if I remember right but unless you're Jewish or Muslim then who cares?
I think Paul wrote some things that contradicted Jesus and/or the gospels but I'd have to check because I can't think of any at the moment.

I used to do a good bit of studying on just this subject...always interesting to see what others think are in conflict...
Like you said, there are some slight differences in the telling of the Gospels, but nothing that changes any theological point...more perspective than anything...I can't think of anywhere that Paul contradicted Jesus...but then again, Paul wrote more of the NT than anyone...

 

[phrodeau]

I'd be interested in the direct conflicts thing...some examples?

II Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

I Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

 

[julybaby04]

II Samuel 24:1 Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”

I Chronicles 21:1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Context is everything.....


What you see in the original scriptures for
2 Samual 24:1 is:

* God was angry at Israel
* this moved David to tell them to number Israel
and Judah

What 2 Samuel left out, was that Satan had STOOD UP
to entice David, when David realized that God was
angry at Israel. David was afraid, and Satan took
that fear as a cue to then STAND UP and entice David
to number his men.

David was primed to be tempted by Satan due to
David's fear in knowing God was angry at Israel.
David then gave in to Satan's enticement, and told
them to number the men.

This is the correct reading since afterwards, they
were punished by God for not listening to him and
believing him.


http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/number.htm

 

[phrodeau]

Context is everything.....


What you see in the original scriptures for
2 Samual 24:1 is:

* God was angry at Israel
* this moved David to tell them to number Israel
and Judah

What 2 Samuel left out, was that Satan had STOOD UP
to entice David, when David realized that God was
angry at Israel. David was afraid, and Satan took
that fear as a cue to then STAND UP and entice David
to number his men.

David was primed to be tempted by Satan due to
David's fear in knowing God was angry at Israel.
David then gave in to Satan's enticement, and told
them to number the men.

This is the correct reading since afterwards, they
were punished by God for not listening to him and
believing him.


http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/number.htm

That's a great flight. Now can you do a barrel roll?

We were discussing inspiration for the Bible. Which version was inspired by God, and which wasn't?

 

[julybaby04]

That's a great flight. Now can you do a barrel roll?

We were discussing inspiration for the Bible. Which version was inspired by God, and which wasn't?

You were discussing things that appeared in conflict. The one quoted "appears" in conflict if only those versus are pointed out. In reading what was actually going on, there is no conflict.

 

[Tryharder62]

That's a great flight. Now can you do a barrel roll?

We were discussing inspiration for the Bible. Which version was inspired by God, and which wasn't?

Original texts - Hebrew and I think Latin. I'd have to look it up. There are a number of translations as people tried to get the bible into a form that all people could read. In many languages and forms. However, it can cause problems. For example in some cultures I love you can mean I love you, but in other cultures I love you can mean you're not a fat ox and I want to get in your pants.

 

[julybaby04]

Original texts - Hebrew and I think Latin. I'd have to look it up. There are a number of translations as people tried to get the bible into a form that all people could read. In many languages and forms. However, it can cause problems. For example in some cultures I love you can mean I love you, but in other cultures I love you can mean you're not a fat ox and I want to get in your pants.

lol....think the last one is here in the US....lol

 

[phrodeau]

In which culture are Satan and the Lord equivalent?

If God inspired these writers, why couldn't He inspire the editors too?

 

[phrodeau]

In which culture are Satan and the Lord equivalent?

If God inspired these writers, why couldn't He inspire the editors too?

I can answer my own question, biblically.

Genesis 11:7 God deliberately fucks up our language.

 

[Exquisition]

Three tests can be applied to the bible to see if it exhibits characteristics of a divine book that is without error. 1. External evidence 2. Internal evidence 3. Bible prophecy.

External evidence from both archeology and non-Christian writers confirms that the Bible - Both the Old and New Testaments - is a trustwrothy historical document.

So this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

And these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi

Don't really factor into the sanitised Bible that made it out of Nicaea I then?

Just wondering how you're measuring 'trustworthiness'. Pretty sweeping generalisation for a sanitised version of the Bible and it's descendants that zealots refer to now.

The Nag Hammadi find is probably the 'purest' version of the Bible available. I.e. it contains books and Gospels that never made into the 'popular chart' because they were deemed too 'dangerous' for the delicate transition of the early Christian faith.

We find it preposterous now that there is strong evidence for Jesus being married to MAry Magdalene (not a prostitute, according to some of the Nag Hammadi finds but Jesus' Most trusted and favoured Disciple purely because the Gospel according to Philip never made it into the NEw Testament courtesy of Emperor Constantine.

"There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary."

"And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [softly] on her [hand]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Saviour answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

You sure the Bible is so trustworthy?

 

[KRCummings]

The Nag Hammadi find is probably the 'purest' version of the Bible available. I.e. it contains books and Gospels that never made into the 'popular chart' because they were deemed too 'dangerous' for the delicate transition of the early Christian faith.

It has books that aren't in the current Bible, that doesn't make it the purest by any definition. It's just other writings. If I found some unpublished manuscripts by Dickens I wouldn't be able to say I had the purest collection. That's idiotic.

 

[julybaby04]

In which culture are Satan and the Lord equivalent?

If God inspired these writers, why couldn't He inspire the editors too?

They are not equivalent.

 

[Joeybagadonuts]

It has books that aren't in the current Bible, that doesn't make it the purest by any definition. It's just other writings. If I found some unpublished manuscripts by Dickens I wouldn't be able to say I had the purest collection. That's idiotic.

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm curious to know if you are one who believes that to be a Christian means to fully accept the bible as the word of God?

 

[Exquisition]

It has books that aren't in the current Bible, that doesn't make it the purest by any definition. It's just other writings. If I found some unpublished manuscripts by Dickens I wouldn't be able to say I had the purest collection. That's idiotic.

Pure from the point of view they are unredacted, untranslated, uninterpreted and were part of the Bible as a whole. The Nag Hammadi scrolls also contain books that did make it into the Bible after Nicaea.

You can also get inferences of how Nicaea changed the meaning of some pretty fundamental stuff in the 'accepted' Books of the modern Bible:

"Those who say they will die first and then rise are in error. If they do not first receive the resurrection while they live, when they die they will receive nothing." (interpretation after Nicaea - i.e. what the verse says now in most editions)

"Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error – for He rose up first and then died." Nag Hammadi

Idiotic is as idiotic does.

 

[KRCummings]

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm curious to know if you are one who believes that to be a Christian means to fully accept the bible as the word of God?

A Christian has to accept Christ as the Savior. There isn't much else. The OT and a good portion of the NT don't play into it. Some say you have to accept that God is not only aware of our actions but cares. I don't know if that really matters plus it kinda goes along with the whole Savior thing anyway.
The Bible as a whole is what it is. Only God knows if it's His true word. I sorta doubt it is though. I think even He would consider it a guide more than anything.

 

[KRCummings]

Pure from the point of view they are unredacted, untranslated, uninterpreted and were part of the Bible as a whole. The Nag Hammadi scrolls also contain books that did make it into the Bible after Nicaea.
.

What? They're translations. Quit being stupid.