The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

When and if you make this kind of post again, it is helpful if you provide a link to the post you are pulling the quote from. This allows the reader to understand the context of the quote.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

The flood story claims that "the whole earth" was covered. What eyewitness could possibly have seen all of that? Whoever wrote the story was obviously embellishing - he was making assumptions. So, in fact, all the flood stories have only one similarity - a flood. There is no reason to assume they're talking about the same flood. Again, a flood doesn't confirm the flood. You might as well say that fairies are real because so many cultures have folktales about them. Faith is useless for determining how accurate a story is. Other people have just as much faith in the other stories. Sure you can. Ever hear of geology, paleontology? Ever watch CSI: Crime Scene Investigation? Every observation that scientists make is about something that happened in the past. I don't think it was written by Jefferson, actually. Look it up.But there are tests that can be done. Is the paper old enough? Is the composition of the ink authentic? Was the document written by one person?And the Constitution does have a provenance. There were eyewitnesses to its writing and ratification. It's day-to-day existence is well accounted-for.You have none of that for the Bible. You don't even have an original manuscript. You might want to drop the conspiracy theory real fast. If there was a conspiracy involved in the production of the Bible, it's far more likely that it was a conspiracy to make it look "true". We have a chain of evidence for all those events. We do have authentic eyewitnesses and eyewitnesses who testify that the eyewitnesses were real. It is in no way comparable to the "eyewitnesses" to the Bible. That's what I'm saying. If one "eyewitness" is the only "evidence" you have, he should not be believed. His accusations should be rejected and the accused should be set free. The witness might still be right, but if there's no way of showing that he's right, you can't put somebody in jail.You can't even show that your Bible "eyewitnesses" really existed - so you shouldn't take them at their word. Nobody is talking about proving the Bible "false".We already know for a fact that the flood is false. We know for a fact that much of Genesis is false. Probably most of the "history" in the Bible is either outright fiction or at least embellished.But don't confuse fictitious with false. Fiction can carry important truths.Understanding the difference between fact and fiction will strengthen your faith. You can have real faith in what you know is true.If you insist that the Bible is historically accurate, even though the evidence says otherwise, you're just squeezing your eyes shut and stuffing you fingers in your ears and saying, "I do, I do, I do believe in spooks!" That makes for very weak "faith".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

to which Juraikken replied:

quote:

---

the compilation right? not the actual writing?

---

No. The actual writing is the product of man. The Exodus Fable is a great example. It is written like the old Mack Sennett comedies complete with cliff hanger end points designed to bring the folk back for the next installment of the story."Will Pharaoh keep his promise and let the children go, or will God harden his heart yet again? Stay tuned for the next episode called 'Frogs in the street.'" No. All of the compilations are inspired by God as was Moby Dick, Wind in the Willows, A Canticle for Leibowitz and Language in Thought and Action.Inspiration is not a blueprint, to do list or roadmap. Inspiration is but the initial nudge to begin the journey, start a task or build an edifice. So far there is no indication that we are any smarter than the folk that created the Canons. And there are NO original sources known for any of the material in any Bible or Canon.All we have to work with are copies, versions written by man, edited by man, compiled by man, redacted by man.In addition, the process you describe, collect, read, study, debate, understand are ALL simply the actions of man. The final product would, like all the Canons before, still just be the product of man.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We don't need to find such a wild difference as you suggest. If the meaning changes, then the meaning is indeed different. For example, we have these two sentences in English:
"Dog bites man."
"Man bites dog."Simple word differences. Actually, the words are identical; it's just the order that's changed. But the meanings of the two sentences are entirely different.How's your grammar? Do you know what grammatical cases are and what they do? If you've ever studied Latin, Greek, German, or Russian, then you should know. If you're a monoglot or have only studied the Romance languages (like most), then you probably don't have a clue. Cases are used in inflected languages (ie, languages in which words change, usually to indicate how they are being used in the sentence). Case indicates how nouns and adjectives are used in the sentence; in inflected languages this is indicated by endings or changes in the root (though German does it through the articles and adjective endings), whereas in languages like English it's indicated by word order, as demonstrated above. To demonstrate in German (also changing the sentences' word order to be identical, so that the only difference is in the case):
"Der Hund beit den Mann." ("The dog bites the man.")
"Den Hund beit der Mann." ("The man bites the dog.")
"der" indicates nominative case, which here would be the subject, the one performing the action of the verb. "den" indicates the accusative case, which means that the noun is the direct object, that upon which the action of the verb is being performed.Again, minor changes, only single letters, but ones which completely change the meaning of the sentences. And they do not even need to be differences to the order which you describe as being necessary.Now, a number of the differences between the manuscripts of the New Testament are fairly minor and don't make any real difference in the meaning. But a number of them do. Uh, no. They are different. They have different meanings. "Different" means "different". What part of "different" don't you understand?"and on earth peace, goodwill toward men"
"and on earth peace among men of goodwill"The first one states that that there will (or should) be peace on earth and that "men" are to receive goodwill and it does not restrict who those "men" are; basically, it says that everybody is included.
The second one states that "men" will receive peace (not goodwill) and it further restricts which men will receive peace, namely those "of goodwill".The two have different meanings. What part of "different" don't you understand?If the Bible is supposed to be taken literally, then which one meaning is supposed to be the right one? This is important, because entire doctrines have been spun from single verses, like from the long ending of Mark, which does not exist in the earlier manuscripts and so is considered a later addition.Oh, didn't you know that already? Mark 16:9-20; Mark 16:18 is the single verse that has spawn venomous-snake-handling and the drinking of poison. Well, those verses are not in the older manuscripts. Or else there is in some a "short ending" which reads thus in the NRSV:

quote:

---

And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

---

Or, both appear in some manuscripts, the short ending followed by the long.BTW, the KJV has the long ending without the short.Gee, an entire half-a-chapter added on. Now that's a difference. Or do you claim that they both "have the same meaning"? Please bear in mind that I'm not claiming that you hold this claim or have made this claim. But I have frequently been told by "creation science" proponents that they only believe the "Word of God", which they identify as the Bible. Furthermore, they declare their deep and firmly-held belief that the Bible is free of all error because if it is ever found to contain even a single error, then the entire Bible is false, Christianity is a complete lie, and God doesn't exist and they must become atheists. That is exactly what so many creationists and other fundamentalist Christians have told me; I swear to God and three other white men (an old Redd Foxx line; I've been waiting for decades to use it and just could not resist the temptation any longer). But then when I ask them where in the Bible it tells them that, they become utterly silent and disappear very quickly.Juraikken, you have just expressed the same belief, that the slightest error in the Bible make the entire Bible false as well and the Christ, etc, and then "all falls apart." Where does that belief come from? Does the Bible tell you that? Or only your religious leaders and teachers? Where did they get it from? Theology is man-made. In my opinion, one should learn where their beliefs come from and what they are based on. Especially beliefs that require you to abandon your faith should they ever turn out to be false. For example, "creation science" makes a multitude of false and contrary-to-fact claims and teaches that should any of those claims turn out to be false, then "Scripture has no meaning", which then leads to the scenario you describe because, as you just witnessed, that is what you are taught you must do in such a case.In other words, such beliefs create a test that, when it fails, would prove conclusively that God does not exist. And they have rigged that test so that it's guaranteed to fail. Which causes you (pl.) to go into deep denial, burying your (pl) collective head in a sandy desert of apologetics, desperately blinding yourselves to the results of that test. All that results is a very fragile faith -- extremely strong convictions, but they need to be so strong in order to shield that fragile faith from the truth. Plus, you have given the anti-religious Christian atheists (many of them ex-Christians who had already fallen prey to that test) the perfect argument for proving that God does not exist; all they have to do is apply your test and show that it fails. And on top of that, you have given non-Christians a very good reason to write Christianity off as hokum, because they will receive your test, apply it, and find that it does indeed fail. Too bad the test itself is false.I don't know whether you are yourself a biblidolator, but we all too often see Christians who worship the Bible, putting it even before God. That does appear to be what you are doing here when you make the truth of the Christ dependent on the truth of the Bible. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't a faith that is Christ-centered and God-centered be much stronger than one which is Bible-centered? In such a faith, it would not matter whether the Bible was written by man or whether it was not perfect (which it is not). And "inspired" would have a more truthful meaning than your current fragile faith requires it to have -- I think that ideas about the meaning of "inspired" is a principal source of the problem and that it should probably have a thread devoted to discussing that meaning.[segue (sounds like "segway")]
There's a filk song (that was not a typo) called "Word of God", in which each verse ends with a refrain that changes a bit as it evolves:
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks."
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky."
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life."
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world."
[/segue]Which leads me (hence the segue) to a devout Christian grandfather, George H. Birkett, who has put some of his thoughts about religion and his faith on his web site at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/geobrkt/faith/toc.htm:
"The First Testament" (at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/geobrkt/faith/faith0/ftog.htm) is what God wrote, the true "Word of God", namely Nature:

quote:

---

Unlike the Bible, which many claim is God's divine word written by men at the behest, direction and inspiration of God, The First Testament of God is written by God in His own hand. For those of us who seek God's divine word, this is it. We have found it.

​

. . .

​

Okay. If this be the case how does the Bible fit in?

​

For me the Bible has become much more interesting than it formerly was. It's a kind of primer, an introduction to humanity's growing awareness of a Supreme Being. It gives us a place to start on our personal journey of discovery. Besides being fine literature it is incredibly candid and honest. But it is less about God and more about men: written by men about men. It is the account of the Hebrew people's struggle to know and understand God, the evolution of one monotheistic religion, so to speak.

---

In "Ignorant Adoration?" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geobkt.com/blendingfaith//faith04.htm, he expresses his concern that too many Christians just blindly accept what they're told, "what someone says the bible says or some kind of denominational tenet or doctrine or dogma that encourages denial of evidence (clues) and interferes with our applying our God given intellect to contemplate what the evidence tells us."Just some food for thought.And a Bible verse, 1 Thessalonians 5:21:
KJV -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
New KJV -- Test all things; hold fast what is good.
NIV -- Test everything. Hold on to the good.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Well done, DW. Something for everyone there. (Or should that be 'There is something for everyone?') :-p

Dwise, you made an emphatic point that different means different. By the same token, wrote means wrote and written words are not nature.I am not one who insists that every jot and tittle of the Bible is precisely accurate to the original or even to be taken word for word at face value as perfect. I believe it is an inspired book to be taken as literally as possible, applying text to context and assuming that minor (I say minor) errors are to be expected. The Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the fact that the literally translated versions are quite accurate compared to those old scriptures.My problem with the above cited statement is that naturalistic ideologies can take that ball and run with it in any direction they choose to claim a score, all the while undermining the only real bonafide collection of written books inspired by God. No other existing books written by humans have fulfilled prophecies as are found in the prophetic books of the Bible supportive to divine inspiration.The rocks, living things, the cosmos as well as human history, by observation, can be interpreted in whatever manner suits the fancy, but the words of the Bible are like your word "different." They mean what they say about the rocks, living things, the cosmos and human history. To attempt to change their meaning would obscure, obfuscate and distort what is written. That is not to say that every jot and tittle on human history is necessarily perfect but to be considered accurate by Biblical fundamentalists until empirically falsified.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

Er ... * coughs tactfully * ... John the Evangelist and John the Baptist were two completely different people. No, it doesn't destroy his evidentary value, but it does mean you were wrong when you claimed there were contemporary non-Biblical sources. I say nothing of your age, but I would make the point that if you've "just begun learning" about the Bible, then you're not the ideal person to demonstrate its divine origins to us "professors" and whatnot. Well, it's what I do. If I advise you to check the facts before you start lecturing people about them, this is something I do myself. I have found it to be good advice, it stops me from saying things I regret.What are we here for? Well, I'm happy to answer questions. If you'd asked "what is the non-Biblical evidence for Jesus?" I'd have been happy to tell you without any remarks you might find hurtful. Instead, you come on these forums and starting telling us what the non-Biblical evidence for Jesus is, and getting it completely wrong. I have pointed out the problems with this as tactfully as I can.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet I notice that there is rather more agreement on the age of the Earth amongst geologists (of whatever faith or none) than there is amongst Christians, or even amongst creationists.It is, apparently, much easier to reinterpret the Bible than to re-interpret the rocks.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Juraikken, I realize that you are young, but you are not THAT young. It is time you began to actually learn some history, and that is what this thread is about.For example, you state : Beside the fact that you got even that wrong, if anyone could be said to be the author of the US Constitution it is James Madison and not Thomas Jefferson, there are ways to determine who was involved in its creation. In the case of the US Constitution we have independent records that show who the delegates to the convention were, independent records of the deliberations that went on, newspaper accounts published at the time, original copies both of the final document and of many of the drafts and correspondence that was involved.We can determine what happened in the past in relation to the US Constitution.That is NOT true of any of the Bibles, or of any of the Books included in the various Bibles, or of any of the committees that developed the various Canons.The past does leave evidence.In the case of the US Constitution we can establish provenance. In the case of the Bible we cannot.In the case of the US Constitution we have ONE final document that was then ratified, certified by all of the individual States; one version, identical word for word, and so certified by each State's Legislature.That is simply not the case when talking about the Bible.There is no such thing as "The Bible."It appears from your posts that your education has been abysmal. I'm sorry. I certainly hope it was not in one of California's Public Schools since until the system was gutted by Ronald Reagan, it was one of the finest systems in the world. I shudder to think it has degenerated so far.But none of these are more than a bump in the road. Because you are still young, you have time to learn, to correct the false information that it appears you were taught. Until now, it appears that you have been poorly served by teacher, Clergy and the public. However you have an opportunity to change all that.EvC is a wondrous place filled with brilliant people willing to help you with your quest for knowledge. Use this as one resource. Pick the brains of the many folk here that I constantly learn from.Consider EvC a Mitzvah, a blessing. Challenge the members here to teach you. Push them. Like a sponge, soak up all of the knowledge and wisdom available here.Start a new phase of your journey. Learning is a glorious experience.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Buz, I here assert that wrote = created; wrote is a euphemism for created.Now, we are looking at God wrote/created the Bible vs. man wrote/created the Bible. From there we went to God wrote/created the rocks vs. ??? wrote/created the rocks.From message 80, the way I see it as having happened: Now, perhaps God did originally write/create the Bible, but can you deny that since then there has been a tremendous amount of translation and editing by man? How can you be confident that man hasn't royally screwed up the editing and translating down through time? Maybe also abridged the story a bit too much?We can, however, feel confident that man has not edited/translated the rocks that God wrote/created. Regardless of what problems man may have in reading the rocks, we can be confident that at least we have good quality original source material to read. Not to mention, a lot more material to read.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

When comparing apples to apples, meaningful differences are definite and definitive. When comparing apples and oranges, it is much more difficult to describe what the meaningful differences are, because the baseline similarities are themselves too different. So how much harder must it be when comparing apples and mercury-pool delay-line computer memory hardware (read the first page of Asimov's 1951 "Caves of Steel")?The descriptive narratives in the cited filk song and from the cited site are obviously metaphors. I hope you do know what a metaphor is -- if not, then consult a literature textbook or Wikipedia.Birkett's metaphor is nothing new. It was also used during the Enlightenment where God was the God of Nature and the world of Nature was refered to as the True Bible which was "read" by studying the natural sciences. For an readily accessible example, refer to Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason".Part of what Birkett seems to be addressing on his site is how to handle conflicts with what we see in nature and what our interpretation of the Bible is. I would prefer that you read it for yourself, since I would not want to mistate his position. But let's face it, reality is reality and the facts and the evidence are what they are and any religion that insists on making claims that are contrary-to-fact is just begging for the trouble that it'll cause its followers. Birkett does express concern and problems with the ideas of biblical inerrancy and with the practice of placing the Bible above and before God.I don't like getting into that quagmire of claims of inerrancy and "fullfilled prophesies." I am highly skeptical of such claims, but it's so much pain to try to reason with creationists when the facts are crystal clear and cut-and-dry, that I do not have the time nor patience to try to reason with an inerrantist in murkier waters. Needless to say, such extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Such proof has not yet been forthcoming. But I have far better ways to waste my time than to try to go through that evolution (Navy-speak for "drill", as in "what's the drill?").While the writings in the Bible are man-made (inspired by their ideas of God -- as I said, a definition of what "inspired" is supposed to mean would be a good idea, otherwise everyone will just be talking past each other; creationists and inerrantists would just love that situation, but a seeker after the truth would definitely want to get that definition nailed down), they also represent the collected wisdom of a people and are valuable as such. Study of nature allows us to see how nature works; you may find some ideas about nature as it was viewed back in ancient times, but those ideas will fall far short of reality. At the same time, the Bible's ideas about human nature would have a place in study of human nature, along with other sources.But why are you so concerned that someone who "reads the First Testament of God" might not adhere strictly to your dogma?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the fact that the literally translated versions are quite accurate compared to those old scriptures.

---

The Dead Sea scrolls tell us nothing about the accuracy of translation. They do tell us that there was more variation in the texts than was thought.

quote:

---

My problem with the above cited statement is that naturalistic ideologies can take that ball and run with it in any direction they choose to claim a score, all the while undermining the only real bonafide collection of written books inspired by God. No other existing books written by humans have fulfilled prophecies as are found in the prophetic books of the Bible supportive to divine inspiration.

​

The rocks, living things, the cosmos as well as human history, by observation, can be interpreted in whatever manner suits the fancy, but the words of the Bible are like your word "different."..

---

Your real complaint is that scence proves you wrong - it's not as if creationist "interprtations" fit the evidence - the more so since they have to pretend that much of the evidence doesn't even exist. If the evidence was so open to interpretation creationism would still be a live option in the scientific community, instead of a long-dead idea only adhered to be cranks and fanatics.Your claims to fulfilled prophecy have been examined here and shown to rely on distorting and misrepresenting the Bible. Apparently - according to you - the Bible is even more open to "interpretation" than the empirical data open to science. So long as you're doing the "interpreting" . Edited by Admin, : Fix typo in quote dBCode.

I think he was thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is a very common mistake by know-it-alls. This is what I really wanted to comment on.I see learning is like taking your prescription medicine. Sure, it's good for you as long as you've taken all the necessary prescription. If you've only taken half and decided to stop, it could be more harmful for you than not having taken any.Nowadays, the recurring theme I see is that people with a little amount of education tend to get too cocky and become know-it-alls. I've talked to many "bible experts" who don't even know the most talked about stories in the bible. They've learned something from their pastors and decided that they've learned enough to speak authoritively on the subject.With that, I have an honest question for you, jar. If it isn't obvious, I'm beginning to doubt that perhaps education is not for everyone. Do you think that the so-called journey of learning you are speaking of will help people like Juraikken and not give him an even bigger false sense of security?

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Way off topic so just a short answer.Yes I think education is for everyone.Yes I think it will help everyone.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion