The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

look into context, and ask yourself some questionswhy would God choose her? there are plenty of MAIDENS this is a specific onewhy did Joseph get angry with Mary when she was pregnant? maybe she was suppose to be a virgin!?etc. analyze, read the entire chapter to realise the true meaning of the word

Still kinda missing the point.There are words in certain languages which have more than one meaning, or even have no translation.When someone translates, they make their best guess as to what was meant. But this best guess is not always 100% correct.The more you translate, the more likely you are to drift from the original content. Especially when you are dealing with languages like Hebrew which is full of puns and double meanings.What we have today as the Bible (hand picked from hundreds of texts and translated in and out of a dozen languages) says more about the evolution of judeo-christian religeous philosophy as it does about the original text.And that's NOT bad. It's good. In fact, the Bible should change MORE.Even the Biblical literallists with their "the word of the Bible is infailable" don't burn cattle on an altar because the fragrence is pleasing to God.The world changes, cultures mature, their religeons need to keep pace

What about them? I didn't say that Jesus didn't exist or that there is no outside confirmation. I was just saying that that's the kind of confirmation we need to determine whether or not the Bible is true. The next step would be to determine whether or not those 200 sources are reliable. If source #15 got his information from source #134, we can't really count them as two separate sources, can we? If source #49 got his information from his wife's hairdresser's brother-in-law, how relaible is that? If source #26 and source #121 mention "a guy named Jesus" but don't say anything significant about him, we can't count that, can we? If source #198 mentions a teacher in Judea but doesn't name him, we can't count that, can we?That's where we have to start an investigation into whether or not one small part of the Bible is true. Every part of the Bible requires the same kind of investigation.Most people who claim that the Bible is inerrant haven't looked into it at all. Studying apologetics is the worst way to determine what parts of the Bible are accurate.

---

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

None of the Gospels were written during the period Jesus lived. The earliest of the four Gospels was most likely Mark, and Matthew and Luke seem to have simply copied parts of it, often verbatim. It's likely that there was at least one other common source that all three authors used, usually referred to as 'Q' that has been lost over time. While Matthew and Mark may well have been recounting personal memories, there is no indication that Luke ever even met Jesus so everything in Luke is likely second or third hand accounts.The Gospel of John, if actually written by the Apostle John, is entirely different than the synoptic gospels.The rediscovery of the Gospel of Thomas that contains many of the passages used by the authors of Matthew and Luke also leads credence to the existence of some second source other than just the Gospel of Mark. Again, that is simply nonsense. Have you read the other books, books like Enoch, 1 & 2 Adam and Eve, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and other works, often included in some Canon, excluded in others. They are not against God or even anti-Christ.Let me also try to address another of your issues. What we call books, chapter, verses and even sentences are simply a modern convenience. The original scrolls did not separate things, they were one continuous writing with no chapters, no verse, not even what we would recognize as sentences.The story that is found in Genesis 1 actually continues to what today is marked as Genesis 2:4. The parts we find in Genesis 2:1-4 are actually part of Genesis 1.In addition, the order found is not the order written. The two tales are from two different eras, two milieu, two cultures.The question you should ask is "Why did the redactors include two different, mutually exclusive stories, and go even further, placing the younger mor recent story before the older more ancient one?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Juraikken wrote: OK, Juraikken, that sentence clearly shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. Please take the time to learn about the Bible (and not just apologetics) - it will greatly help your walk with God. Jar and others on this thread are a great starting point.I’ll jump in to address your one sentence above. FYI - there are many significant differences between our different Bibles. For instance, ones like the NIV and NASB have removed a large amount of text from the New Testament that is found in the KJV (see, for instance, Acts 8:37, John 5:4, etc). This text, if added up, is longer than the whole books of 1st and 2nd Peter combined. Even that huge difference is smaller than the difference between the Catholic Bibles (such as the NAB or DHB), which have a whole 7 more books than the others, plus other differences. You can learn about canon formation and about the KJV at sites like these, which don’t have nearly the bias you’ll find at apologetic sites:Biblical canon - Wikipedia
King James Only movement - WikipediaThis site is extremely useful, not only in learning about when the books were written, but also offering the other gospels and letters mentioned on this thread:
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church FathersThe Jehovah’s witness’ Bible (the NWT) is very similar to some of the newer translations (such as the NIV), except for a few differences, and the change of calling God “Jehovah” instead of Yahweh, Lord, Elohim, etc. All the differences between the NWT and newer translations are much less than the differences between, say, the KJV and the AMP, or the NIV and the NAB, etc.It’s OK to be uninformed, but when one is uninformed it works much better to admit that and to learn. Acting like you aren’t uninformed and then declaring absurdities like the sentence above doesn’t make you look good.All the best--Equinox

Juraikken wrote: Wha? Could you please supply some reason to think that your statement is more than a dreamed up claim? Some link or reference or something? I know of exactly zero Roman references to Jesus that were written prior to 100 CE. The earliest I know of are Tacitus, Pliny, etc in the 2nd Century. In addition, I know of exactly zero writings in any credible document by anyone who met Jesus during his life (1st Pt is the best claim I've seen, and that's not very good). I've studied the evidence in this area for years, and so I'm interested if you have information I haven't seen.Thanks-Equinox

One of the Adult Sunday School courses I used to teach was on some of the histories of the various Bibles, particularly the different English Translations. One key part was showing that the KJV was the first "Politically Correct" version of the Bible, created primarily to avoid the political, cultural and economic problems that had been created both by the previous Monarchs and earlier English Language translations.It was interesting to see the lights going on in the various students as they stepped through the history, and they all went away with a whole new appreciation of the "Bible".That was always one of the most popular classes I taught and always drew a large crowd of members including many who normally never came to Sunday School.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no i got what you mean, "very bad translation" i know but if thats the case then LOOK AT THE CONTEXT, you dont even need that one word. OK lets say it could mean girl, virgin, or an only daughter...ok? now, lets look into the CONTEXT to understand what the word SHOULD be?we know that she SHOULD be a virgin because when she was pregnant Joseph was angry. so even without looking at that word WE KNOW THIS becuase of the contextif i am to use your example if i may"i am a macho man becuase i lift weights and am strong"so we know that macho usually means simply "male" in Spanish, right? ok so by only reading the sentence what do you think that word is implying? that i am a male man? NO that woudlnt even make any sense! it means that i am masculine and strong and how do i get that? from reading on, i life weights and am strong....that means that word "macho" isa derogatory term for strength and masculine! i agree. if all else fails look in the context im hoping its more complicated than that, after reasearch in the language they would get the best english word that fits for it yes, but it certainly wouldnt be ENOUGH to change the idea completely and plus, we can read the context and make our OWN word or even an idea that english doesnt have a word for, for Mary. i agree that would be a problem, but i assume they are trying their best to translate it as close as possible, and early english has a lot more words to use from than modern english, thats why i use KJV. but either way, context would help if the word is not understanding. that would be overreacting a bit because it was hand picked from the INCORRECT piles, becuase no matter the language you KNOW if the text is disagreeing with God is going to be tossed out. it doesnt matter the words used or the language it was written it, when you have one that agrees with God, THEN you got the difficulty of translating as carefully as possible. so that actually cut down A LOT of texts to be put into the bible.so in other words: todays bible is not much more different than yesterday's because if I can come up with the context problem im sure smart analysts at the apocripha(sp) used that knowledge to get the right texts into the whole actually that is bad because in the end of the bible it says "and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city, and FROM the things which are written in this book"so changing the bible only means bad things for you. AND it is bad to change the bible because that means that YOU, MAN are wanting to change what GOD, NOT MAN has said and done. God never changes his mind, God is constant and what he says stays, you cant change it. that act does not take place anymore because Jesus was the last cattle to die on the cross for our sins, so therefore there is no need to do that ANYMORE becuase HE was the corruptless lamb to completely die for our sins, if we accept that, then we do not need to do that anymore. then this calls for a new Constitution of the United States, cuz its getting old now. and OH lets change the laws too, they are old as well.it doesnt work that way, if somethign gets old that doesnt lose its validity! then Einsteins theory of relativity should be discarded cuz its old? oh NO! we cant do that now can we?no no no, the bible is contstant, TRUTH alwasys stays the same, you speak with your mouth, THAT act will never change, you will ALWAYS speak with your mouth, thats truth, and truth is always there, constant and infinite. you can destroy the bible, but God's words will never change no matter what MAN does

i believe you said this... whos he if your not talking about Jesus. and OK lets go into other religions who also speak about a worldwide flood that they wrote about. ive researched that and a TON of other religions speak abotu a GREAT flood in their history. alright that makes sense but they were eyewhitness accounts of seeing jesus, being healed, raised from the dead, etc.if things like this didnt take place then thats a pretty BIG assumption to take on AS truth.look up what Simon Greenleaf has proved, he has the evidence and he is an analyst. and why is that?

i know they did it RIGHT after he died. if not, how do you know that seeing that both books very similar is not an excuse to say they copied off eachother verbatim how do you come up with this assumption? so just cuz he never had an encounter with Jesus makes him non-existant there? no, i am found all around crowds at special gatherinds, but heck you can ask anyone if Eric was there, lol they would be like WHO? i agree he was more intellectual in his writing style ive read some of the gospel of Thomas and has nothing to do with what Matthew, Mark, or Luke have to say. in The so called Gospel of Thomas it says that Jesus said that we should make women into men by teaching them the ways of God....what idiocy is this? yes i have actually i was very intrigued to read about them one day i came across the Adam and eve one, and i must say that it is completely a fake cuz of the things that happened werent true and were of extraodinary incorrectness.The Gospel of Thomas is a complete nonsensical book becuase it claims things that Jesus never said. Thomas made a book as a sexist and turned Jesus into the sexist God. a lot of those books were bias to one side and not neutral or even on Gods side completely. the Adam and Even book, i read some complaints about how life was. what makes you think these books arent forgery to mock God? what makes you think that these books werent created by some folks to descieve? if you check what i said in another thread, i say exactly that. but every punctuation, sentence, paragraph was put together using common knowledge in english grammar. IF the bible was put together in any different way, the context woudl be skewd to the max, making a lot of things make no sense at all. that is the perfection of English, even though it is a very difficult language it is made to discern fallacy from...the good. lol as an adult if you read a sentence that is written and punctuated the wrong way, you would feel a little uneasy that theres somethign wrong about it. so you would try to fix it. im sure a ton of analysts over the years have read the bible to see about those uneasiness i noticed that as well but for a reason it is part of Genesis 2, because no long is Genesis 2 talking about CREATION it is now talking about the Garden of Eden and the fall of man, that is the reason why it begins there for Genesis 2 please state your sources, i dont see hwo it could be two cultures, because BOTH chapters speak about days being actual days and both speak about God making man on the 6th day....so what is the difference? why should i ask the question to the answer i already know?it doesnt, Genesis 1 is CREATION Genesis 2 is the FALL OF MAN, it doesnt say anything about creating the sun, moon, stars or even creating the grass animals birds bla bla. it is merely recaping what happened on creation then talking about the creation of Adam and eve, notice how Adam was created outside of Eden then put INTO The garden. also at the beginning of Chapter 2 it explains how God HAD created plants animals and such THEN it talks about God putting adam in the garden of eden THEN sprouting plants and animals again, so does that mean that God made plants twice in chapter 2 and ONCE in chapter one? NO!!!! chapter one explains the creation, chapter two explains the fall of man, and in the beginning it explains the story of Creation in a few sentences THEN brings Adam into eden where he brings forth the plants ONLY in the garden because the rest of the word was already created

By evidence extrinsic to the book in which I read a supposed "fact".In the case of the Gospel of John, there just isn't the evidence.

apparently lol okies yes i am fully aware of the missing verses and i agree wholeheartedly and for that reason alone i USE KJV. my point was merely the fact that all versions share the same story, same jesus, same lamb, same meaning. i agree i dont like NIV or NASB, i use KJV only.there are some books such as the Jehovah's whitnesses bible that completely takes out the parts where it says Jesus is Christ our Lord God. oh you have misunderstood me, your preachin to the choir. lol i agree that KJV is the best of the best to my reachableness (a word?) i agree completely lol i was uninformed but i knew of the missing verses and such thats why i use the good 'ol KJV =p

of course but apparently Simon Greenleaf wasnt good enough so i got nothing more. =/ im not sure if its PRIOR to 100 CE....whats CE? anwyay i dunno if it is but i have read texts of Roman guards writing about Jesus, ugh i forgot his name...ill have to look for it again.well Equinox, im not an avid scholar nor am i a wonderful researcher so technically i got nothin! if the point is the validity of Jesus' existance we can argue about that, but the answer to your question, i dont have any.

awesome that means you know a lot about this? (no sarcasm intended) hmmm, politically correct yes because it was ordered by King James himself, or i hear some other controversy.does that mean that the bible was altered in any way as in deleted verses, completely different stories. etc. or was the translation just in early english and thats all very interesting lol i would love to hear all about that, but do you really intend to mean appreciation or unappreciation of the bible? yep new things and controversy are always a crowd magnet =p

....*looks up extrinsic*.... what is the book you read?what evidence you lookin for in the Gospel of John again?