The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

You really haven't. Memory can play odd tricks on you, perhaps what you read was a fictionalised account.---Here's a Christian author writing about early non-biblical references to Jesus (Note: he may be wrong about the Babylonian Talmud). If any evidence of the sort you refer to existed, he'd have put it in.I hope this helps.

LOL!!! OK so you are in my mind and know what i saw and didnt?! talk about closed-minded lol its like me saying "oh you know Jesus is real your just denying it ha ha ha" (lets say you dont believe in jesus for that example)i DID read somethign like that online, if its fake that much i DO NOT know, for HOW CAN I TELL A FAKE FROM FACT ONLINE? exactly.what i doubt is when it was written, and i found this guys name all over the internet.I FOUND IT!!! his name was Josephus, it was in the site you recommended...thanks for that website, that Tacticus(sp) is a little tricky cuz they are right, he wasnt DIRECTLY involved with Jesus, he was merely repeating what the church was saying. but then again i doubt the church said in WHAT time period Jesus was in, so he might have had information on Jesus and spoke about it. so he is half and half

I mean any book. If I want to know whether something is fact or fiction, I can look at evidence external to the book. There's no point looking in the book, because many fictional or fraudulent books claim to be factual or genuine. It's not a question of evidence in John, but of evidence outside John. I guess the best evidence for John writing the Gospel attributed to him is that early Christians accepted it as genuine. (The earliest I can find is about 150 AD). But I don't know on what basis they accepted it as genuine.

And he wasn't a Roman guard, he was a Jewish historian. You see, your memory was playing tricks on you. I don't have to be in your mind to know that you didn't just see a pig flying past your window. Sure thing.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Maybe he wasn't ready to have a child - couldn't take the early mornings and the extra mouth to feed. Or, maybe it was because he knew it couldn't be his child?Honestly, losing your virginity is not the only reason for a husband to be upset about his wife being pregnant.Edited by Doddy, : grammar

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed in the following fields: Physical Anthropology, Invertebrate Biology (esp. Lepidopterology), Biochemistry, Population Genetics, Scientific Illustration, Scientific History, Philosophy of Science, Logic and others. Researchers also wanted to source creationist literature references. Register here!

I'm sorry but it seems that there is a lot about the various Canon, various Bibles that you have not yet been exposed to.We are heading far afield from the topic of this thread, and I think I will simply summarize the evidence I have presented so far.There is no one Canon.There is no one Bible.There is no one list of what books are in a Bible.Those three facts prove that the Bible is not Godly made but man made.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So what? I've seen a couple of big floods myself. (You should see how impressive a couple of inches of water is out here on the flat prairies. ) If I write about a flood, how does that confirm the Bible?No matter who wrote about a flood, we'd have to compare thier description word by word with the Bible flood account. If there was any disagreement, we'd have to figure out which account was more accurate.Really, by bringing in other flood accounts, you're just making it harder for yourself. How do you know they were eyewitness accounts? You can't trust them just because they say so.Anyway, eyewitness accounts are the worst possible evidence. Anybody working in law enforcement will tell you that. I agree. You shouldn't assume any of it is true. I already told you, apologetics are pretty much worthless when it comes to "analysis" or "proof". Because they have a conclusion picked out before they start looking for "proof". The very word "apologist" connotes making excuses for their beliefs even when the evidence contradicts them.People who start with an open mind and follow the evidence wherever it leads are more likely to come up with the truth.

---

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

Um, amendments - heard of them? You can not look at the context and tell what the word should be. You can tell what you think the word means. You can tell what you WANT the word to mean. You can tell what the word is likely to not mean. But you can NOT tell what the word should be.If the sentence was translated into:Mary was a turnip.We'd likely say, hrmm, that's probably not right.But which of these is right -Mary was a virgin.
Mary was a maiden.
Mary was a pre-pubescent girl.
Mary was a woman of any age who had not yet had children.You BELIEVE that she was a virgin. But she chould also be an 8 year old. You don't KNOW that she wasn't an 8 year old, because it's a viable meaning of the word. So, when God created the Bible and said things like -
Burn a bull to create a pleasing odor to God
Women should not have ANY contact with men while they are on their periodsOr how about
"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."Since God is NEVER wrong. And God NEVER changes his mind. And the Bible was created by God. And the Bible is NEVER wrong - How long is your beard?

makes sense, but....the bible is supposedly God inspired, but anything outside the bible is NOT Godly inspired so how can we use fraudulent data as proof of the bible? its like saying lets go ask a baby how a computer works! lol sorta, i knew it was someone out of the bible tho ok lets say he wasnt ready for the child scenario: that means that he DID do it with her right? but he does have a mouth what did Joseph say to her is another key factor in WHAT she really isthey obviously didnt do it, becuase the bible clearly says before they got together. so the fact of the matter is, the problem for Joseph ISNT that "hes not really for a child" before the fact of the matter is "how is she pregnant? we didnt do it"now him thinking it wasnt his child IS the point! that COULD be what hes thinking thats probably why he wanted to hide her privly. but then the Ghost talks to Joseph and says "she has concieved a child of the Holy Ghost"so that completely knocks out another man being there. so whats left? a woman cannot get pregnant without a man BEING there; Joseph didnt do it, a man didnt do it. so that means that there ya go shes pregnant because of the Holy SpiritNOW, we get to the point of WAS she a virgin or not.at what age can a jew woman be espoused, im sure there is a constant age especially at that time, so we KNOW that she is not 8 years old or anything. she is at the correct age to be married etc. and according to Jewish tradition i bet if Mary wasnt a virgin she would not be allowed to take another man. and on top of that Joseph was a JUST man, so he woudlnt have taken an unclean woman. AND on top of that, what cleanliness would there be of an un-virgin woman to be pregnant with Jesus? thre woudl be none, she has to be a virgin because that would be considered CLEAN. all of these aspects would narrow down the search, if that word meant young, then that woudl widen the search and make Mary not so special. oh dude, thats TODAY, but back in the day its very very very important, actually i wouldnt want to take ANY woman as my wife who has slept with another man, it wouldnt make me feel right. i cant do it. but today's society doesnt care about all that. i know lol may i conclude that the compilation of these BOOKS were man made, but the correct BOOKS somewhere in there were inspired by God? is that a possible answer? Canon is what you call an original right? but you mean original compilation of books to call A BIBLE, i understand thatforget that, i mean select all books and put them all down, now take out ALL the fakes, then you got yourself the true bible inspired by God, then you start to hand it out, AT THAT POINT would you consider that bible Man made? or Godly made? the compilation of the books was manly intervined, but that doesnt CHANGE the divineness of the books because we are only rearranging the books not CHANGING the text at all but would you say "it covered all teh mountains" or "it covered the globe" ?no you woudl say liek you said "inches" theres a difference between a MASSIVE insane flood than a little over rain here and there. ive done that, the main agreeable fact is that all the floods were massive and only a family was spared. in all of the religions they all say that. of course they use different Gods or different reasons or different ways the flood came about but all of these religions speak of a massive flood and that a single family or person survives. Very vaguely similar but nonthelesss its not comparing Basketball to Checkers. how? lol its not like im bringing something out of thin air when i say, "the bible says there was a flood!" then you go "ok well its only you so its not true" then i say "nope other religions also claim of a massive flood"so how is that not helping? as a matter of fact, it makes my case a little bit better ah but we trust scientists....how can we validate what happens in court if we cant even detect if one person is saying truth or not? where is the justice?if i murdered your family and you saw me and you were the only one and took me to court and i lied like a dog and got off the hook, you beleive there was justice? no of course not, but you cant prove it, just by saying "he did it i saw him" just like how you dont believe the people said "he healed him! i saw Jesus heal him" then felony is the thing of the past right? i dont, i research and think about stuff, thats why im here still and not saying "these guys are thick headed and never gonna get it, im just gonna give up" what i say is "cool i get to learn new things" point proven, what about people who were atheist and discovered Christianity as truth later on? i think they had the opposite idea in teh beginning. its rare for this transition but still possible thats true, God even says, "let us reason" yes they are old lets get rid of them, a new society requires a new law right? times are changing and so should the laws....right? have you ever taken english? thats what every teacher says.when a book written in olden times with old english that a normal person doesnt understand they read the sentence over again and realize what the meaning of the word is. or better yet in spelling B's why do you think the addition of "say it in a sentence" is added? so that the person woudl understand better what the WORD means! say that to all the spelling B contestants who use that to get their answer, and it works mind you. true but...by her life, actions, thoughts, other peoples actions, we can discern what she is suppose to be.<

​

if i said Eric is a (blank) you need to find out what i am ok?

​

heres a context tho:

​

"Eric loves to draw, he actually draws everyday of his life in a big studio for a cartoon called Dragonball Z, he works there everyday for over 10 hours a day. everyone at the studio looks up to him and loves his art. he is the head drawer there and draws very good mind you."

​

so now what do you suppose i am? wouldnt it be easer with this paragraph for you to tell what i am instead of me saying

​

"Eric is stupid" <<< has nothing to do with what im getting at huh? so forget the word, look at the context

​

nuggin writes:

​

Or how about
"Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard."

​

Since God is NEVER wrong. And God NEVER changes his mind. And the Bible was created by God. And the Bible is NEVER wrong - How long is your beard?

​

short and thus im not perfect. but is that part of the 10 comandments? because when we and going to be judged THAT is what he bases our judgment on, the 10 comandments, not if we shaved our head or shaved our beards. he didnt change his mind he gave you suggestions, being baptized isnt a requirement its a suggestion to show that you obey God's words, but if you dont get baptized that doesnt mean you arent going to heaven.

​

nuggin writes:

​

So, when God created the Bible and said things like -
Burn a bull to create a pleasing odor to God
Women should not have ANY contact with men while they are on their periods

​

we do not sacrifice any animals anymore becuase Jesus took our sins and became the ultimate sacrifice. in the Old testament they did this on tehir waight for Jesus' arrival, and now after Jesus' arrival we dont have to because Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice.

​

men shoudlnt do it anyway! you want to get in a fight with your girl while shes PMSing? lol i have trouble with that myself. =/ and plus its a suggestion of how to live, he suggests that you dont do it for your wellbeing. woudl you rather him say, be MORE in contact with a girl who is PMSing? lol no he gives you logic.

​

Edited by Juraikken, : No reason given.

Let me tell you something about women.PMS is "pre-menstrual syndrome." If you couldn't tell from the name, that means that it's referring to the physical changes that happen in advance of a woman's period.So, your argument doesn't make any sense. The Bible is talking about women who are on their periods; at that point, PMS (if she experiences it, some women don't) is over.Oh, and also - sometimes (actually, most of the time) she's not angry because of PMS. She's angry because you're acting like a jackass. Look, friend, you're young, I can tell, but you're a very agile thinker. You've got a gift for generating creative arguments. The next step on your path is to educate yourself, and to make sure you're basing your arguments on things that are factual, not simply the things you think are true or could be true. That's a lot harder than it sounds. Step one is to start asking questions instead of making statements.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

lol i know pms means that but i didnt know it was before the period....anyway yeah lol i know but arent they more sensitive during this time? =/anyway this thread isnt about that! lol

No, there really isn't. Three inches of water that stretches all the way to the horizon looks exactly the same as three miles of water that stretches to the horizon. The problem is that you're only looking at the "agreeable facts". If you want to honestly compare two stories, you have to look at the differences, not the similarities. That's exactly what you're doing. Unless the Bible's flood account can be confirmed by outside sources, it is as much out of thin air as any fictional story. Unless it corresponds exactly with every other flood myth, you have to explian each and every difference and show why the Bible account is more accurate than the others. That's a big job - one that's never been done. That's why I say you'd be better off never mentioning that there are other flood stories. We trust scientists because their experiments can be repeated. If you think a scientist made a mistake, you can do the experiment and show where he went wrong. How can you trust a book that was written thousands of years ago in the same way? Precisely by not taking the word of one person who claims to be an eyewitness. In court, his testimony has to tally with everybody else's and with the physical evidence.Your so-called "eyewitnesses" to Biblical events, you can't even prove they exist. You might as well call the Easter bunny to the witness stand. If it was only my word against yours, the court would be right to let you off.Look at it from the opposite direction: suppose I falsely accused you of murdering my family. Would it be "justice" for the court to blindly take me at my word and hang you? I appreciate that, by the way. You've been very polite so far. If I had a dollar for every "Christian" who abused me for asking this kind of question, I could buy you. Sure, it's possible for that to happen. And it's possible for a Christian to really study the Bible and find that it's neither inerrant nor accurate. But they don't have to become atheists. If they look at the Bible honestly, it can strengthen their faith.

---

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

Just gave you a 2 hour suspension, to try to induce you into bringing up the quality of your messages. You know, fewer but higher quality messages. Messages with real content.To others responding to Juraikken - Have your message been better? If not, please contact me to also get your suspension. Find an appropriate topic in the list below.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID. I gotta log in as Adminnemooseus.

---

thats the point though, if you have a book claiming to be the one word of god, you have to find something outside it that supports its claim.so is the book written by god or by men inspired by god? theres nothing in the text that suggests that it was written by god. i don't think josphious was in the bible what? yes and it has nothing to do with her being a virgin well yes, but he wanted to get rid of her secretly to save face yes and this goes to show that jesus's birth is more important than what he did.
being that its a story to get pagans to convert to christianity, i find wheither or not shes a virgin irrelevent
besides if people knew she was a virgin and hasn't had sex with joesph, they would think jesus was someones bastard, so it would ruin everyones reputation, thats the gist of it, just to add, this story i always felt was pretty weakly written, just like a lot of folk myths uh no, it was common to try to have virgin wives, but it has nothing to do with virginity. it has to do with money and land ownership. think about it, if your wife had a child with another man, would you make him your heir? we are talking of a time when at least 5-6 out of 8 would die in the first 5 years of lifefor his time joseph would care more about whiether or not the kid is his solely for lineage
which in this case means josephs line died no a canon is a collection of books considered the selected books of the church, they considered them inspired by god how would you know whats a fake? how would you know whats true? the bible isn't built of authentic texts, its built of texts that profess a set of beliefs and all the books picked reflect itfor instance: for well over a thousand years since it was written revelation was argued over, many thought it was inspired and many did not, it wasn't until the council of trent in the 1500s that it was settled onby the way intrepretions change the text, most people who read rev, read the warning about not changing a word in the text to mean the whole bible, but its only speaking of revelations this is untrue, only 10% talk about a family being the only ones spared. they are the middle eastern ones, genesis is influenced by older cultures around that area. or the story is influenced by missionaries
most of the flood stories are about the creation or war or some other ways, in fact the differences outweigh the simularities because you are bringing up a point that has no relevence to weither the bible is true or not.
if you have a group of people by a source of water that floods, sooner or later they will have a story about a huge flood or a story that starts out with the earth covered with waterits not really all that useful to base an argument on evidence the courts don't use just one persons testimony, you'd have to read more about how they investigate things, they do a lot more than just eye witnesses
evidence outside of peoples word is needed what does this have to do with it? thats good, but remember logic is more important than emotional begging, if it makes no logical sense then explore it more i doubt many christian-turn-athiest-turn-christians as being truely atheistic.
most of the people who say they are that way are lying to discredit atheism as a valid position yes and paul contradict god, he says to let faith in god guide you, and thinking is wrong no, you are making a strawman out of what nuggin said, he's saying books of useless laws that have no meaning for our society should not be used
ie: pretty much all the laws in the OT uh well this may work in spelling bees, but we are talking about translations of a text from another translation, over the course of two thousand years
now maybe if you were reading the text in aramaic and hebrew it would work better, but translations don't convey all the meanings of the words
for instance when it says "..and adam knew eve" or "blahblah layed with blah blah"
how do you know if thats what the author wrote? they translate it like that, but a lot of meaning is lost
as i read recently when it talks of people having sex, its talking about rape not consentual sex, heck the lev law about two men having sex is talking about rape.
you wouldn't know that from the KJV where does it say this in the bible?
the 10 commandments have nothing to do with the christians, thats for the jewish people
which laws do you think apply to you? the laws of noah or the laws of jesus?
jesus only has 2 laws: to love god with all your heart and to love your nieghbor as yourselfby the way if we are judged based on the big ten, then every person since 400 ad has gone to hell, since they worship on the wrong day, sabbath is on friday after the sun goes down until the following saterday evening, not sunday as the christians do
worshiping on sunday is a hold over from pagan religions that worshipped the sun so you don't sin anymore? you are no longer a sinner? what jesus did was change the way people repent for sin, since the sacrificing was for repentence hrm, the only reason they had that law was superstition, go read some history on ritual cleanliness and also on fear of witchs and female mysticism
the fact is they condemned it based on fear of womenEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

These are not the people to ask these questions to. Jar is already trying to convince you that the presence of fakes makes the real bible illegitimate as well. If that were true, what of counterfeit money? Does it invalidate real money?In another thread, another party argued that since there are counterfeit churches, there can be no true church! I guess some folks think God can be easily fooled...And if he's qualified to teach any class of any sort, he should be intelligent enough to have figured this out. If he is that intelligent, he's hoping you're not. And if he isn't... maybe someone can figure out how to explain it so that he could understand.These people will feed you atheist "biblical criticism". They have different approaches to the Old and New Testament. The OT is assumed to have been written at much later dates, since it must be assumed all prophecies were written after the events transpired.The NT was originally said to have been written from oral "cult legends" which were never put into writing until about 400 years after Jesus died. Then more scrolls were discovered, and they moved it to 300 years and then 200 years. Now their "theories" (purely imaginary stories) about how the "cult legends" formed and mutated over the years don't work any more, but they keep pushing it so they'll have material for college courses.All these "scholars" assume the bible is untrue. They assumed so before they began to formulate their stories. You'll be told that if you understood "the real story" of how the bible came together, you'd see that there's no God. But this "real story" is pure imagination. There's no "Q" source. They started by imagining only two "sources" for the OT. One used Elohim and one used Jehovah, so they called them "E" and "J" source. But no such documents have ever been found. They have been talked about, and manufactured in modern times for textbooks; but like all atheist revisions of history, they are imagination from start to finish. More sources were added later. More sources = more courses.They'll say there's evidence because "the style of writing changes" several times within a book. My style of writing can change from one sentence to the next. That's they're opinion, but nothing more. And they aren't biased - they're 'scientific' (they rule out God a priori, 'as any good scientist must').It's all basically the atheist's answer to where the bible came from. It's where they think it could have come from, since it "obviously isn't true".You've been told to avoid apologetics, and for good reason. Apologists have exposed and debunked all these atheist lies; and it would be a real shame if you knew the truth. After all, they've put a lot of effort into pushing this stuff.Sadly, it can truthfully be claimed that many seminaries and bible colleges still feature courses in this filth. But Satan infiltrated the church from the earliest times, and he's still losing. If anything, I'd say it's getting worse for him. Just look how he's had to resort to quantity vs. quality of lies here recently. All his present crop of liars seem to be fairly inept. You have to want to be fooled really badly to buy any of this junk.I haven't read the rest thread, since I just stopped cold when I saw this post. It should be fun to see the claim that you have "no right" to call some of the bibles or books fakes. As if the spiritual blindness of another has any bearing on what you're 'allowed' to see for yourself. But I know it's coming.That and all the talk you'll get to make you feel uneducated will continue. But it's so much better to know what the bible says than to know what atheism says about the bible. I guess those who don't know what Satanists say about the bible are uneducated as well, but I don't see that any harm is likely to come of it. It's a bit confusing, since some Satanists pose as Christians and some pose as atheists... Edited by AdminPD, : Warning