Is the bible the word of God or men?

Here is another classic example of a contradiction. Numbers 12:3 says

quote:

---

Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.

---

If he wrote that himself, about himself, then surely Moses must have been the most arrogant of men. This was pointed out by Thomas Paine over two centuries ago. I find it hard to believe that people in this day and age still take the word of the bible as the word of god, via Moses. It is clearly written much later, by multiple authors.

---

Mutate and Survive

Granny Magda, This is irrelevant to the topic. It is clearly written by multiple authors; hence the word: "Bible".

---

Thank you

Huh?The word "Bible" comes from the Greek and Latin words for "book", it has nothing to do with multiple authorship as such.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't really see why. Tradition has held that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, as personally revealed to him by god. My post presented a logical argument that this could not be so, given the content, thus undermining the notion that the bible is the word of god.
Seems pretty on topic to me. Obvious contradictions like those above show that either god did not write the bible, or that he is prone to some quite startling mistakes. OK, I suppose that I am stating the obvious here. I did not mean to imply that anyone believes the bible to have been physically written down by a single author. Perhaps I should be more specific; the Pentateuch was written by multiple, unknown human authors and not the Moses/God dream-team. It was not written during the lifetime of Moses. It was not handed down on Mt. Sinai. It was not authored by god. The etymology of the word bible is based on phrases meaning "holy books" (in the plural) it is true, and this would certainly imply multiple authorship, though it is not explicit. The word "bible" however is singular and carries no such implication.

---

Mutate and Survive

Dr Adequate, No.

early 14c., from Anglo-L. biblia, from M.L./L.L. biblia (neuter plural interpreted as fem. sing.), in phrase biblia sacra "holy books," from Gk. ta biblia to hagia "the holy books," from biblion "paper, scroll," the ordinary word for "book," originally a dim. of byblos "Egyptian papyrus," possibly so called from the name of the Phoenician port from which Egyptian papyrus was exported to Greece. The port's name is a Gk. corruption of Phoenician Gebhal, lit. "frontier town" (cf. Heb. gebhul "frontier, boundary," Ar. jabal "mountain"). The Christian scripture was refered to in Gk. as Ta Biblia as early as c.223. Bible replaced O.E. biblioece "the Scriptures," from Gk. bibliotheke, lit. "book-repository" (from biblion + theke "case, chest, sheath"), used of the Bible by Jerome and the common L. word for it until Biblia began to displace it 9c. Figurative sense of "any authoritative book" is from 1804. Bible Belt first attested 1926, reputedly coined by H.L. Mencken.

Tie logic with the words "HOLY BOOKS" and it implies multiple authors.REFERENCES:
Bible Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

---

Thank you

Granny Magda, You do know that there are other scriptures in the Bible besides the Torah right? Wrong. REF:
Bible - Wikipedia

---

Thank you

quote:

---

Tie logic with the words "HOLY BOOKS" and it implies multiple authors.

---

The semantics of the term HOLY BOOKS aside [all religions say that], is that all such holy books do not make any claims which impacts on science and ultimate questions; most holy books cannot even evidence history. Genesis is a holy book to many people of numerous religious beliefs - but its connection with science is: this is also a book which is scientific, and one can say, the introduction of science. Because here we find an orderly, sequenced and logical description of creation, which is a scientific premise even if it does not fully allign with all of science's understandings at this particular time.Equally, there is no basis the OT was authored by many writers at different times: this is baseless and has not a shred of evidence, while contradicting its textual evidences: how can numerous writers, at different times, describe scientifically verified details and events 2000 years ago - including 1000s of names, dates and places - with the accuracy of the OT?With the aspect of science, and if we look at the enigmatic issue of the universe origins, we find a vindication of the science of genesis: it opens with the universe being FINITE [it had a beginning], and the current inclination to I.D.- namely a complexity must have a transcendent intelligence as its foundation. At the present time and current status quo of science, there is no alternative to Genesis version:

quote:

---

Part 1: Einstein's Big Blunder

​

100 years ago this year, Albert Einstein published
three papers that rocked the world. These papers
proved the existence of the atom, introduced the
theory of relativity, and described quantum
mechanics.

​

Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?

​

His equations for relativity indicated that the universe
was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was
expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.
Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced
a 'fudge factor' that ensured a 'steady state' universe,
one that had no beginning or end.

​

But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest
galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the
Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced
what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying,
"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation
of creation to which I have ever listened." He referred
to the 'fudge factor' to achieve a steady-state universe
as the biggest blunder of his career.

​

As I'll explain during the next couple of days,
Einstein's theories have been thoroughly proved and
verified by experiments and measurements. But there's
an even more important implication of Einstein's discovery.
Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time
itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began
with the Big Bang.

​

That's right -- time itself does not exist before
then. The very line of time begins with that creation
event. Matter, energy, time and space were created
in an instant by an intelligence outside of space
and time.

​

About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote
in his book "The World As I See It" that the harmony
of natural law "Reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
an utterly insignificant reflection."

​

He went on to write, "Everyone who is seriously
involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced
that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe--
a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in
the face of which we with our modest powers must feel
humble."

​

Pretty significant statement, wouldn't you say?

​

Stay tuned for tomorrow's installment: "Bird Droppings
on my Telescope."

​

Respectfully Submitted,

​

Perry Marshall

​

Cosmic Fingerprints, 67 East Algonquin Road, S. Barrington IL 60010 USA

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Hi there tthzr3,
Firstly, from wiktionary.comI have to say that this is getting off the point. Lets not get bogged down in semantic squabbles.
As for your question, yes, funnily enough I am aware that there are many books in the Bible. I have chosen to address what I consider to be an inconsistency in Numbers. You have chosen to ignore that point, as well as the point made before about Moses' death and instead choose to argue over my use of language. If you insist on bringing up every linguistic slip-up I make, we are never going to get to the point. I hope I have made my position reasonably clear.
If the Bible comes direct from God, then any inconsistency, at any point, seems strange and calls the whole thing into question. Do you believe that there is no contradiction in Moses describing himself as superlatively modest or writing of his own death? If so, how so?

---

Mutate and Survive

Hello Joseph, Fair play! I can't agree with that. Just because Genesis attempts to describe the creation of the universe in an ordered way, that does not mean that it is science. Science makes progress by seeking evidence and testing it; and inviting others to test it as well. Science is testable. Science is independently verifiable. Genesis fails on these counts and is therefore not science. I also can't agree with your description of Genesis as "orderly, sequenced and logical". That may be its intention, but in fact Genesis repeats itself, events are described out of sequence and it is far from logical. There is evidence that the OT had multiple authors. Scholarly analysis of the OT in its earliest available forms suggests four separate authors, identifiable due to their differences in writing style, preoccupations and especially, the name they give to God. The OT contains many duplications (such as the similarities between Gen 20 and Gen 26), suggesting multiple authorship. There are also many impossibilities, such as housing the entirety of the world's animals on a boat only measuring about 135 metres long ("The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits" Gen 6:15 - I'm assuming typical a 45cm cubit). This is plainly nonsense, and suggests that the OT was written by fallible mortals. Scientifically verified by whom? 2000 years ago from when exactly? The bible has been independently verified in places, but remains unverified in plenty more. You are implying a degree of scientific verification that simply does not exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that some is true, but some of it is clearly false. Where exactly? Where does Genesis mention this? Erm, yes there is. It's called the Big Bang. Please don't try to tell me that you were unaware of this theory. As with your assertion that there is no evidence for multiple authorship of the OT, you do not have to believe the theory, but denying its existence does your argument no favours.
As for your Einstein bit, it is very interesting and I could talk all day about why it is dishonest, but the truth is that it is completely irrelevant to this topic.
Cheers, Granny.

---

Mutate and Survive

Joseph, Some mythical events come to mind when you claim that holy books do not make any claims which impact Science. They are: Moses departing the Red sea? The resurrection of Jesus Christ? Jesus walking on water? The Circle of the Earth? I am sure if I searched through the Bible or gave it some more thought I could come across more. The book of Genesis is not "the introduction of Science" but it does defer us to an age when Science was perhaps applied to a degree. Which description? The creation story in Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3, or the creation story in Genesis 2:4-25? In anycase, the creation stories in Genesis help us to understand what people of a different age thought of their particular origin. Perhaps we should PNT on this question.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

Granny Magda,The word "Bible" is a noun although it does indicate that "holy books" or authortative documents are contained in it. Good. I am trying to decipher the information you post which is why I asked the questions. There is nothing wrong with an author describing himself from a third person perspective.However, It is clear to me that the Torah has more than 1 author.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

quote:

---

If the Bible comes direct from God, then any inconsistency, at any point, seems strange and calls the whole thing into question. Do you believe that there is no contradiction in Moses describing himself as superlatively modest or writing of his own death? If so, how so?

---

Moses did not write his own epitaph - Joshua did. This can be verified by examining the dates nominated for Moses' death and verses thereafter, and alligning it with the OT calendar. There are numerous such items which intitially cast a doubt, but become clarified upon better deliberation. It is pointless taking up such items, instead of provable stats in the OT, which numbers in their millions, and the way to assess this work.

Joseph, The Bible can't prove the Bible to be true.

---

Thank you

Joseph, None of that is verifiable I'm afraid. No-one knows exactly when Moses lived, if he ever did. As tthzr3 says, you can't prove the Bible with the Bible. When people speak of verifying the Bible, they are usually talking about independent verification. Just staggeringly wrong. There aren't even "millions" of potential facts in the OT, there simply aren't enough verses. A cursory google says there are 23,145 verses in the OT (give or take a bit, OK). Just 2 million facts would require a staggering 86.41 facts per verse.
A million is very big Joseph.

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

Just because Genesis attempts to describe the creation of the universe in an ordered way, that does not mean that it is science. Science makes progress by seeking evidence and testing it; and inviting others to test it as well. Science is testable. Science is independently verifiable. Genesis fails on these counts and is therefore not science. I also can't agree with your description of Genesis as "orderly, sequenced and logical". That may be its intention, but in fact Genesis repeats itself, events are described out of sequence and it is far from logical.

---

Yes, an orderly, step by step description is both scientific and mathematical, with each step following the previous and the next. These are posited as constants, and each generation of man will examine them according to their status of knowledge. Being scientific does not mean alligning only with all particulars held by current science; a difference in some factors does not negate or invalidate the science premise. In fact, Genesis introduced the first such scientific treatise in recorded history - which means with the universe origins, we are not debating 'holy books' but only genesis - there are no holy books elsewhere which meet such criteria. The hellenist and babylonian editions of humanised dieties bashing each other's brains for supremecy is not science, not provable and totally varied from genesis - scientifically, mathematically and historically. Genesis has impacted on all science and scientists, and all their directions: I know of no other ancient document which does that.

quote:

---

There is evidence that the OT had multiple authors. Scholarly analysis of the OT in its earliest available forms suggests four separate authors, identifiable due to their differences in writing style, preoccupations and especially, the name they give to God. The OT contains many duplications (such as the similarities between Gen 20 and Gen 26), suggesting multiple authorship. There are also many impossibilities, such as housing the entirety of the world's animals on a boat only measuring about 135 metres long ("The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits" Gen 6:15 - I'm assuming typical a 45cm cubit). This is plainly nonsense, and suggests that the OT was written by fallible mortals.

---

The flood story is debated in another thread, and is not the basis of evidencing your point. The fact is, there is no proof, only incorrect understandings and readings. The best evidence is whether the OT calendar, the oldest and most accurate, alligns with 100s of 1000s of dates throughout the OT - this is the math test; whether the names listed 5,500 years ago are authentic from an archeological pov - this is the historical tests [and impossible a feat for numerous writers in different periods to perform!]; if the constants of science are vindicated; etc. IOW, examine a document by its provable stats - and there are 100s of 1000s of these spread in its words, verses and paras.

quote:

---

how can numerous writers, at different times, describe scientifically verified details and events 2000 years ago - including 1000s of names, dates and places - with the accuracy of the OT?

​

Scientifically verified by whom? 2000 years ago from when exactly? The bible has been independently verified in places, but remains unverified in plenty more. You are implying a degree of scientific verification that simply does not exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that some is true, but some of it is clearly false.

---

The foremost verification used by scientists here, is 'NAMES' - a 5000 year name does NOT appear 4,500 years ago. The second means is writings style; third is histrocial factors from other depictions.

quote:

---

With the aspect of science, and if we look at the enigmatic issue of the universe origins, we find a vindication of the science of genesis

​

Where exactly?

---

From its opeing words. Genesis begins with the universe it is about to describe, being 'FINITE: that it had a beginning. ToE runs far from a background of its premise. That the universe is finite, is for science to examine and conclude, and this vindicates the first and foremost scientific preamble of the universe. It means all further descriptions must allign with this factor. Next up, all universe contained items are also finite, and never existed pre-universe; Genesis correctly goes on to describe these as post universe. This foremost scientific constant of finite was introduced by Abraham [Monotheism]; one must not be diverted by the decpetively seeming biblespeak here - this was written for all generations of man, and dates over 3000 years old. To be scientific, one must be relative of the spacetime.

quote:

---

and the current inclination to I.D.- namely a complexity must have a transcendent intelligence as its foundation

​

Where does Genesis mention this?

---

The universe was created by a creator, with wisdom - its wisdom is what science explains. This is I.D. There is no place in the universe w/o intelligence and design; science is its proof in theories and equations, which are precedent of science recognising them.

quote:

---

At the present time and current status quo of science, there is no alternative to Genesis version

​

Erm, yes there is. It's called the Big Bang. Please don't try to tell me that you were unaware of this theory. As with your assertion that there is no evidence for multiple authorship of the OT, you do not have to believe the theory, but denying its existence does your argument no favours.

---

The BB has to evidence itself in a FINITE realm: no particle existed till post-universe. Here, let me point to a great discrepency in any scientific view. The notion of creation vs evolution, is a misnomer. Science and evolution are vested post-universe only; the BB is also a post-uni premise. We do not know anything about the origins of anything. The correct premise is, CREATIONISM; SCIENCE/EVOLUTION. This stands untill we have a provable premise how a finite universe emerged - and we cannot utilise any tools and elements which are in the current universe - including parallel and multi universe scenarios. That is the enigma here. genesis opens with the second alphabet - meaning we can only know of the B to Z, the A being totally elusive. Bearing this in mind, we will not get bogged down in debates between creation and science; these are two totally different faculties, and science only relates to the B-Z. We know nothing about origins of ANYTHING whatsoever, and we remain in a science debate [B-Z], as long as we understand this difference - science can tell us nothing about origins, and thus cannot dislodge genesis: science can only validate ir invalidate certains factors of genesis post-creation.

quote:

---

As for your Einstein bit, it is very interesting and I could talk all day about why it is dishonest, but the truth is that it is completely irrelevant to this topic.
Cheers, Granny.

---

Honesty refers not to truth but truthfullness.