If God Asked You For a Dime, How Would You Know It Was Him?

I agree. What was left out, and why, is just as interesting, if not more, than what was included. Given the well-documented history, I find it puzzling that some people continue to insist that the christian bible is entirely a deity's literal words, and was not written by men in their own language(s).

 

One thing about the Bible is the discrepancy of it's texts is less than other ancient writings


Written over a 1,500 year span.
Written over 40 generations.
Written by over 40 authors from every walk of life including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars, etc.:
Moses, a political leader, trained in the universities of Egypt
Peter, a fisherman
Amos, a herdsman
Joshua, a military general
Nehemiah, a cupbearer
Daniel, a prime minister
Luke, a doctor
Solomon, a king
Matthew, a tax-collector
Paul, a rabbi
Written in different places:
Moses in the wilderness
Jeremiah in a dungeon
Daniel on a hillside and in a palace
Paul inside prison walls
Luke while traveling
John on the isle of Patmos
Others in the rigors of a military campaign
Written at different times:
David in times of war
Solomon in times of peace
Written during different moods:
Some writing from the heights of joy and others writing from the depths of sorrow and despair
Written on three continents:
Asia, Africa and Europe
Written in three languages:
Hebrew: Was the language of the Old Testament.
In II Kings 18:26-28 called "the language of Judah".
In Isaiah 19:18 called "the language of Canaan".

Aramaic: Was the "common language" of the Near East until the time of Alexander the Great (6th century BC - 4th century BC)
Greek: New Testament language. Was the international language at the time of Christ.
Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial subjects. A controversial subject is one which would create opposing opinions when mentioned or discussed.
Biblical authors spoke on hundreds of controversial subjects with harmony and continuity from Genesis to Revelation. There is one unfolding story: "GOD's redemption of man".

Geisler and Nix put it this way:
"The 'Paradise Lost' of the Genesis becomes the 'Paradise Regained' of Revelation. Whereas the gate to the tree of life is closed in Genesis, it is opened forevermore in Revelation".

F.F. Bruce observes: "Any part of the human body can only be properly explained in reference to the whole body. And any part of the Bible can only be properly explained in reference to the whole Bible".

Bruce concludes:
"The Bible, at first sight, appears to be a collection of literature - mainly Jewish. If we enquire into the circumstances under which the various Biblical documents were written, we find that they were written at intervals over a space of nearly 1400 years. The writers wrote in various lands, from Italy in the west to Mesopotamia and possibly Persia in the east. The writers themselves were a heterogenous number of people, not only separated from each other by hundreds of years and hundreds of miles, but belonging to the most diverse walks of life. In their ranks we have kings, herdsmen, soldiers, legislators, fishermen, statesmen, courtiers, priests and prophets, a tentmaking Rabbi and a Gentile physician, not to speak of others of whom we know nothing apart from the writings they have left us. The writings themselves belong to a great variety of literary types. They include history, law (civil, criminal, ethical, ritual, sanitary), religious poetry, didactic treatises, lyric poetry, parable and allegory, biography, personal correspondence, personal memoirs and diaries, in addition to the distinctively Biblical types of prophecy and apocalyptic.

"For all that, the Bible is not simply an anthology; there is a unity which binds the whole together. An anthology is compiled by an anthologist, but no anthologist compiled the Bible".

Conclusion of continuity - a comparison with the Great Books of the Western World.
A representative of the Great Books of the Western World came to my house recruiting salesmen for their series. He spread out the chart of the Great Books of the Western World series. He spent five minutes talking to us about the Great Books of the Western World series, and we spent an hour and a half talking to him about the Greatest Book.

I challenged him to take just 10 of the authors, all from one walk of life, one generation, one place, one time, one mood, one continent, one language and just one controversial subject (the Bible speaks on hundreds with harmony and agreement).

Then I asked him: "Would they (the authors) agree?" He paused and then replied, "No!" "What would you have?" I retorted. Immediately he said, "A conglomeration."

Two days later he committed his life to Christ (the theme of the Bible).

Why all this? Very simple! Any person sincerely seeking truth would at least consider a book with the above unique qualifications.

 

R

Men. Not gods. Not God.

 

"...Written by over 40 authors from every walk of life including kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars, etc...."

Translated by a small group of religious scholars. Unless you can read Aramaic et al, textual comparisons don't mean much.

And quite frankly, I disagree with the conclusion. It is a mishmash. Styles are discernible, moral codes (subject matter) vary wildly, and so on.

 

What animates carbon?

 

Chuck,

The Bible tells us that all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial.

2 Peter 1:20-21 says, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

1 Corinthians 2:13 states, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." God impressed man with His message, then the individual author, using his own style of expression based on his personal, educational, and cultural resources put the message into words.

Romans 10:8 phrased it this way: ". . .The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart. . ." God communicated to the author the content that He wanted written, and the author phrased the content with his skill, style, mind, and language. We can be certain that, although the very words came from each author, the message was as God had intended and is authentic, reliable, and infallible.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 reads, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." We are told that the Bible is not only the words of God, but it has great benefit to us.

Colossians 3:16 admonishes us to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God."

The psalmist tells us in Psalms 119:11 that God's Word protects us from sin: "I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you." From God's very first contact with man in Genesis to the final phrases of Revelation, He gave Scriptures to guide man's conduct.

 

The Bible is a collection of books over written over 1500 years.

Although it must be noted that proof is often done legally and in courts the greater the time elapsed, the less reliable the evidence. That's not to dismiss old evidence, but just to say proof is not just the scientific method, but collection of artifacts...of all the ancient documents, the Bible has been the most consistent and reliable.

The same would be true of most documents, including the works of Homer, Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, even posts made here eventually.



Anyone want to wager the odds of a person like me losing my religion over a thread like this or a person like Airport Kid getting religion? Think the pattern over the past several years is not hard to predict the outcome.

It's pretty predictable that a number of people like Airport Kid read my posts on this topic strictly to tear it apart and can never bring themselves to agree....some might accuse my viewpoint of doing the same. Having difficulty seeing an ongoing argument when you know a heavy confirmation bias predestines members to never agree - always disagree.

While I know things are different in Fred's House of Pancakes, if this was a topic on the Prius, what do you think the odds would be the thread would be closed because the arguments were endless?

 

^ well said Chuck.

 

Perhaps you just haven't said anything they agree with.... No one should 'bring themselves to agree' with something that they don't. But two rationalists with access to the same knowledge, must come to the same conclusions.

Spiderman and I came to an understanding in this very thread, giving lie to your contention that no understandings are acheived. This thread continues because you wish it to. Every religious thread that shows up, you are there giving your tale of persecution, even when you admit that there has been no persecution in the thread.

I enjoy these discussions when they are calm, reasonable, and above all informative. If you don't, perhaps you should just ignore them; there isn't enough time in the world to complain about every religious thread in every forum on the net.

 

You are correct, I should have written 50-70 years after his birth.

Wikipedia has a wide range of dates and authors ascribed to the writing of Mark. You happened to pick the author and date ascribed by conservative Christians.

If you would have included the entire passage:

"The Gospel of Mark does not name its author. A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), a companion of Peter, on whose memories it is supposedly based. The gospel was written in Greek around AD 64, possibly in Syria. The author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account of authorship, and according to the majority view the author is probably unknown."

According to Irenaeus, Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that this gospel was by John Mark, the companion of Saint Peter in Rome, who "had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it. A number of modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian around AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written). Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.

 

We both made generalizations:

- I have had some good correspondence with HidyHo to keep the discussion calmer, civil. I have commented on every religious thread in the last five years or even the past year? I am the reason this thread continues? - you serious?
I stick with my assertion religious threads at PC have numerous replies by members who seemingly can read in an opposing post only that they can find fault with.

 

We both made generalizations:

- I have had some good correspondence with Hyo Silver to keep the discussion calmer, civil. I have commented on every religious thread in the last five years or even the past year? I am the reason this thread continues? - you serious?

- I'm glad you had some good talks with Spiderman - sorry to have overlooked that.




I stick with my assertion religious threads at PC have numerous replies by members who seemingly can read in an opposing post only that they can find fault with.

 

I read your whole post. The latest on bible authorship was informative and interesting. I only quoted part of it in my response, because that's the particular part I have questions about.

 

^ I accept it when you say you read the entire post - was not trying to generalize.

 

BBC News - Dutch rethink Christianity for a doubtful world

 

You actually quoted what I wrote. Why bother making it into something it is not?

But why? Why do you stick with this assertion, over an over again. What are we at PriusChat, or you, gaining from it? Yes, I know you think it is true, but that is not a reason for repeating it.

The discussion of authorship is interesting, so I should probably just shut up about the whinging, but I rather suspect we will be seeing it again, the next time any religious topic comes up, yes?

 

Corwyn,

It's been over two days since I've made a post worth getting excited about - things were cooling down. Even this year, threads on this topic have been heated without my presence. And they also repeat the same points again and again.

I'm sorry you are determined to cherry-pick and pining for a fight.

 

That sounds like Unitarianism Lite.

 

There is little chance that the Bible describes the historical Jesus. If one existed at all. There is zero corrabarative evidence for Jesus as a historical figure - and contemporrary writing doesn't talk about him.

In anycase, what makes sense is that the story was changed to make it more palatable to Roman victors after the temple was burnt and Jews lost the war.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory]Jesus myth theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]