Did God Create Fossils?

[Hoghead1]

Ted, the Bible preaches a flat earth, around which the sun revolves. That was ruled out in the 16th century.

 

[Hoghead1]

OH, I forgot, AIIIsrael. I don't follow your reference to the circle. Are you wondering fit he bible has a spherical earth? If so, forget it. The circle of the earth the apparently dome-shaped sky above the earth, at the top of which sits God, in Isa. The purpose of the passage is to say that God sees all that is happening. Hence, the earth has to be flat. Otherwise, from his vantage point, God could see only a limited portion of a spherical earth.

 

[miamited]

Ted, the Bible preaches a flat earth, around which the sun revolves. That was ruled out in the 16th century.

Hi hoghead,

No, the Scriptures do not teach a flat earth around which the sun revolves. As Peter warned the true bible believing christians: He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

God doesn't lie. If the bible taught a flat earth around which the sun revolves, then it would be so.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted,

The Urantia Book is a massive work of which I have been a student most of my adult life. I heard about it from my dad who was sort of a closet reader of the UB from the 60's. We attended a fairly moderate Methodist church when I was a kid. At 22 my life changed dramatically after a spiritual awakening. From their I began my search. The Urantia revelation answers a great many questions and explains many of the events and characters referenced in the books used to make the Bible.

Hi colter,

Ok, I get that you have been a student of the book most of your adult life. I understand that you heard about it from your dad. I get that you attended a moderate Methodist church. I understand that you believe the urantia book reveals answers to a great many questions and explains many of the events and characters referenced in the books used to make the bible. I got all that. Now, my question to you is why you believe that this book that you've been a student of most of your life that you heard about from your dad while you were attending a moderate Methodist church with many answers to a great many questions and character explanations of the books used to make the bible - is the truth? What is it in your thinking that indicates to you that what is written in the book concerning the events and character explanations is the truth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hoghead1]

No way on that one, Ted. The Bible definitely does present a flat earth and a geocentric view of the cosmos. That was quite common in ancient cosmology, and the bible is no exception. You might look up sometime "Earth Not a Globe," a major 19th-century work which argued the earth is flat, providing at least 70 major biblical references.

 

[Colter]

Hi colter,

Ok, I get that you have been a student of the book most of your adult life. I understand that you heard about it from your dad. I get that you attended a moderate Methodist church. I understand that you believe the urantia book reveals answers to a great many questions and explains many of the events and characters referenced in the books used to make the bible. I got all that. Now, my question to you is why you believe that this book that you've been a student of most of your life that you heard about from your dad while you were attending a moderate Methodist church with many answers to a great many questions and character explanations of the books used to make the bible - is the truth? What is it in your thinking that indicates to you that what is written in the book concerning the events and character explanations is the truth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

That's a good and big question, but I would say it's similar to the way the apostles had a reality response to a local carpenter from Nazareth. When I first heard excerpts from the UB it just made sense to me relative to what I had heard about the purported religious history of the world. This reality response is related to the function of the cosmic mind on all personality. In the case of Jesus he explained to the apostles that they intuitively responded to his identity based on the validation of the indwelling spirit of the Father in their hearts.

 

[miamited]

Hi colter,

This:

This reality response is related to the function of the cosmic mind on all personality.

Sounds a lot like mystical mumbo jumbo to me.

You wrote:

In the case of Jesus he explained to the apostles that they intuitively responded to his identity based on the validation of the indwelling spirit of the Father in their hearts.

Surely that is correct, but that comes from the Scriptures. So, I'm not convinced that it would be a reason to believe the book of urantia is the truth. My question still stands. You're right! It is a good question and one that I would encourage you to find the answer to before you get too far down that path. I'm not convinced that that way point is on the straight and narrow path. Believe God! His word is truth!

A lot of books and papers have been written by men to explain the things of God. Some are right and some are not. Some are part right and some are a lot wrong.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Colter]

Hi colter,

This:


Sounds a lot like mystical mumbo jumbo to me.

You wrote:


Surely that is correct, but that comes from the Scriptures. So, I'm not convinced that it would be a reason to believe the book of urantia is the truth. My question still stands. You're right! It is a good question and one that I would encourage you to find the answer to before you get too far down that path. I'm not convinced that that way point is on the straight and narrow path. Believe God! His word is truth!

A lot of books and papers have been written by men to explain the things of God. Some are right and some are not. Some are part right and some are a lot wrong.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I perceived you weren't really sincere in your baited question. And while the account of how the apostles knew the identity of the Son of God is recorded in the scripture, at the time it wasn't in the scripture, the indwelling spirit of God bore witness to the identity of the Son of God in the hearts of these unlearned laborers.. “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." In fact the Jewish scripture expert's used the scripture to deny Jesus was the Messiah, they still do today. So mans written word isn't always a reliable legal position to take against the Living Word, who is the Son of God......"the Word was God".

The answer to the question still stands, When I first heard excerpts from the UB it just made sense to me relative to what I had heard about the purported religious history of the world. I've been on the path for 31 years.

I will take your review of a book you have never read for what it's worth.

 

[James Wilson]

AIIIsrael, in my post 445, I presented my synopsis of Genesis. You might want to check that out. I hold with the Higher Criticism and the DH. I believe there are at least four sources for the Pentateuch, plus redactor. The Mosaic authorship of teh Pentateuch went out the window years ago in modern biblical studies.

In modern theologian's headlong rush away from God, they try to dress up their lies by saying that their thoughts are inspired by textual criticism and scholarship. It is deceptive to start out with an assumption and then make that assumption their conclusion.

What's wrong with their scholarship? They ignore the clear testimony of Scripture, including Christ Himself:

Biblical witness to Mosaic authorship
The chart below shows that the Pentateuch states that Moses wrote these books (from https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/did-moses-write-genesis/) --
One: Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1–2; Deuteronomy 31:9–11. In his rejection of Mosaic authorship, Wellhausen nowhere discussed this biblical evidence. It is easy to deny Mosaic authorship, if one ignores the evidence for it. But that is not honest scholarship.
Two: We also have the witness of the rest of the Old Testament: Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4.
Three: The New Testament is also clear in its testimony: Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26. The divisions of the Old Testament were clearly in place in the Jewish mind long before the time of Christ, namely, the Law of Moses (first 5 books of the OT), the Prophets (the historical and prophetic books) and the Writings (the poetic books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). So when Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, His Jewish listeners knew exactly to what He was referring.

My dad went to seminary in the 1940s. He had a very simple faith. He told me shortly before he died that the only way he managed to keep his faith alive was the small group Bible studies held by the students by themselves. 90% (as estimate) of the seminaries today are taught by professors who do not believe the Bible. Their scholarship only serves to substantiate that belief.

Each higher-degree student has to write a thesis in order to graduate and they have to find something new in the Bible in order to do that. And they have to stroke the egos of their professors as well, to graduate. No wonder seminaries continue to put out extreme ideas and beliefs... because that's the requirement for a degree.

 

[James Wilson]

OH, I forgot, AIIIsrael. I don't follow your reference to the circle. Are you wondering fit he bible has a spherical earth? If so, forget it. The circle of the earth the apparently dome-shaped sky above the earth, at the top of which sits God, in Isa. The purpose of the passage is to say that God sees all that is happening. Hence, the earth has to be flat. Otherwise, from his vantage point, God could see only a limited portion of a spherical earth.

It seems like a consistent theme of this whole string is: Your assumptions control your conclusions. You reveal your assumptions in your statement, "God could see only a limited portion of a spherical earth." You serve a very limited god, his powers based upon those of a human. Since a human cannot see around the corner, neither can your god.

The God of the Bible can see into the human heart. God is everywhere, so He can see everywhere.

 

[Colter]

In modern theologian's headlong rush away from God, they try to dress up their lies by saying that their thoughts are inspired by textual criticism and scholarship. It is deceptive to start out with an assumption and then make that assumption their conclusion.

What's wrong with their scholarship? They ignore the clear testimony of Scripture, including Christ Himself:

Biblical witness to Mosaic authorship
The chart below shows that the Pentateuch states that Moses wrote these books (from https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/did-moses-write-genesis/) --
One: Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1–2; Deuteronomy 31:9–11. In his rejection of Mosaic authorship, Wellhausen nowhere discussed this biblical evidence. It is easy to deny Mosaic authorship, if one ignores the evidence for it. But that is not honest scholarship.
Two: We also have the witness of the rest of the Old Testament: Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4.
Three: The New Testament is also clear in its testimony: Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26. The divisions of the Old Testament were clearly in place in the Jewish mind long before the time of Christ, namely, the Law of Moses (first 5 books of the OT), the Prophets (the historical and prophetic books) and the Writings (the poetic books of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.). So when Jesus referred to the Law of Moses, His Jewish listeners knew exactly to what He was referring.

My dad went to seminary in the 1940s. He had a very simple faith. He told me shortly before he died that the only way he managed to keep his faith alive was the small group Bible studies held by the students by themselves. 90% (as estimate) of the seminaries today are taught by professors who do not believe the Bible. Their scholarship only serves to substantiate that belief.

Each higher-degree student has to write a thesis in order to graduate and they have to find something new in the Bible in order to do that. And they have to stroke the egos of their professors as well, to graduate. No wonder seminaries continue to put out extreme ideas and beliefs... because that's the requirement for a degree.

Moses predates the Hebrew language of Babylon by 1,000 years. And he managed to narrate his own funeral.

 

[James Wilson]

It seems like a consistent theme of this whole string is: Your assumptions control your conclusions.

In my earlier post, I talked about the pervasive influence of each man's assumptions. I'd like to expand upon that for a moment.

The God of the Bible is an all-seeing, future-knowing God. He knew that we would have trouble finding the truth amongst a host of lies. So He solved this problem for us, if we will listen!

In Isaiah 48:3,5 He states, "I have declared the former things from the beginning; They went forth from My mouth, and I caused them to hear it. Suddenly I did them, and they came to pass. Even from the beginning I have declared it to you; Before it came to pass I proclaimed it to you, lest you should say, 'My idol has done them, and my carved image have commanded them'." This is the function and purpose of prophecies in Scripture.

God ties the entire Bible together by predicting things before they come so that WHEN they come, we will know that it's God's work and not the work of our idols.

Thus, we know that Christ (the Anointed One) was coming; It is said that a scarlet thread runs through Old Testament books, telling us of the Christ to come. When Jesus came He fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies, indicating that He was the Anointed One predicted in Scripture. That's why Christians make the statement, "Jesus is the Christ (the Anointed One prophesied in the Old Testament)" every time they say Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith wasn't predicted. Baha-ulah wasn't prophesied. The Urantia Book wasn't prophesied. Mohammed wasn't prophesied. Sun-Moon-Myoung of Korea wasn't prophesied.

The Bible books stand alone. Does that mean that we can find no wisdom outside the Bible? No, it means that when we put something on equal footing with the Bible or when we look for something to stand against the Bible, forget it! The Bible stands alone. If you find wisdom outside the Bible, reject that wisdom when it contradicts the Bible or you are in danger.

 

[miamited]

morning colter,

You wrote:

I perceived you weren't really sincere in your baited question.

Well, you perceived incorrectly. Perhaps there are other things that you have perceived incorrectly. I was absolutely sincere in wanting to know what it is that has convicted you in your heart why the book of urantia is the truth. After all, if it is, then I want to know the truth also. But, since I'm not convinced that it is the truth, I want to know what others may have found within its words that have convinced them that it is. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to look at any evidence that someone might offer me. I may not agree that the evidence really supports the understanding that someone else has taken from it, but I'm not closed minded. I'll look.

You wrote:

And while the account of how the apostles knew the identity of the Son of God is recoded in the scripture, at the time it wasn't in the scripture, the indwelling spirit of God bore witness to the identity of the Son of God in the hearts of these unlearned laborers.. “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven."

That's correct that the words hadn't been written when Jesus explained to the disciples the source of their belief. I'm not sure I'd classify the disciples as unlearned. They were generally very, very familiar with the Scriptures and likely had a reasonably general knowledge of other things. Did the have doctorate degrees in some specialized field? No. But that doesn't make someone unlearned. Just not as knowledgeable about that particular field as another. I imagine that Peter knew quite a bit about fishing. When was the best time to fish. How to fish. How to repair his nets. Where were the best spots to fish, etc.

Many, many people have this idea that our greater knowledge and understanding of the physical world makes us wise and our predecessors 'unlearned'. Quite honestly, I'm of a mind that while our greater knowledge makes us smarter about a lot of things concerning how the physical world works, it isn't particularly useful or helpful in spiritual knowledge. As I wrote before, we're now a people who rather than just accepting the truth of God as just that, we question the truth and validity of the Scriptures and more times than not, we don't find the faith that it tells us about because we can't prove it like we can prove that 2+2=4. We've become a people who believe that if something can't be proved in a test tube or lab of some sort, that it isn't considered to be true.

But the faith that God asks of His children is a faith based on unprovable hard facts. Faith is the substance and assurance of things not seen. Jesus remarked to his disciples that they were blessed for having seen and accepted him as Lord, but he held out even more blessing for those who would believe without the advantage of actual sight.

You wrote:

In fact the Jewish scripture expert's used the scripture to deny Jesus was the Messiah, they still do today. So mans written word isn't always a reliable legal position to take against the Living Word, who is the Son of God......"the Word was God".

Yes, well, that's exactly my point. Odd how you understand this fact but are seemingly unable to apply it in all situations except those that benefit your arguments. Of course, your last statement in this excerpt shows the difference between your faith and mine. You lump the Scriptures in with the lot of 'man's written words'. I don't. I hold the Scriptures, as I believe Jesus did, as truth not from the mind and heart of men, but from God. As I think James claimed earlier, the Scriptures are God's love letter to His created. They stand separate and apart from the written words of man, in that while they may have been penned by man, the testimony is God's. As Paul seems to have claimed, through God's Spirit, He directed the thoughts, ideas and even the very words in many cases that men wrote down.

You wrote:

I will take your review of a book you have never read for what it's worth.

I can appreciate that and would likely say the same thing.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[James Wilson]

Moses predates the Hebrew language of Babylon by 1,000 years. And he managed to narrate his own funeral.

For over a century Higher Critics have been making absolute claims based upon the absence of data. Modern archeology has proved these "absolutists" wrong time after time. For example, HCs declared that King David couldn't have had large enough stables for the horses the Bible claimed he had. Then they found the stables. HCs charged that the Hittites couldn't exist because no one had heard of them. Then we found that the Hittites were a major impact of history. I could go on for paragraphs, but I don't want to bore the reader.

You make the assumption that the absence of proof is proof. First of all, we may not be dealing with Hebrew, but proto-Hebrew. Secondly, just because we can't date all languages used by man, doesn't mean man did not have a language we haven't found yet.

In many places we have pre-Flood documents (the gods and demi-gods of Egypt, the pre-Flood Babylonian kings list). So, let me get this straight. We have a list of kings before the Flood, yet Moses, writing after the Flood, didn't know how to write?

And if God said Moses wrote, I think that's a pretty reliable source of information. Jesus also believed that Moses wrote, if you need a second opinion.

 

[Colter]

morning colter,

You wrote:


Well, you perceived incorrectly. Perhaps there are other things that you have perceived incorrectly. I was absolutely sincere in wanting to know what it is that has convicted you in your heart why the book of urantia is the truth. After all, if it is, then I want to know the truth also. But, since I'm not convinced that it is the truth, I want to know what others may have found within its words that have convinced them that it is. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm willing to look at any evidence that someone might offer me. I may not agree that the evidence really supports the understanding that someone else has taken from it, but I'm not closed minded. I'll look.

You wrote:


That's correct that the words hadn't been written when Jesus explained to the disciples the source of their belief. I'm not sure I'd classify the disciples as unlearned. They were generally very, very familiar with the Scriptures and likely had a reasonably general knowledge of other things. Did the have doctorate degrees in some specialized field? No. But that doesn't make someone unlearned. Just not as knowledgeable about that particular field as another. I imagine that Peter knew quite a bit about fishing. When was the best time to fish. How to fish. How to repair his nets. Where were the best spots to fish, etc.

Many, many people have this idea that our greater knowledge and understanding of the physical world makes us wise and our predecessors 'unlearned'. Quite honestly, I'm of a mind that while our greater knowledge makes us smarter about a lot of things concerning how the physical world works, it isn't particularly useful or helpful in spiritual knowledge. As I wrote before, we're now a people who rather than just accepting the truth of God as just that, we question the truth and validity of the Scriptures and more times than not, we don't find the faith that it tells us about because we can't prove it like we can prove that 2+2=4. We've become a people who believe that if something can't be proved in a test tube or lab of some sort, that it isn't considered to be true.

But the faith that God asks of His children is a faith based on unprovable hard facts. Faith is the substance and assurance of things not seen. Jesus remarked to his disciples that they were blessed for having seen and accepted him as Lord, but he held out even more blessing for those who would believe without the advantage of actual sight.

You wrote:


Yes, well, that's exactly my point. Odd how you understand this fact but are seemingly unable to apply it in all situations except those that benefit your arguments. Of course, your last statement in this excerpt shows the difference between your faith and mine. You lump the Scriptures in with the lot of 'man's written words'. I don't. I hold the Scriptures, as I believe Jesus did, as truth not from the mind and heart of men, but from God. As I think James claimed earlier, the Scriptures are God's love letter to His created. They stand separate and apart from the written words of man, in that while they may have been penned by man, the testimony is God's. As Paul seems to have claimed, through God's Spirit, He directed the thoughts, ideas and even the very words in many cases that men wrote down.

You wrote:


I can appreciate that and would likely say the same thing.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I'm aware of the tact of holy men to first establish men as hopelessly stupid and then imply that to question the writings of the same holy men indicates a lack of faith in God. Spare me that manipulative tact Ted, it may have worked on you but that doesn't mean it works on everyone. The Scriptures always have, and always will, reflect the intellectual, moral, and spiritual status of those who create them. There are no "love letters" from God who instructed the Israelites forefathers to go forth in battle to slay all their enemies—men, women, and children. Such records are the words of men, not very holy men, and they are not the word of God. That's a retrospective, revisionist rationalization on the part of the people that carried out such atrocities. A love letter doesn't instruct real men of faith to slay all their enemies in battle keeping the young virgin girls for themselves. That sound more like ISIS thinking. There is much more erroneous speculation in the writings of the holy men that is obvious to a person of courageous conscience.

 

[James Wilson]

It's far more complicated than that, James Wilson. You might want to take a look at my post 445, where I review the situation with Genesis. You also might want to take a look at who killed Goliath. David? Elhanan? 2 Sam. 21:19 says that Elhanan did. So who did kill Goliath? And please don't give me the nonsensical two-Goliath theory or Elhanan-is-another-name-for-David here.

I'm aware of who killed Goliath -- the Majority text, the one seen by more people than any other text known, stated that David did.

I've known since my first year of college that Elhanan is brought up by one of the supposedly reliable manuscripts. So, at your suggestion, let's look at the reliability of these manuscripts.

They are claimed to be the most reliable because they are supposedly the oldest, but of the 4 or 5 manuscripts, they cannot even agree on the text of the Lord's Prayer. Now, if we were in court and five witnesses disagreed amongst themselves, we'd have to find out who to believe. Modern Higher Critics pick the improbable assumption of believing them all! Four of them must be lying! Maybe all of them.

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away but My word shall never perish." In order for Him to have the boldness to say that, He must have known that His word would persist for all time. The 4 or 5 manuscripts the Higher Critics reverence disappeared from history from the time of the early church to the time they achieved popularity with Westcott and Hort, who took over the drafting of the replacement Bible for the King James.

And while some of those manuscripts omitted the text of the attempted stoning of the woman caught in adultery, one of those manuscripts did leave room for that text, at the proper place, in case he later decided to include it. So it existed and had some credibility in that copyist's time.

Now, which manuscript (and I will allow this comparison to include all of the lying, disagreeing four or five sited by the Higher Critics) better fulfills the promise of Christ, that His word would never perish? The one read in many different languages by most Christians throughout history (called the Majority text)? Or the lying, disagreeing five?

 

[Colter]

I didn

For over a century Higher Critics have been making absolute claims based upon the absence of data. Modern archeology has proved these "absolutists" wrong time after time. For example, HCs declared that King David couldn't have had large enough stables for the horses the Bible claimed he had. Then they found the stables. HCs charged that the Hittites couldn't exist because no one had heard of them. Then we found that the Hittites were a major impact of history. I could go on for paragraphs, but I don't want to bore the reader.

You make the assumption that the absence of proof is proof. First of all, we may not be dealing with Hebrew, but proto-Hebrew. Secondly, just because we can't date all languages used by man, doesn't mean man did not have a language we haven't found yet.

In many places we have pre-Flood documents (the gods and demi-gods of Egypt, the pre-Flood Babylonian kings list). So, let me get this straight. We have a list of kings before the Flood, yet Moses, writing after the Flood, didn't know how to write?

And if God said Moses wrote, I think that's a pretty reliable source of information. Jesus also believed that Moses wrote, if you need a second opinion.

I didn't say Moses couldn't write, just that he didn't write in Hebrew because it didn't exist yet. Scholars who notice the redactions and edits of Genesis are simply observing what's there, the Hebrew priest obviously had older manuscript's as their source. Sadly, ironically, the secular history books of the Jews which are mentioned in the redacted scriptures, didn't survive. So all's that we have are the writings of the priest.

Once the priesthood established their writings as Gods writings, then the minds of religious men became stuck in an age. People believe things in the Bible not because they sound remotely true but because they are in the Bible.

 

[James Wilson]

Moses predates the Hebrew language of Babylon by 1,000 years. And he managed to narrate his own funeral.

When I first read the whole Bible through as an unbeliever, I noticed the description of the funeral of Moses and assumed that Joshua probably penned this to the end of Moses' writing. I know you want to use this simple, short passage to discount any possibility of Moses writing the Pentateuch, but this is the consistent testimony of the Old and New Testament, including the words of Christ.

 

[James Wilson]

I didn


I didn't say Moses couldn't write, just that he didn't write in Hebrew because it didn't exist yet. Scholars who notice the redactions and edits of Genesis are simply observing what's there, the Hebrew priest obviously had older manuscript's as their source. Sadly, ironically, the secular history books of the Jews which are mentioned in the redacted scriptures, didn't survive. So all's that we have are the writings of the priest.

Once the priesthood established their writings as Gods writings, then the minds of religious men became stuck in an age. People believe things in the Bible not because they sound remotely true but because they are in the Bible.

I could see some modern Jews being fast and loose with Scripture, but not Old Testament priests. These men more than anyone knew what happened to those who weren't careful.

The man who saw the Ark of the Covenant begin to tip while it was being carried, reached forth to steady it with his hand and he was killed.

King Azariah, who did right in the sight of the Lord, late in life decided to take on the priestly responsibilities, and was struck with leprosy. Miriam also became a leper after speaking against Moses.

Eli didn't correct his sons's evil behavior and Samuel told him the prophecy that his lineage would die with his sons.

Anyone who believed these stories were true wouldn't be changing the text AND having a group of priests support them in this heresy.

 

[James Wilson]

I didn


I didn't say Moses couldn't write, just that he didn't write in Hebrew because it didn't exist yet. Scholars who notice the redactions and edits of Genesis are simply observing what's there, the Hebrew priest obviously had older manuscript's as their source. Sadly, ironically, the secular history books of the Jews which are mentioned in the redacted scriptures, didn't survive. So all's that we have are the writings of the priest.

Once the priesthood established their writings as Gods writings, then the minds of religious men became stuck in an age. People believe things in the Bible not because they sound remotely true but because they are in the Bible.

Here's another thought on your idea of the priests changing Scripture for all time: Josiah was a godly king coming to his throne after many ungodly kings. He was told of a lost Book of the Law (probably Deuteronomy) found in the temple. He immediately called an assemblage of the people to reinstitute this book into their faith. This is consistent with God's statement that He would watch over His word (Isaiah 48) and Jesus's promise that His word would never perish.

So if there were some foolish priests who followed your suggestions, God would have corrected it to preserve His promises. And He wouldn't have done it with the lying, disagreeing 'reliable' manuscripts that the Higher Critics cling to.