Bible Origin

[Erik Nelson]

Because when we hear or read something we attempt to identify the source to confirm authenticity. This is tricky when we argue that its God as the source. How does one authenticate it - well of course we can't otherwise thered be no debatesw, there would be one religion, and no atheists.

The claim of Scripture is that God in heaven has already, many many many times, "Authenticated" and "Re-Authenticated" God's messages, to humans on earth, by wondrous supra-natural "miracles" which co-occur with the messages (sent to chosen "Prophet" receivers).

Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan. Everybody saw a dove alight on his shoulder, everybody perceived a bright spiritual light of some sort, and perceived a booming Voice reverberating in their skulls saying Jesus was God's beloved son.

Moses walks around, and volcanoes start erupting, storms whip up, earthquakes shake the ground, all in the perfect sequence of just the right times & places to allow a bunch of slaves to literally walk out of Egypt as the supra-natural "orbital bombardment" wiped out Pharaoh's army around them and "did all the work".

Romans 1:20 -- the numerous historical miracles have always been powerful witness to God's Existence

However, John 12:37, Luke 16:31 -- everybody keeps demanding God do "one more Miracle, just for lil' ol' them" before they believe.

The Apostles all saw the Miracles. That's why they believed, and gave their lives for their testimonies. Everybody who bothered to hear them out came to be convinced, too.

However, for some reason, two things then happen...

1. somebody else comes along and says, "bah, I'll believe it... just as soon as God parts the Red Sea, for me my grandiose self and I"
2. others hear the first person, and consider demanding of God in heaven to make further major miracles for their "Moses-grade, Messiah-rank" selves to be a legitimate pre-requirement

Nobody ever appears to notice the flaw in that argument. God did miracles. Thousands of people for thousands of years have already been direct eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses already ran around shouting "hey, did you see that???" Their testimonies have already been written down and given to others to read about.

God does Miracles to Authenticate "chosen" Prophets.

To require "Miracles on demand" is to demand to be God's next "chosen" Prophet.

But then, who is doing the "choosing" ?

God in heaven does the choosing. In fact, God in heaven already did, numerous times, for thousands & thousands of years.

You yourself even have all of the major breaking headlines, easily available, on the internet, in condensed format, for free.

Many who choose not to believe, will turn right around, and within 60 seconds believe rumors & gossip they hear 3rd & 44th and 555th hand about others (behind their backs) from "their friends they trust so much".

But they won't trust St. Peter or St. Paul, direct eye-witnesses, who gave their lives to charity, helping others, and making the world a more human place (ultimately bringing about, say, the end to gladiatorial blood sports).

And, then, to top it off, everybody else will somehow obliviously overlook the former's hypocrisies, and conclude that they are "being reasonable".

Ipso hypocrisio, "God in heaven never did any miracles on earth [so as we admit to seeing directly with our trust-worthy eyes ] and so 'just just can't' Exist"

 

[Erik Nelson]

There is truth in the Bible and there are errors. It is up to the reader to seek the good and reject the bad. Jesus taught God is truth. If I seek the truth, I may not praise a lie.

The stoic philosopher Seneca, who corresponded with St. Paul, stated he would never fail to quote a good line, wheresoever he happened to find it.

 

[Zoii]

Truth is truth, that's how you can know...

God Bless!

Yes but who's truth - each religion says those same words

 

[Zoii]

The claim of Scripture is that God in heaven has already, many many many times, "Authenticated" and "Re-Authenticated" God's messages, to humans on earth, by wondrous supra-natural "miracles" which co-occur with the messages (sent to chosen "Prophet" receivers).

Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan. Everybody saw a dove alight on his shoulder, everybody perceived a bright spiritual light of some sort, and perceived a booming Voice reverberating in their skulls saying Jesus was God's beloved son.

Moses walks around, and volcanoes start erupting, storms whip up, earthquakes shake the ground, all in the perfect sequence of just the right times & places to allow a bunch of slaves to literally walk out of Egypt as the supra-natural "orbital bombardment" wiped out Pharaoh's army around them and "did all the work".

Romans 1:20 -- the numerous historical miracles have always been powerful witness to God's Existence

However, John 12:37, Luke 16:31 -- everybody keeps demanding God do "one more Miracle, just for lil' ol' them" before they believe.

The Apostles all saw the Miracles. That's why they believed, and gave their lives for their testimonies. Everybody who bothered to hear them out came to be convinced, too.

However, for some reason, two things then happen...

1. somebody else comes along and says, "bah, I'll believe it... just as soon as God parts the Red Sea, for me my grandiose self and I"
2. others hear the first person, and consider demanding of God in heaven to make further major miracles for their "Moses-grade, Messiah-rank" selves to be a legitimate pre-requirement

Nobody ever appears to notice the flaw in that argument. God did miracles. Thousands of people for thousands of years have already been direct eye-witnesses. The eye-witnesses already ran around shouting "hey, did you see that???" Their testimonies have already been written down and given to others to read about.

God does Miracles to Authenticate "chosen" Prophets.

To require "Miracles on demand" is to demand to be God's next "chosen" Prophet.

But then, who is doing the "choosing" ?

God in heaven does the choosing. In fact, God in heaven already did, numerous times, for thousands & thousands of years.

You yourself even have all of the major breaking headlines, easily available, on the internet, in condensed format, for free.

Many who choose not to believe, will turn right around, and within 60 seconds believe rumors & gossip they hear 3rd & 44th and 555th hand about others (behind their backs) from "their friends they trust so much".

But they won't trust St. Peter or St. Paul, direct eye-witnesses, who gave their lives to charity, helping others, and making the world a more human place (ultimately bringing about, say, the end to gladiatorial blood sports).

And, then, to top it off, everybody else will somehow obliviously overlook the former's hypocrisies, and conclude that they are "being reasonable".

Ipso hypocrisio, "God in heaven never did any miracles on earth [so as we admit to seeing directly with our trust-worthy eyes ] and so 'just just can't' Exist"

The problem is we can authenticate none of what is written though - all that you have posted is the written word and unfortunately we can corroborate very little of it.

 

[Zoii]

This is not how I discern right and wrong (eg: 2 Corinthians 5:16, Proverbs 2:11-12, Leviticus 19:15).

To discern right and wrong the way you described is to release one's own authority of judgement to a party that we have assumed is fit to make that judgement (which might have even been that we ourselves were satisfied with that person at a previous time). The problem with this, is that the qualification (ie the day on which the reputation was granted) was awarded upon satisfactory assessment on a given day and a given topic, but not by specific analysis of the spiritual state and the content of the statement that is being presently assessed.

In other words, it is to prejudice belief of the rightness of a person's statement based upon a status of having been recognised as making a right statement in the past. This is to show favouritism in judgement, whereas God is not a respector of persons, but a righteous judge at all times.

Nothing of the sort - If youre going to claim a statement you make is truth, then expect to be challenged for evidence. This is where our religion comes into question because we have so little evidence for the things we claim. So it all comes back to the written word - naturally then we face the criticism that, just because its written does not make it true.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The problem is we can authenticate none of what is written though - all that you have posted is the written word and unfortunately we can corroborate very little of it.

Biblical archaeology has already largely confirmed the OT history.

Skepticism may be healthy. But it seems like your mentality is "false until verified 1000%". Why not accept the "claims" until they are dis-proved ? Innocent until proven guilty ?

I'm not telling you what to do. But, why not?

For example, "there once was a man named Abraham". I'm almost positive, that there is more archaeological attestation of the Hebrew name "Abram/Abraham" from the mid-to-late 3rd millennium BC (e.g. the ancient Mari archive) than there is for any of your (or my) own ancestors from the same era (!).

Have I been clear? If we were as skeptical about our own ancestry as you appear to be about the Bible, then we would both have to conclude that neither of us could exist, because we just can't prove 1000% that any of our ancestors actually walked the earth!

If you have an open mind, and an attitude of "innocent until proven guilty" / "accept it until it becomes obviously false"... then you will find nearly nothing in the Bible histories to object to...

What would remain as the "tallest tale" would be the claims of Heavenly interventions on earth throughout human history. i.e. all of the "miracles".

But people have been transmitting the memories and testimonies of the original eye-witnesses for millennia. If nothing strange happened, why did thousands of people make such a hoopla in the first place?

So then you say, well, unusual uncommon but natural events occurred. Maybe.

But they occurred right at the time when people were praying fervently to God, and perceiving meaningful intelligible audio & video messages (Divine Voices, Visions, Dreams) coming from the heavens.

Miraculous manipulations of the earth, the atmosphere, all with eye-witness accounts recorded in the Bible. Messages from Heaven with the "transcript" recorded in the Bible.

I'm not telling you what to believe. But, something else is... it's causing you to "actively pre-emptively dis-believe"... I'm just saying, "don't dis-believe, have an open mind, and accept the possibility of there being lots we still don't know".

I predict, that the more you think about it, the less "surprising" will be the idea that Heavenly Powers would intervene into events on earth..

 

[Zoii]

Biblical archaeology has already largely confirmed the OT history.

Skepticism may be healthy. But it seems like your mentality is "false until verified 1000%". Why not accept the "claims" until they are dis-proved ? Innocent until proven guilty ?

I'm not telling you what to do. But, why not?

For example, "there once was a man named Abraham". I'm almost positive, that there is more archaeological attestation of the Hebrew name "Abram/Abraham" from the mid-to-late 3rd millennium BC (e.g. the ancient Mari archive) than there is for any of your (or my) own ancestors from the same era (!).

Have I been clear? If we were as skeptical about our own ancestry as you appear to be about the Bible, then we would both have to conclude that neither of us could exist, because we just can't prove 1000% that any of our ancestors actually walked the earth!

If you have an open mind, and an attitude of "innocent until proven guilty" / "accept it until it becomes obviously false"... then you will find nearly nothing in the Bible histories to object to...

What would remain as the "tallest tale" would be the claims of Heavenly interventions on earth throughout human history. i.e. all of the "miracles".

But people have been transmitting the memories and testimonies of the original eye-witnesses for millennia. If nothing strange happened, why did thousands of people make such a hoopla in the first place?

So then you say, well, unusual uncommon but natural events occurred. Maybe.

But they occurred right at the time when people were praying fervently to God, and perceiving meaningful intelligible audio & video messages (Divine Voices, Visions, Dreams) coming from the heavens.

Miraculous manipulations of the earth, the atmosphere, all with eye-witness accounts recorded in the Bible. Messages from Heaven with the "transcript" recorded in the Bible.

I'm not telling you what to believe. But, something else is... it's causing you to "actively pre-emptively dis-believe"... I'm just saying, "don't dis-believe, have an open mind, and accept the possibility of there being lots we still don't know".

I predict, that the more you think about it, the less "surprising" will be the idea that Heavenly Powers would intervene into events on earth..

I already do have an open mind - its just I am being honest about our religion, when I say we cannot verify the major claims our religion makes - thats simply being honest and having integrity in the claims I make as a christian.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Nothing of the sort - If youre going to claim a statement you make is truth, then expect to be challenged for evidence. This is where our religion comes into question because we have so little evidence for the things we claim. So it all comes back to the written word - naturally then we face the criticism that, just because its written does not make it true.

doesn't make it false, though, yes?

Most people's criticisms of the Bible... aren't even written down!

If you knew nothing else at all in the universe, which would you trust more... something some people have bothered to commit to writing, continuously, for millennia...

or "talk is cheap" somebody hasn't even bothered to write up, not even as a rough draft ?

Why respond more positively to negativity and criticisms, than to positivity and messages (supposedly, allegedly) about "Salvation for all humanity"?

 

[Erik Nelson]

I already do have an open mind - its just I am being honest about our religion, when I say we cannot verify the major claims our religion makes - thats simply being honest and having integrity in the claims I make as a christian.

alright, well, thanks for clarifying

Think you're vastly understating the case though... Biblical archaeology has confirmed much of the OT... obviously, there are gaps... but nothing known contradicts the Bible in any (significant) way...

I mean, the worst archaeologically-grounded criticism I can think of, is that the Exodus most likely occurred around 1200 BC, and the period of the Judges from 1200-1000 BC, when the saga of kings Saul & David & Solomon picks up with much more certainty & attestation.

Maybe only some of the Hebrew Israelites-to-be entered Egypt 430 years earlier in the 17th century BC as the Hyksos (per Josephus)… others didn't arrive until the 15th century BC and somehow came to prominence under Akhenaten in the 14th century BC... the Egyptians rebelled after the days of Joseph and the Pharaohs sympathetic to him (18th dynasty), and the new Pharaohs (19th dynasty) oppressed all the Hebrew foreigners, ironically helping forge them into one group. After a hundred years, they escaped, hid out in the wilderness of Mt. Sinai in Arabia (per Galatians), before entering Canaan around 1200 BC in the wake of the Late Bronze Age collapse that threw Egypt, the Hittites, Mycenaean Greeks, and everyone else around into chaos & turmoil.

But please do note, whatever Moses & the escaping Israelites experienced in the Exodus... it caused (certainly coincided with) the Late Bronze Age collapse (!!)

If anything, the Exodus was only one local aspect of a much vaster, regional event (!)

 

[Zoii]

doesn't make it false, though, yes?

Most people's criticisms of the Bible... aren't even written down!

If you knew nothing else at all in the universe, which would you trust more... something some people have bothered to commit to writing, continuously, for millennia...

or "talk is cheap" somebody hasn't even bothered to write up, not even as a rough draft ?

Why respond more positively to negativity and criticisms, than to positivity and messages (supposedly, allegedly) about "Salvation for all humanity"?

whether something is written or spoken - both are cheap. What everyone searches for is evidence. Its only natural. If someone told you that a comet was about to hit the earth you would naturally search for evidence thats verifiable and credible. Its that issue of being without verifiable evidence that makes our religion a faith as opposed to accepted fact

 

[Zoii]

alright, well, thanks for clarifying

Think you're vastly understating the case though... Biblical archaeology has confirmed much of the OT... obviously, there are gaps... but nothing known contradicts the Bible in any (significant) way...

I mean, the worst archaeologically-grounded criticism I can think of, is that the Exodus most likely occurred around 1200 BC, and the period of the Judges from 1200-1000 BC, when the saga of kings Saul & David & Solomon picks up with much more certainty & attestation.

No really it hasnt at all - most is totally unverified - I wont bore you with a long list but lets say for example the big issues ie Adam/eve/Creation - its based on genesis - heck we dont know who wrote Genesis - we cant verify Noahs flood - we cannot verify creation and the belief woman was created from Adams rib - I dont need to go on. Perhaps we can verify some characters in history, but unofrtunately the paradigms underpinning christianity cannot be verified.

 

[Erik Nelson]

whether something is written or spoken - both are cheap. What everyone searches for is evidence. Its only natural. If someone told you that a comet was about to hit the earth you would naturally search for evidence thats verifiable and credible. Its that issue of being without verifiable evidence that makes our religion a faith as opposed to accepted fact

Actually, for most of the past 2000 years, copying Scripture was so painstakingly expensive, that few people undertook it...

all of the canonical Scriptures survived the Dark Ages, but few of the classical era works of the pre-Christian Roman era did...

copying things was very expensive, and people only paid for Scripture

 

[Zoii]

Actually, for most of the past 2000 years, copying Scripture was so painstakingly expensive, that few people undertook it...

all of the canonical Scriptures survived the Dark Ages, but few of the classical era works of the pre-Christian Roman era did...

copying things was very expensive, and people only paid for Scripture

youre kinda supporting my view - records where poor and likely unreliable and certainly not verifiable

 

[Erik Nelson]

No really it hasnt at all - most is totally unverified - I wont bore you with a long list but lets say for example the big issues ie Adam/eve/Creation - its based on genesis - heck we dont know who wrote Genesis - we cant verify Noahs flood - we cannot verify creation and the belief woman was created from Adams rib - I dont need to go on. Perhaps we can verify some characters in history, but unofrtunately the paradigms underpinning christianity cannot be verified.

well, there's plenty you could choose to focus on, which is corroborated if not completely "confirmed 1000%)…

 

[Zoii]

well, there's plenty you could choose to focus on, which is corroborated if not completely "confirmed 1000%)…

I'm glad you said that - most argue I have to accept without question every word written - Well I just dont. But instead I choose to understand the ethics and paradigms the bible discloses and although that may make my christian view ecclectic, I believe it also makies me view intellectually honest.

 

[Erik Nelson]

youre kinda supporting my view - records where poor and likely unreliable and certainly not verifiable

they were copied painstakingly with very high fidelity, because they were viewed as so valuable...

accurate enough that they reflect the originals in the 1st century AD...

when the original Apostles were testifying to what they themselves had witnessed...

so, the issue with the NT is not so much "verified" -- we have accurate copies of eye-witness reports...

the issue is more "trust", do you trust what the Apostles claimed & alleged? Jews & Muslims both remember Jesus associated with many "miracles" and wondrous events. Eye-witnesses all around, on all sides of every political aisle, were amazed and walked off at least shaking their heads, "did you see that??"

To deny that something highly unusual and "miraculous" occurred in association with Jesus, is for a modern person to dismiss the eye-witness reports of every human observer on the scene at the time... what gives them that "right", and why does anybody else "ratify" them that "right" ?

 

[Zoii]

they were copied painstakingly with very high fidelity, because they were viewed as so valuable...

accurate enough that they reflect the originals in the 1st century AD...

when the original Apostles were testifying to what they themselves had witnessed...

so, the issue with the NT is not so much "verified" -- we have accurate copies of eye-witness reports...

the issue is more "trust", do you trust what the Apostles claimed & alleged? Jews & Muslims both remember Jesus associated with many "miracles" and wondrous events. Eye-witnesses all around, on all sides of every political aisle, were amazed and walked off at least shaking their heads, "did you see that??"

To deny that something highly unusual and "miraculous" occurred in association with Jesus, is for a modern person to dismiss the eye-witness reports of every human observer on the scene at the time... what gives them that "right", and why does anybody else "ratify" them that "right" ?

I very much have doubts concerning the reliability of those records. In todays world if I have 1000 eye witness testimonies then the likelihood of acccuracy is high - but we dont have 1000 eye witness reports. We have one scribe saying there was a hundred eye witnesses . We cannot be sure of the accuracy of a single thing written by a scribe at that time.... so no I dont trust what anyone wrote at that time and I am sceptical about the retelling of those stories and the ongoing translation of those stories.

Once again I refuse to blindly accept unverifiable written statements in the bible and instead focus on the paradigm. If what was said in the bible was 100% true then we would not have areas that contradict each other eg who is the father of Joseph - the bible provides two different answers to that question so lets not pretend the bible is inerrant.

 

[DaveDavids]

what would yall think if the bible was wrote by humans? how do yall know its a legit source if yall dont know who the actual author is?

Well, the Bible is constructed using thousands of years of priestly traditions in literature, for one, and these conventions/traditions date back to the earliest Sumerian priests

As far as it being " legit ", there's a tradition in priestly literature that ONLY a High Priest such as Christ can correctly interpret priestly texts, that would include the Bible

...so when you see people making claims about how they can " prove " this or that about the scriptures, or that they can correctly interpret the Bible and their interpretation is " legit ", be reminded they probably have no idea of priestly traditions of exegesis and therefore are talking a bunch of hoo ha