Who wrote the Bible?

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi sourdough,

I think it is true that without the Spirit of God there is no understanding of the things of God. Peter speaks of such people who in the last days will come scoffing and saying, "where is his coming?" Then goes on to describe how, in the last days, more and more will be denying the truth and power of God and the proclaimed return of His Son and judgment.

One must understand that if more and more people are denying these things that they must, therefore, be denying the truth of the revelation of God. What we call today, the bible. Once you get to the place where one says to themself, "Oh, there isn't going to be any great destruction wrought by God. And there isn't any coming judgment of mankind". Then it is just a broadening of that understanding which then leads that person to say, "Well, if none of this is true, then there's surely no reason to believe that any of that is true either."

There have always been, since the days shortly after Adam and Eve, people who deny the truth of God and who He is. Rebellion against God and the general and natural wickedness of people had gotten so bad in the first 1,100 years of the creation of this realm that God was so grieved as to destroy all of mankind, except for Noah and his family. There really is no reason for us to believe that now, some 4-5 thousand years since then, that the nature and wickedness of mankind would lead to a different conclusion.

But, as God explained to Noah after the flood, He is allowing mankind to continue living, seed time and harvest, until the time for which He has decreed the judgment to come. He is allowing people to say what they will about Him. Believe what they will about Him. Say what they will about His Son and believe what they will about His Son. Say what they will about His word and believe what they will about His word. Finally, to say and believe what they will about His Spirit, His creation and all that He has revealed to us as truth.

But, just as Peter warned, they wilfully forget and will find themselves one day standing across a great precipice separated from those who have believed the truth and established in their lives that this is how they want to live. For those who love
God with all their heart, mind, strength and spirit we must understand these things and know that God's plan is still working itself out. His patience still endures. But be assured in our hearts that one day...

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0
D

dbcsf

Guest
I found a great post that attempts to answer this question....

Who Wrote the Bible? Is it the Literal Word of God?

What do you all think?

Reasonable article. I agree. People. A whole lot of people. The first time we even have the ability to call the bible a book is around 330, during the reign of Constantine. He ordered what he believed to be inspired to be written in a collected form.

For about 300 years prior all we had were collections of writings, and the Old Testament. Most churches did not have a complete collection. Most had many additional writings not included in the current canon. No two writings are even the same. There was a greater diversity of content back then than there is now. Endless mistakes were made in copying, both intentional and unintentional, which makes it very confusing for scholars today to even guess what the original writer wrote.

So scholars have a very developed system in which they rank and debate the question of which is the most accurate text.

Jerome finished the Vulgate in around 405. Did a fine job. Mostly he did it because the church was going crazy with all the different versions going around. He standardized it, for that time period, for the Roman Empire.

Not all churches today even agree on what exactly is in the canon. The critical text has had at least 27 revisions, which indicates that the scholarly community is always getting new ideas and opinions about what was acutally written.


I believe the bible to be inspired. I do not believe the bible to be infallible or to be taken literally.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The first time we even have the ability to call the bible a book is around 330, during the reign of Constantine. He ordered what he believed to be inspired to be written in a collected form.

Nonsense!

The concept of a New Testament canon goes back to the 2nd century, and most of it was agreed on from very early (4 Gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles). Some of the other epistles were debated off and on till 367 AD.

Endless mistakes were made in copying, both intentional and unintentional, which makes it very confusing for scholars today to even guess what the original writer wrote.

There were not "endless mistakes." We have a large sample of manuscripts from different areas, and they match fairly well. Where minor differences exist, we can do a good job of working out what the original was.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
God wrote the Bible using many tools. He wrote the natural law in the hearts of mankind. He spoke to Moses, David, Solomon, and the Prophets. He inspired people to chronicle the development. At the appropriate time, the exactly perfect time, the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, inspiring those who followed him to spread his word, first orally, then both orally and in written form. After the apostles died, the Holy Spirit kept God's word intact, by protecting men from corrupting it, and by having those who heard His word from the apostles to explain what it means.

The collection of writings we have now were not compiled by Constantine. They were compiled and declared to be God's word by the Catholic Church in the second century, and agreed upon over and over through the centuries.
 
Upvote 0

Nephi

Newbie
May 15, 2010
330
8
Ohio
✟15,515.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Nonsense!

The concept of a New Testament canon goes back to the 2nd century, and most of it was agreed on from very early (4 Gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles). Some of the other epistles were debated off and on till 367 AD.

Many might find the Muratorian Canon a bit disappointing if they're wanting complete early validation of the 27 books we have now:

The beginning is missing; the preserved text begins with the last line concerning the second Gospel and the notices, preserved entire, concerning the third and fourth Gospels. Then there are mentioned: The Acts, St. Paul's Epistles (including those to Philemon, Titus and Timothy; the spurious ones to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians are rejected); furthermore, the Epistle of St. Jude and two Epistles of St. John; among the Scriptures which "in catholica habentur", are cited the "Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta", as well as the Apocalypses of St. John and St. Peter, but with the remark that some will not allow the latter to be read in the church. Then mention is made of the Pastor of Hermas, which may be read anywhere but not in the divine service
From: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Muratorian Canon

And this might find be an interesting read for some:
The Emergence of the New Testament Canon
 
Upvote 0
D

dbcsf

Guest
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nephi

Newbie
May 15, 2010
330
8
Ohio
✟15,515.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Very in depth history of the development of the N.T. It is a history of the hand of man and the hand of God working together, in my opinion.

Agreed. It's just more complicated than many would like to admit. The 27 NT books being recognized universally has been rather tentative at best, with periods of rejection of some (e.g. Luther's views on Jude/James/Hebrews), and mixed views on others (e.g. the Christian East and not liturgically using Revelation), etc.

And the Old Testament canon is sadly no different.
 
Upvote 0

Jett Clark

Newbie
Jan 22, 2012
16
0
✟15,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
I personally believe the Bible is far too human to consider it "divinely inspired." Rather, I like to say it was "inspired by the divine." Frankly, if God was telling people what to write, they wouldn't have such conflicting ideas. Galatians wouldn't be a polemic against Peter, James, and John. Revelation wouldn't be a polemic against Paul. We wouldn't have multiple letters written in Paul's name when they weren't written by Paul. We wouldn't have Paul believing the world was going to end in his own time. We wouldn't have the concept of Jesus be totally separate in Mark from what it is in John. We wouldn't have Paul saying only to get married if you have to, only for the author of the Pastorals to establish home rules, necessitating marriage.

The Bible is what happens when you get people trying to write down how they've experienced the divine. Even the Gospels teach us at least as much about their authors as they do about Jesus. As a Christian, I see the Bible as the greatest collection of literature ever written, but I don't think it's a good idea to see it as "divinely inspired." After all, as Jesus said, He cannot testify to Himself. The Bible is a testimony.
 
Upvote 0
D

dbcsf

Guest
I personally believe the Bible is far too human to consider it "divinely inspired." Rather, I like to say it was "inspired by the divine." Frankly, if God was telling people what to write, they wouldn't have such conflicting ideas. Galatians wouldn't be a polemic against Peter, James, and John. Revelation wouldn't be a polemic against Paul. We wouldn't have multiple letters written in Paul's name when they weren't written by Paul. We wouldn't have Paul believing the world was going to end in his own time. We wouldn't have the concept of Jesus be totally separate in Mark from what it is in John. We wouldn't have Paul saying only to get married if you have to, only for the author of the Pastorals to establish home rules, necessitating marriage.

The Bible is what happens when you get people trying to write down how they've experienced the divine. Even the Gospels teach us at least as much about their authors as they do about Jesus. As a Christian, I see the Bible as the greatest collection of literature ever written, but I don't think it's a good idea to see it as "divinely inspired." After all, as Jesus said, He cannot testify to Himself. The Bible is a testimony.

Generally, (for me) the word "inspiration" is associated with inspiration about how to have a relationship with God. The idea is that the bible is not telling mankind all truth, but is limiting the truth to what is relevant to living a life of faith.

The word "infallible" means much more. It means (for me) that the bible is telling all truth about everything mentioned within the covers, and that God mostly said exactly what was written in the bible. I am not a fundamentalist, so I cannot say this with authority, but I believe fundamentalists do make exceptions for missing words in ancient documents, scribal errors, etc.

Liberals generally use the concept of "inspiration", while fundamentalists use both.

Based on what I believe you are saying, I think you think of the bible as "inspired", not "infallible", not perfect in everything, but very useful in a Christian's journey of faith to a relationship with God.

I could be wrong, but I believe that is how the terminology is currently being used. So, divinely inspired = inspired by the divine, from a liberal perspective.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I personally believe the Bible is far too human to consider it "divinely inspired." Rather, I like to say it was "inspired by the divine." Frankly, if God was telling people what to write, they wouldn't have such conflicting ideas. Galatians wouldn't be a polemic against Peter, James, and John. Revelation wouldn't be a polemic against Paul. We wouldn't have multiple letters written in Paul's name when they weren't written by Paul. We wouldn't have Paul believing the world was going to end in his own time. We wouldn't have the concept of Jesus be totally separate in Mark from what it is in John. We wouldn't have Paul saying only to get married if you have to, only for the author of the Pastorals to establish home rules, necessitating marriage.
Except tht Galatians isn't a polemic against anything but the law, Revelation is not a polemic against Paul, it's apocalyptic writing, and there's nothing to prove that Paul didn't write the Pauline epistles. I think your understanding of the corpus of Paul's work leaves a lot to be desired. Paul also says he's not saying that people shouldn't get married, just that celebacy is the nobler state.
The Bible is what happens when you get people trying to write down how they've experienced the divine. Even the Gospels teach us at least as much about their authors as they do about Jesus. As a Christian, I see the Bible as the greatest collection of literature ever written, but I don't think it's a good idea to see it as "divinely inspired." After all, as Jesus said, He cannot testify to Himself. The Bible is a testimony.

The Bible is just what God wanted it to be. The Gospels were written to different audiences by different men-three of them from the same viewpoint, one from a theological viewpoint.
 
Upvote 0

Jett Clark

Newbie
Jan 22, 2012
16
0
✟15,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
Except tht Galatians isn't a polemic against anything but the law, Revelation is not a polemic against Paul, it's apocalyptic writing, and there's nothing to prove that Paul didn't write the Pauline epistles. I think your understanding of the corpus of Paul's work leaves a lot to be desired. Paul also says he's not saying that people shouldn't get married, just that celebacy is the nobler state.

The Bible is just what God wanted it to be. The Gospels were written to different audiences by different men-three of them from the same viewpoint, one from a theological viewpoint.

The Pastoral Epistles point to a different time and place than Paul's writing, and doesn't read very much like Paul's work. The theological differences are immense. On top of that, certain letters copy from other letters. Ephesians copies nearly verbatim several parts of Colossians, which in itself is a later writing. While Paul was an apocalyptic who saw Christ's coming as imminent, later writings focused on what to do now that it seemed like Christians would have to wait, establishing home rules in order to make the Christian life sustainable. 1 Timothy shows Paul granting apostolic succession to Timothy in a bid to explain how the church would continue. Thus, it was established that through apostolic succession, the church would have new leaders elected, something that Paul wasn't worried about, considering he believed that Jesus was due to arrive at any given moment. That's why Paul advocated celibacy. If he saw Christianity as something that was going to need to be long term, he wouldn't have told people to do something that would kill off the religion. Instead, he told his followers only to marry if they had to.

Similarly, while Paul's canonical letters all address specific (or marginally specific) problems experienced by congregations, the deuterocanonical works all address problems within the larger Christian community as a whole. Things like apostolic succession and home rules, that needed to be established to continue the religion. It's likely that these teachings were based on oral traditions passed down by apostles other than Paul, but who knows.

However, yes, Galatians is in reference to the other apostles, including Peter. Initially, they were eating with the Gentiles, but when the Jews came, the other apostles bent to the pressure and began observing Jewish kosher law again, which Paul said set a bad example and a lack of faith. It was an argument between the groups, leading Paul to warn that nobody should listen to anyone who says differently than he says.

And you should read Revelations by Elaine Pagels. It puts into perspective the relation of Paul to Revelation. Remember that Revelation is essentially a coded message about the situation between the Christians and the Roman empire. Since the concept of the devil is so intrinsically linked to the notion that evil comes from within, early Christians who hated Paul's teachings saw Paul as the devil, and that he was opening the gates for the Romans and so on.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The Pastoral Epistles point to a different time and place than Paul's writing, and doesn't read very much like Paul's work. The theological differences are immense. On top of that, certain letters copy from other letters. Ephesians copies nearly verbatim several parts of Colossians, which in itself is a later writing. While Paul was an apocalyptic who saw Christ's coming as imminent, later writings focused on what to do now that it seemed like Christians would have to wait, establishing home rules in order to make the Christian life sustainable. 1 Timothy shows Paul granting apostolic succession to Timothy in a bid to explain how the church would continue. Thus, it was established that through apostolic succession, the church would have new leaders elected, something that Paul wasn't worried about, considering he believed that Jesus was due to arrive at any given moment. That's why Paul advocated celibacy. If he saw Christianity as something that was going to need to be long term, he wouldn't have told people to do something that would kill off the religion. Instead, he told his followers only to marry if they had to.

Similarly, while Paul's canonical letters all address specific (or marginally specific) problems experienced by congregations, the deuterocanonical works all address problems within the larger Christian community as a whole. Things like apostolic succession and home rules, that needed to be established to continue the religion. It's likely that these teachings were based on oral traditions passed down by apostles other than Paul, but who knows.

However, yes, Galatians is in reference to the other apostles, including Peter. Initially, they were eating with the Gentiles, but when the Jews came, the other apostles bent to the pressure and began observing Jewish kosher law again, which Paul said set a bad example and a lack of faith. It was an argument between the groups, leading Paul to warn that nobody should listen to anyone who says differently than he says.

And you should read Revelations by Elaine Pagels. It puts into perspective the relation of Paul to Revelation. Remember that Revelation is essentially a coded message about the situation between the Christians and the Roman empire. Since the concept of the devil is so intrinsically linked to the notion that evil comes from within, early Christians who hated Paul's teachings saw Paul as the devil, and that he was opening the gates for the Romans and so on.
All of which is really a nice rationalization. And since you mention Elaine Pagels, now I know where you're coming from.
Sure, Paul rebuked Peter for being a hypocrit, but that doesn't make the entire letter a polemic against Peter. Remember, it was Peter who ratified the decision that, for Gentiles to be Christian, they only had to refrain from eating meat sacrificed to idols and strangled animals. So Peter already had made the decision that Gentiles could become Christians by simple baptism. No, Peter got criticized by some Jews for eating with Gentiles, and strayed from the Church's teaching. Paul rebuked him and brought him back in line.
Thanks, I will stick to those who were closer to the apostles, rather than trusting those who are so far removed from the apostles. You say that Paul's pastoral letters don't read like his earlier letters, well, my writing now doesn't read like my writing 25 years ago, either. Remember how many times Paul was whipped, scourged, shipwrecked, remember he begged God to remove the thorn. People mellow with age. Where's your evidence that Paul believed the world would be ending soon? Also, what's you're dating of the writing of Revelation? Paul died in 65-66.
 
Upvote 0

Jett Clark

Newbie
Jan 22, 2012
16
0
✟15,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
Oh, I don't believe that John Patmos was referring to Paul as a present problem, but as a problem whose influence continued to permeate the Christian community.

As far as the "People's writing/beliefs change as they age" argument, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. People don't suddenly change their entire belief system as they get older.

Therefore do not pronounce judgement before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God. (1 Corinthians 4.5)

Don't read that verse from the perspective of somebody reading it today. Imagine you were in Corinth, nearly 2,000 years ago, and that letter was read to your congregation. Paul, in addressing the congregation at Corinth, was speaking to them specifically, and saying that they needed to wait until "the Lord comes." This sort of thing is strewn about all through the Pauline epistles. It's all about pretending you are the original audience.
 
Upvote 0

Armistead14

Newbie
Mar 18, 2006
1,430
61
✟9,449.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Let's face it, hundreds if not thousands of gnostic writings were available.
The church picked out those that fit their beliefs and mashed them into the NT.

The issue we will always have debating inerrancy is if the author isn't really the author, then how can we trust the rest? The other problem is we tend to look through the lense of one book to help us interpret another. For instance, take 1 Tim. compared to 1 Cor., the views on women seem much different. It is clear Paul didn't write 1 Tim., so it would be wrong to use it to help interpret Paul's intentions in Cor.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jett Clark

Newbie
Jan 22, 2012
16
0
✟15,126.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
In Relationship
But how is it contradictory to admit the truth? Jesus Christ's message isn't dependant on the validity of 1 Timothy. The New Testament canon came about as a result of multiple figures attesting to their version of Christianity. Early church leaders like St. Irenaeus released compendiums like the famous Against Heresies, which was more or less a gigantic polemic against Gnosticism. Later Christian figures like Constantine helped to formulate a specific creed that would shut out other branches of Christianity, and finally St. Athanasius published what would become the first available list of canonical New Testament texts in 367 AD.

Does that mean there's anything wrong with what's in the New Testament canon? Yes and no. No, Paul didn't write the Pastoral Epistles, but the Pastoral Epistles contain what can largely be considered fantastic advice, and marvellous theology.

However, the Bible is not divine in origin, at least not in my opinion. To me, it fits in perfectly with Christian philosophy to accept this. After all, nobody's perfect, and Christ acknowledged this. We have all fallen short. If the Bible falls short in certain places, it's because it was written by men. The Bible is a testimony to God, but it's not God. In a sense, canonizing the New Testament the way we did has convinced many of us that the Bible is all God wants to say to us. I simply don't agree. In effect, I believe that "God is still breathing." For instance, the works of Polycarp, Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus and St. Ignatius are all amazing, and I don't understand why they're not used in more churches. However, none of these authors were perfect, and they're subject to the same sorts of errors that the canonized NT texts are. That's what makes Christianity such a journey.

Focusing too hard on protecting the Bible is missing the forest for the trees if you ask me. God cannot be contained, after all. Feel free to disagree.
 
Upvote 0