Who wrote the Bible?

[Blessedj01]

But how is it contradictory to admit the truth?

The truth according to you perhaps. It's not the truth for me. There's plenty of scriptural basis to reject this argument as well. For instance:

"Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." - Proverbs 30:6

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" - Revelation 22:18

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalms 12:6-7)

...I think it's inconsistent with God's word to assert that his word is pure and unchanging and then to assert that God doesn't have the power to protect his word and make sure it's presented to us as he intended.

I admit there are dodgy translations around but aside from that, generally the Word of God has remained the same for 2000 years. Are we really going to start saying the whole Bible might just be incorrect and based on what some politicians decided to compile together?

 

[Jett Clark]

The truth according to you perhaps. It's not the truth for me. There's plenty of scriptural basis to reject this argument as well. For instance:

"Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." - Proverbs 30:6

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" - Revelation 22:18

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalms 12:6-7)

...I think it's inconsistent with God's word to assert that his word is pure and unchanging and then to assert that God doesn't have the power to protect his word and make sure it's presented to us as he intended.

I admit there are dodgy translations around but aside from that, generally the Word of God has remained the same for 2000 years. Are we really going to start saying the whole Bible might just be incorrect and based on what some politicians decided to compile together?

I didn't say that the Bible is incorrect, but you're not looking at things in proper context. Revelation isn't referring to the Bible, Psalms isn't referring to the Bible, etc. Remember that the people writing these books didn't know they would be writing what would later be seen as scripture, and it's important not to take things so literally.

It's not a good critical method to reject the entire history of Christianity because some random verses might say so. The Bible is not a textbook, and you can't just ignore everything we've learned when it doesn't line up with a particular interpretation of scripture. After all, the Word of God is Jesus, not the Bible.

The Bible can't argue for itself. That's not how academia works. If we're going to argue historicity using scripture, the Qur'an has some scriptures about the Bible you might be interested in... It's imperative to look at all the facts and remove personal bias.

 

[Blessedj01]

I didn't say that the Bible is incorrect, but you're not looking at things in proper context.

Then what are you saying? If the books/words of the Bible are compromised then it can't be the actual Word of God.

Revelation isn't referring to the Bible, Psalms isn't referring to the Bible, etc.

I don't see how you can read that scripture and then come to those conclusions. The Bible is comprised of books like Revelation and Psalms.

Remember that the people writing these books didn't know they would be writing what would later be seen as scripture, and it's important not to take things so literally.

First of all, that's up for debate. We don't actually know what they thought - but we can infer a whole lot from what their words imply. It seems like what they wrote down was claiming to be inspired by God (either directly or in the wisdom provided to write it).

It's not a good critical method to reject the entire history of Christianity because some random verses might say so.

Random verses? Those verses (to me) are the inspired Word of God. They are very important and certainly not random. They are there to refute your argument.

The Bible is not a textbook, and you can't just ignore everything we've learned when it doesn't line up with a particular interpretation of scripture.

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I do know that what we've learned hasn't changed what the Bible is.

After all, the Word of God is Jesus, not the Bible.

Yes, but the Word is revealed to us in the Bible.

The Bible can't argue for itself. That's not how academia works.

What's the point of debating about academia when we're talking about a supernatural God?

If we're going to argue historicity using scripture,

We're not, but if you don't accept that the Bible is all intentional via the Holy Spirit, then you have to accept that it might be misrepresenting God. It may all even be completely false.

the Qur'an has some scriptures about the Bible you might be interested in...

...yes and they've been refuted and/or discussed at length to my satisfaction. The Qur'an isn't the Word of God.

It's imperative to look at all the facts and remove personal bias.

As a Christian, my "personal bias" is based on the entire Bible. Not just parts of it.

 

[Harry3142]

First, let me say that the OP seems to convey a desire to rewrite the Holy Bible, editing out those events, and even those doctrines, which a pacifist of today would not feel comfortable with. This is totally unacceptable. It is the fact that when we read Holy Writ we see it warts and all that gives it authenticity. Entire societies were eradicated in the OT because they had chosen to follow after Baal and Molech. Just because those events are deplored by some present-day people who are viewing them from a distance of 3,500 years should not mean that we are to erase all mention of their having occurred.

Personally, I accept that they did occur. That's how wars were fought in OT times. If a society had to be attacked, it was always to be in the form of total eradication and devastation. This was a common tactic, so the hebrews were by no means alone in their commission of it. And the societies which the hebrews were going among had a practice of human sacrifice which the hebrews would have to participate in if they went among them peacefully. Archeologists have even found the skeletons of children in the walls of houses built by the canaanites, who had placed those children there while the houses were being built in order to appease their gods. There would be no compromise between the hebrews and the canaanites; in order for one to live, the other had to die.

The events of the OT also serve as a warning to those of us who study the NT that God is compassionate, but he is not sentimentalistic. The expression, "It's my way or the highway," takes on a whole new meaning when it refers to our relationship with God. What occurred in the OT tells us clearly that God will not tolerate forever those people, or societies, who choose to turn away from him and follow after other gods. He is patient and kind with those who desire to do as he wants, even if they continually stumble and fall while trying to accomplish what he wants of them. But he is also willing to wipe from the face of the planet those societies which are so arrogant as to believe that they can decide what God himself will approve or disapprove of.

 

[Blessedj01]

First, let me say that the OP seems to convey a desire to rewrite the Holy Bible, editing out those events, and even those doctrines, which a pacifist of today would not feel comfortable with. This is totally unacceptable. It is the fact that when we read Holy Writ we see it warts and all that gives it authenticity. Entire societies were eradicated in the OT because they had chosen to follow after Baal and Molech. Just because those events are deplored by some present-day people who are viewing them from a distance of 3,500 years should not mean that we are to erase all mention of their having occurred.

Personally, I accept that they did occur. That's how wars were fought in OT times. If a society had to be attacked, it was always to be in the form of total eradication and devastation. This was a common tactic, so the hebrews were by no means alone in their commission of it. And the societies which the hebrews were going among had a practice of human sacrifice which the hebrews would have to participate in if they went among them peacefully. Archeologists have even found the skeletons of children in the walls of houses built by the canaanites, who had placed those children there while the houses were being built in order to appease their gods. There would be no compromise between the hebrews and the canaanites; in order for one to live, the other had to die.

The events of the OT also serve as a warning to those of us who study the NT that God is compassionate, but he is not sentimentalistic. The expression, "It's my way or the highway," takes on a whole new meaning when it refers to our relationship with God. What occurred in the OT tells us clearly that God will not tolerate forever those people, or societies, who choose to turn away from him and follow after other gods. He is patient and kind with those who desire to do as he wants, even if they continually stumble and fall while trying to accomplish what he wants of them. But he is also willing to wipe from the face of the planet those societies which are so arrogant as to believe that they can decide what God himself will approve or disapprove of.

That was a really great post.

 

[Jett Clark]

In reference again to Blessedj01, well, I see a few flaws in your thinking. First, you seem willing to take academia into account where the Qur'an is concerned, but not the Bible. Obviously I'm a Christian, and I tend to be biased towards the Bible, but saying "Well, it's perfect because I believe it's perfect" is not a healthy approach.

In that case, how do you reconcile the Bible's flaws? Genesis 1 and 2 offer different accounts of creation, each of the four Gospels has a completely different birth/tomb narrative, Chronicles and Samuel have Satan and God respectively telling David to take the census, Noah's Ark is based on an earlier Mesopotamian myth, Elhanan and David each kill Goliath, etc. These are a few picks off the top of an enormous pile.

What about moral issues like stoning people? Incest? Bears mauling children at God's command? What about the unmarried Ruth exposing Boaz's genitalia, and possibly more?

What about the author of Ecclesiastes pondering over whether or not there's an afterlife, concluding that there's no way to know?

Either we take into consideration that the Bible has been heavily influenced by men, or we bury our heads in the sand. The Bible is not a textbook. It's not a historical document. It's not a rulebook either. It's a book about God's love, and it is subject to the same flaws as anything else.

And Harry, the Bible is a series of continuing traditions and evolving beliefs. It's not fair to say that God punishes those who don't believe in Him when the earliest stories in the Bible were written by a society that didn't think that way. 7th century Israelites were henotheists who believed in many Gods, but that they were only to worship one. When one tribe defeated the other, the God of that other tribe had lost. Even in the Bible there is an account of a man sacrificing his son to Chemosh, an act so powerful that it invokes that God and causes the Israelites to fall back. The Ugaritic pantheon is really something more Christians should be aware of! After all, the whole of Mosaic Law was written in response to Mesopotamian worship practices. The whole of the Law is designed to drive out Mesopotamian cult practices in order to make sure that YHVH knew their allegiance was with Him.

 

[ebia]

What's interested me in reading the posts so far is that the posters from the more "liberal" (fid lack of a better word) end of the spectrum are just as dogmatic about their assumptions as those from the more "conservative" end. Even when it comes to hypotheses that cannot possible be proven, such as exactly what 7th century BC Israelites believed or what Revelation is talking about.

And the same interest in the wrong questions. "How many gods are there" isn't really a Hebrew question, it's a Greek question. "Who is YHWH" is the Hebrew question. What Goldingay calls mono-yahwehism, rather than mono-theism.

 

[Blessedj01]

In reference again to Blessedj01, well, I see a few flaws in your thinking. First, you seem willing to take academia into account where the Qur'an is concerned, but not the Bible.

I'm going to stop right here. You're just making assumptions. There is no actual proof for anything you've said thus far.

 

[Nephi]

The truth according to you perhaps. It's not the truth for me. There's plenty of scriptural basis to reject this argument as well. For instance:

"Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." - Proverbs 30:6

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" - Revelation 22:18

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalms 12:6-7)

...I think it's inconsistent with God's word to assert that his word is pure and unchanging and then to assert that God doesn't have the power to protect his word and make sure it's presented to us as he intended.

I admit there are dodgy translations around but aside from that, generally the Word of God has remained the same for 2000 years. Are we really going to start saying the whole Bible might just be incorrect and based on what some politicians decided to compile together?

1) When it says "this book," why do you apply that to your Bible (and not just Revelation)?
2) When it says "commands," why do you interpret that to mean your Bible?
3) When it says "words," why do you interpret that to mean your Bible?

This type of "proving" only works if there's an eternal Form/Type of the Bible (in this case Protestant) in some heavenly realm or the mind of God, which could then be used as the basis for universally applying verses across a collection of works written in wholly different periods of time by different authors and some without the knowledge of many of the others. Otherwise it's a case of putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Blessedj01]

1) When it says "this book," why do you apply that to your Bible (and not just Revelation)?

I don't, it's a duality. It's consistent with how the rest of the Bible references itself without specifically having knowledge of itself from the outset. The only explanation I can give is that God inspired it.

2) When it says "commands," why do you interpret that to mean your Bible?

I don't really understand your question, but I will say that the only record we have of God speaking to us (in the Christian faith at least) is recorded in the Bible.

3) When it says "words," why do you interpret that to mean your Bible?

You asking the same question three times or what?

This type of "proving" only works if there's an eternal Form/Type of the Bible (in this case Protestant) in some heavenly realm or the mind of God, which could then be used as the basis for universally applying verses across a collection of works written in wholly different periods of time by different authors and some without the knowledge of many of the others. Otherwise it's a case of putting the cart before the horse.

There's a school of investigation that affirms one's faith in the legitimacy for the claims that these books belong in the Bible. It's called Christian theology and while I'm no expert on it, plenty of people are convinced that it is supportable.

 

[dollarsbill]

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

It is!

 

[Nephi]

I don't really understand your question, but I will say that the only record we have of God speaking to us (in the Christian faith at least) is recorded in the Bible.

You asking the same question three times or what?

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you"
"Do not add to his words,"
"The words of the LORD"

My point is, why do you interpret each of these lines to mean your Protestant Bible, instead of the immediate context alone?

There's a school of investigation that affirms one's faith in the legitimacy for the claims that these books belong in the Bible. It's called Christian theology and while I'm no expert on it, plenty of people are convinced that it is supportable.

I'm not saying they don't belong in the Bible.

What I am saying is this:
If one wants to apply verses across the entire Bible universally that are general statements ("words," "commandments," "this book," etc.), then the book has to have existed eternally in a complete form for them to actually apply across the corpus of texts and authors.

So if it existed eternally in a complete form, then it has to exist as a (Platonic) Form/Type within God.

Thus, by applying such verses universally, the Bible has existed eternally as a Form. Otherwise the verses can only apply to the specific references they intended to make (Revelation about itself for example, not the entire Bible).

 

[Blessedj01]

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you"
"Do not add to his words,"
"The words of the LORD"

My point is, why do you interpret each of these lines to mean your Protestant Bible, instead of the immediate context alone?

Why? ...because I consider the entire Bible to be the "words of the Lord."

What I am saying is this:
If one wants to apply verses across the entire Bible universally that are general statements ("words," "commandments," "this book," etc.), then the book has to have existed eternally in a complete form for them to actually apply across the corpus of texts and authors.

You're misunderstanding how people interpret the Bible.

So if it existed eternally in a complete form, then it has to exist as a (Platonic) Form/Type within God.

Well yes, the principles of the Bible are eternally present in the character of God.

Thus, by applying such verses universally, the Bible has existed eternally as a Form. Otherwise the verses can only apply to the specific references they intended to make (Revelation about itself for example, not the entire Bible).

Well, God's plans have existed for eternity...before creation.

 

[Nephi]

You're misunderstanding how people interpret the Bible.

Can you explain why you think I'm misunderstanding?

Well yes, the principles of the Bible are eternally present in the character of God.

Well, God's plans have existed for eternity...before creation.

While my point may be wrong, I don't think I made myself any clearer since I think I still caused you to misunderstand. Unless you do think the Bible has existed eternally?

 

[Blessedj01]

Can you explain why you think I'm misunderstanding?

As I mentioned before, there is a school of study called Christian theology that investigates the Bible and it's scriptural interpretation. However further, the Bible is constantly re-affirming itself despite the fact that not all the writers were cross-referencing each other. The Bible is consistent throughout.

While my point may be wrong, I don't think I made myself any clearer since I still caused you to misunderstand.

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking but since I believe that God is the inspiration of all the books of the Bible, all his "words" have existed within his character and plans for humanity since before creation.

 

[Nephi]

As I mentioned before, there is a school of study called Christian theology that investigates the Bible and it's scriptural interpretation.

I know this. Are you implying that I'm outside of Christianity, or assuming I don't know the basics about theology? Because your tone comes across (perhaps unintentionally) as condescending.

Well, I'm not entirely sure what you are asking but since I believe that God is the inspiration of all the books of the Bible, all his "words" have existed within his character and plans for humanity since before creation.

Then you effectively do have a Platonic view about this. Interesting.

 

[Blessedj01]

I know this. Are you implying that I'm outside of Christianity, or assuming I don't know the basics about theology? Because your tone comes across (perhaps unintentionally) as condescending.

I had no intention of that. All i'm saying is that the scriptural interpretation I believe in has strong support within the community of Christian theologians, who are far more qualified than I am to explain the consistency of the Bible's continuity.

Then you effectively do have a Platonic view about this. Interesting.

I'm not sure what that means, but I do believe the Bible reflects God's character and it's the main medium through which He expresses his will to human beings.

 

[Nephi]

I had no intention of that. All i'm saying is that the scriptural interpretation I believe in has strong support within the community of Christian theologians, who are far more qualified than I am to explain the consistency of the Bible's continuity.

Fair enough. Sorry for mistaking your intent.

I'm not sure what that means, but I do believe the Bible reflects God's character and it's the main medium through which He expresses his will to human beings.

Well, the Greek philosopher Plato believed that everything tangible was an incarnation of relative Forms, which existed eternally, unchangingly, and perfectly in an intangible realm.

This has been Christianized and plays a role in a lot of Christian theology, where people apply the same thought (only replace "realm" with "God" since nothing exist eternally and independently of God).

Example: "Justice." Does justice truly eternally and unchangingly exist, without exception? In answering yes, many take the Platonic route and say its Form exists within God (or within the "Mind" of God), and so justice is not God's arbitrary feelings on it at the moment or whatever we deign it to be, but rather a real eternal standard.

I was more or less arguing that many Protestants apply the same reasoning to the Bible, which can be good or bad depending one one's perspective.

 

[Blessedj01]

Well, the Greek philosopher Plato believed that everything tangible was an incarnation of relative Forms, which existed eternally, unchangingly, and perfectly in an intangible realm.

This has been Christianized and plays a role in a lot of Christian theology, where people apply the same thought (only replace "realm" with "God" since nothing exist eternally and independently of God).

Well, I personally don't think it has been "Christianized."

 

[Nephi]

Well, I personally don't think it has been "Christianized."

I didn't mean "Christianized" dismissively or negatively.