NationStates Jolt Archive

When I was growing up in my Catholic family, I've always heard that while the Bible was written by men, the men were inspired by God. For a long time, I believe that to be true, and in some small part, still believe in that. However, as I got older, I started thinking and I started questioning whether or not the Bible was really a word of divine inspiration or simply a work of man. Of course, even if the Bible had divine inspiration, that only goes so far. It only goes so far because if we believe that God gives us free will, then those who penned the Bible must also have free will. So while the pen holders may have been inspired, they may have still put their own bias into the scriptures.

So the questions we have before us is the following.
Was the Bible a work of divine inspiration or simply a work of man?

If it was inspired by divinity, then how much of it can be contributed to said divine inspiration and how much of it can be contribute to the writer's mind?

Also, what about those books that didn't make it into the Bible, were they inspired by the divine, or were they simply work of man?

If the Bible was Divine Insperation, then lets hope God doesnt "inspire" any of society's great authors.

Chuck Norris wrote the Bible.

You are confusing Christianity with Islam.

You are confusing Christianity with Islam.

No hes not. People have always said the Bible was written by men inspired by God.

No hes not. People have always said the Bible was written by men inspired by God.

This is true. I mean, did God sit down with a typewriter one day and decide to churn out a bestseller?

My thoughts:

The Bible was written by men seeking to put down the word of God. However, they also put in their own biases, and beliefs. The Old testament (Excluding Genesis) is either Historic, with claimed acts of God (Undoubtedly to put the Israelites on the moral high ground), and outright propaganda. Genesis, I believe, is mostly true, although I have my doubts on the flood encompassing the entire world. The New testament is mostly true, the exception being anything written by Paul, who was a back-then fundie, complete with gay-hating, and corrupting what Jesus said from "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", to mounds of gay-hating and almost cult-like propaganda. The Catholic Church then had 1000 years in which they got to do whatever they wanted with the bible before the protestant reformation came along and forced them to get their act together.

So in other words: Take it with a grain of salt.

All of the old testament is either simply history or prophecy. The history is just facts, and obviously the prophecy came from God.
The new testament is four gospels and the book of Acts (which are just history), and the letters from the apostles to various churches (called epistles).
I personally believe that the epistles were inspired by God, but even if they weren't, they were written by the people who were closest to Jesus and are a lot more accurate than believing some of the new contradictory ideas coming from church leaders today.

All of the old testament is either simply history or prophecy. The history is just facts, and obviously the prophecy came from God.
The new testament is four gospels and the book of Acts (which are just history), and the letters from the apostles to various churches (called epistles).
I personally believe that the epistles were inspired by God, but even if they weren't, they were written by the people who were closest to Jesus and are a lot more accurate than believing some of the new contradictory ideas coming from church leaders today.

Never mind the fact that the Old Testament is often unforgivablly historically inaccurate.

Old Testament was history, with bits of prophecy mixed in here and there. And don't forget, it is the victory who writes the history. New Testament was actually true. However throughout the ages, the New Testament was edited by humans. Anyone know the original language the Bible was written in?

Edit: the bits about equality were taken out, pages against slavery were ripped out, (this is actually documented,) women's rights were taken out....

The Bible was obvioulsy written by man and inspired by those whom lived in the ealry ages whom were inspired by God. But if you are questioning the Bible's motives, you would find it compelling that the Bible is none other than a book meant to explain events that happened throughout histroy and, being a contextualist rather than a literalist, I assess that the stories within the Bible are mere metaphors, since, at the time, people had no real explanation (science) as to how things were created and why the world as it is today. Unless you are a literalist, view the Bible as a way to explain things when no better explanation was at societie's utilization.

The original language of the Bible is written in Arabaic, I believe. It was later translated into Latin and even later into English.

The original language of the Bible is written in Arabaic, I believe. It was later translated into Latin and even later into English.

Nope.


OT: Hebrew
NT: Greek

Edit: the bits about equality were taken out, pages against slavery were ripped out, (this is actually documented,) women's rights were taken out....

Show me where. Give me a link.

The original language of the Bible is written in Arabaic, I believe. It was later translated into Latin and even later into English.

Aramaic, perhaps?

Hebrew and Greek as well.

It's a book designed to guide and control superstitious people from 2000+ years ago. There's lots of good things in it, and lots of really outdated things, too.

The book, however, is not to blame for the way in which it is used by many charlatans looking for control in the modern world.

The original language of the Bible is written in Arabaic, I believe. It was later translated into Latin and even later into English.

No Aramaic was the spoken language at the time of Jesus.
Hebrew was the written language of the educated. And the language the old testament was written in.

Never mind the fact that the Old Testament is often unforgivably historically inaccurate.

Well, it was written thousands of years ago from the viewpoint of a particular people based on their understanding of events. I'm pretty sure even God would realize those limitations on human knowledge and would attempt to present his message in a manner understandable to those of the time.

Besides, it's utterly nonsensical to interpret the Bible literally.

This isn't a good topic for debate because only Christians (and Jews in the case of the OT) are inclined to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. And they do so on the basis of faith, which isn't subject to logical argumentation.

Suppose I say that Finnegans Wake is divinely inspired. Prove me wrong.

Nice job screwing with the advertisements, guys. Now I can learn Biblical Hebrew online.

Nice job screwing with the advertisements, guys. Now I can learn Biblical Hebrew online.

I can play Atlantica, the "best MMORPG online." Are we looking at the same page?

When I was growing up in my Catholic family, I've always heard that while the Bible was written by men, the men were inspired by God. For a long time, I believe that to be true, and in some small part, still believe in that. However, as I got older, I started thinking and I started questioning whether or not the Bible was really a word of divine inspiration or simply a work of man. Of course, even if the Bible had divine inspiration, that only goes so far. It only goes so far because if we believe that God gives us free will, then those who penned the Bible must also have free will. So while the pen holders may have been inspired, they may have still put their own bias into the scriptures.

So the questions we have before us is the following.
Was the Bible a work of divine inspiration or simply a work of man?

If it was inspired by divinity, then how much of it can be contributed to said divine inspiration and how much of it can be contribute to the writer's mind?

Also, what about those books that didn't make it into the Bible, were they inspired by the divine, or were they simply work of man?

All Right, I admit it. I wrote the Bible, okay. It was just a stupid prank that got out of hand, I never thought that this many people would fall for it.

Viewing Old and New Testaments as connected is a bit of a problem. If the Old Testament IS divinely inspired, then the New Testament is entirely the work of man. If the Old Testament is partly inspired, then the New can be partly inspired.

There is no way that the New Testament is inspired. It contradicts the Old Testament far too much, and yet claims to follow-on from it. The New Testament must be all or mostly fiction, or the accounts of liars.

There's no real reason to believe ANY of it is 'inspired'.

Viewing Old and New Testaments as connected is a bit of a problem. If the Old Testament IS divinely inspired, then the New Testament is entirely the work of man. If the Old Testament is partly inspired, then the New can be partly inspired.

There is no way that the New Testament is inspired. It contradicts the Old Testament far too much, and yet claims to follow-on from it. The New Testament must be all or mostly fiction, or the accounts of liars.

There's no real reason to believe ANY of it is 'inspired'.

There's also the fact that there's two creation story....

Japanese sexy women.

(Just trying to fix the adverts).

There's also the fact that there's two creation story....
god can have inspired 2 different creation stories without having either of them being true.

inspiration doesnt mean that the stories have to be literally true.

Viewing Old and New Testaments as connected is a bit of a problem. If the Old Testament IS divinely inspired, then the New Testament is entirely the work of man. If the Old Testament is partly inspired, then the New can be partly inspired.

There is no way that the New Testament is inspired. It contradicts the Old Testament far too much, and yet claims to follow-on from it. The New Testament must be all or mostly fiction, or the accounts of liars.

There's no real reason to believe ANY of it is 'inspired'.

Maybe you're reading the word "inspired" incorrectly. When a movie says it's "inspired by a true story," that means it vaguely resembles something that happened. Or maybe it's like how Charles Manson was "inspired" by the White Album.

How I see the Old and New Testament is that they are both divinely inspired texts written down by men, thus due to error, much as when you dictate a message and have someone else write it, mistakes can happen due to human imperfection. However, as a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the best representative of God's will for humanity. Furthermore the Old Testament is all about the letter[I] of the Law and the New Testament concerns the [I]spirit of the law. God gave Israel the rules; the Israelites mess up. God sends prophets... Scripture reveals how well that worked. The later prophets, as well as Christ, really focus on the spirit of the law. Christ's life, as told by the Gospels, thus becomes the ultimate realisation of the spirit of the law lived out. No wonder Christ stated he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it! The spirit, or penumbras, if you will, of the Old Testament Law and prophets is agape- in Greek it is the highest form of love as it is self sacrificing love for others.

But I am a Christian, as previously stated, and that is how I was raised and what I choose to believe, what your opinions are are up to you.

Nobody seems to be asking why a divine being would even care to write down his/hers/its commandments instead of bestowing instant knowledge to his "chosen" or all people of the world for that matter.As for the ripped passages of the new testament I suppose you refer to the Apocrypha or should I say Pseudepigrapha,too bad the epistles of Paul and standard gospels state clearly the inferiority of women and the "chosen" status of Israelites.
P.S. As if ANYTHING can be divinely inspired!Man created many things,one of them was/is religion.

This topic needs a link to bible errata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata). If the bible was godmade, wouldnt there be no errata needed?

Viewing Old and New Testaments as connected is a bit of a problem. If the Old Testament IS divinely inspired, then the New Testament is entirely the work of man. If the Old Testament is partly inspired, then the New can be partly inspired.

There is no way that the New Testament is inspired. It contradicts the Old Testament far too much, and yet claims to follow-on from it. The New Testament must be all or mostly fiction, or the accounts of liars.

There's no real reason to believe ANY of it is 'inspired'.

Well it doesn't exactly follow on from it. First of all the NT apart from the Gospel books and Acts are letters. Now how can letters be untrue? Maybe the things written in the letters by people not by God something which people wouldn't say was written by God, these things inside are really based on someones opinion.

Of curse the NT contradicts what the OT has to say the OT is based on the Jewish faith now Jesus was throwing a lot of these rules out the window and bringing in new rules and a different way of life (part of the reason why the Jewish High priests wanted him killed).

And the thing to remember is that the OT was written for the Jews and so has a Jewish bias in and is written from the eyes of the different Jews that wrote it.

Nobody seems to be asking why a divine being would even care to write down his/hers/its commandments instead of bestowing instant knowledge to his "chosen" or all people of the world for that matter.As for the ripped passages of the new testament I suppose you refer to the Apocrypha or should I say Pseudepigrapha,too bad the epistles of Paul and standard gospels state clearly the inferiority of women and the "chosen" status of Israelites.
P.S. As if ANYTHING can be divinely inspired!Man created many things,one of them was/is religion.

Nobody seems to be asking why a divine being would give a shit about a bunch of insects.

This topic needs a link to bible errata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata). If the bible was godmade, wouldnt there be no errata needed?

Well, that can be easily explained by the fallibility of man...

Archaeologists now figure that at the very least, four separate authors wrote the books that would later be combined into the Torah. They call this the "documentary hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis)". It's a rather interesting and well filled out theory, and it goes along way to explaining why there are such vast discrepancies and internal contradictions within the Torah.

The NT was a bunch of letters and gospels and whatnot. It basically revolves around a guy named Jesus who, according to the bible, was born, grew up, performed maracles, was crucified for basically calling himself the king of the Jews (crucified for treason, basically), and came back to life three days later.

The OT, imo, is basically a history of the Jewish faith. Parts might be traditional stories that somebody decided needed to be written down. It makes the NT make more sense.

Here's a helpful explanation (http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_58.asp) from Jack Chick's website that explains why the King James Bible is the only version of the perfect, infallible Word of God™.

QUESTION: How many mistakes are there in the King James Bible?

ANSWER: None.

EXPLANATION: None.

QUESTION: What about a contradiction that can't be successfully explained?

ANSWER: You will have to accept the perfection of the Authorized Version by faith.

It was written by leaders wanting to control people.

It was written by men who where.. ahem... "Inspired by God".


I won't take it too seriously until God writes one himself.

Nobody seems to be asking why a divine being would give a shit about a bunch of insects.

It can be quite dull being a divine being. Thus it bought a copy of Spore to pass the time.

It was inspired by God, but I don't think He was dictating the precise contents of it.

He had a holy ghost writer.

Well it doesn't exactly follow on from it. First of all the NT apart from the Gospel books and Acts are letters. Now how can letters be untrue? Maybe the things written in the letters by people not by God something which people wouldn't say was written by God, these things inside are really based on someones opinion.


I once read a book - which I'm afraid I can't remember, for the life of me - that was about a sick little girl in hospital. She spends all her time wrtining letters, so the book is - really - a story, entirely in the form of fictional letters.

Letters don't have to be 'true', because they don't have to be 'real'.

When we talk about the NT epistles, we're talking about 'letters' between people we can't even be sure existed.


Of curse the NT contradicts what the OT has to say the OT is based on the Jewish faith now Jesus was throwing a lot of these rules out the window and bringing in new rules and a different way of life (part of the reason why the Jewish High priests wanted him killed).


If he existed, the reason why they would have wanted him killed, would be that fact that his is an idolator, by OT standards, and clearly matches the OT description of a False Prophet.

But, that's not where the OT and the NT contradict (well, it's among the many reasons). They contradict much more strongly on elements like the Creation myth, the Post-Hellenistic images of heaven and salvation, and the fact that Jesus completely fails to meet the Hebrew requirements for Messiah... and yet the text claims him as a fulfillment.

Either the OT is right, and the NT lies... or the OT is wrong, and the NT is BASED on Hebrew lies.


And the thing to remember is that the OT was written for the Jews and so has a Jewish bias in and is written from the eyes of the different Jews that wrote it.

That still wouldn't explain why the accounts contradict one another. Hell, they contradict themselves, internally.

If these books are 'inspired by god'... that god must be pretty schizophrenic.

He had a holy ghost writer.

UGH!

Thou Shalt Not Pun!

A bunch of old men a few thousand years ago, to control the stupid.

A bunch of old men a few thousand years ago, to control the stupid.

Why were they stupid? We can look back now, with the benefit of both hindsight and science to find perfectly rational explanations for most of the things that were pure miracle or magic 2000+ years ago. The control part, I agree with, but stupid? No. They were uninformed, either by circumstance or deliberately (the latter being essential to many forms of control).

Well, no matter who wrote it, the fact remains that the Bible is, to date, the Best Best Seller of all time and for that, I must extend my kudos.

For the old testament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis#See_also

It was written by Luntatic Goofballs. *nod*

It was written by Luntatic Goofballs. *nod*

Blasphemy! It doesn't read like a Three Stooges short. :(

It can be quite dull being a divine being. Thus it bought a copy of Spore to pass the time.

lol. You win.

It was written by Luntatic Goofballs. *nod*

Say, that actually makes a lot of sense. *nod*

Say, that actually makes a lot of sense. *nod*

*nod nod nod*

It was written by Luntatic Goofballs. *nod*

*searches the online Bibles for telltales*

Sorry. No results found for "custard" in Keyword Search.
Sorry. No results found for "balloon" in Keyword Search.
Sorry. No results found for "clown" in Keyword Search

Fraid not ;)

Well, no matter who wrote it, the fact remains that the Bible is, to date, the Best Best Seller of all time and for that, I must extend my kudos.

And #2 is Quotations from Mao Tse-Tung. Forcible indoctrination must be a good business model.

And #2 is Quotations from Mao Tse-Tung. Forcible indoctrination must be a good business model.

Agreed.

Now how can letters be untrue?
When they aren't even by the people they claim to be by.

When they aren't even by the people they claim to be by.
and when the things they claimed happened never happened.

Nobody seems to be asking why a divine being would give a shit about a bunch of insects.

Or how he made them fuck on a boat

Or how he made them fuck on a boat

And with only 2 of a species.

And with only 2 of a species.

And a 50 mile long warehouse in tow to store all the food they'd need to feed so many species.

Let us first look at the Books of the Bible. They are attributed to being written by humans with an average 200 year span from events to recording. What was included in the Bible itself was decided upon by a conference held by the Catholic Church, which it is well known that certain gospels were not included, such as the Gnostic Gospels, Gospels of St. Thomas, etc. So that makes the Bible a series of subjective books that were subjectively chosen.

So that makes the Bible a series of subjective books that were subjectively chosen.

Yes, chosen by many years of Church Councils throughout the centuries and blood-shed galore. You´re right in that count.

When they aren't even by the people they claim to be by.

Not all but they were of the disciples of the individual people.

Let us first look at the Books of the Bible. They are attributed to being written by humans with an average 200 year span from events to recording. What was included in the Bible itself was decided upon by a conference held by the Catholic Church, which it is well known that certain gospels were not included, such as the Gnostic Gospels, Gospels of St. Thomas, etc. So that makes the Bible a series of subjective books that were subjectively chosen.

Well the Gospels weren't written that long after John was th4e latest which was only about 40 years after the approximate death of Jesus.

But yes the bible is a collection of books, rather than a single book.

*searches the online Bibles for telltales*

Sorry. No results found for "custard" in Keyword Search.
Sorry. No results found for "balloon" in Keyword Search.
Sorry. No results found for "clown" in Keyword Search

Fraid not ;)

*shakes head*
you forgot to translate to Aramaic.
Results 1 - 10 of about 212,000,000 for "jesus"
Results 1 - 10 of about 226,000,000 for "heaven"
Results 1 - 10 of about 539,000,000 for "god"

Anyway . . .on a more serious note IF the arc were a true story (its fairly well documented that its not .. .) there would be some pretty clear genetic markers that, just a little while ago (relatively speaking) each existant species today has 2 recent common ancestors . . .though I guess if your a biblical literalistic you could just ignore the science? (also the physics its not physically possible to build A wooden boat that could survive in the open seas and still be big enough to hold 2 of each animal, their feed and food for the human complement of the ship.)

Anyway . . .on a more serious note IF the arc were a true story (its fairly well documented that its not .. .) there would be some pretty clear genetic markers that, just a little while ago (relatively speaking) each existant species today has 2 recent common ancestors . . .though I guess if your a biblical literalistic you could just ignore the science? (also the physics its not physically possible to build A wooden boat that could survive in the open seas and still be big enough to hold 2 of each animal, their feed and food for the human complement of the ship.)

indeed that's if you are going to take the bible as meaning exactly what it means in the world of today and literally.

It's funny. I had to read several parts of the Bible for my Medieval Art classes. I thought it was a good historical record of the Hebrew, nothing more. Granted, it has it's fantasy element, but one cannot take that book literally.

The only reason I red it was because without it, one cannot understand Medieval art and architecture.

And a 50 mile long warehouse in tow to store all the food they'd need to feed so many species.

Lets not forget that there isn't enough water on earth for a global deluge.

Apparently the bible has always been intended to be in english...

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_07.asp

Apparently the bible has always been intended to be in english...

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_07.asp

I spy a shoddy xenophobic argument.

I could waste some expensive Logic missiles in destroying it but its much more efficient to let a small breeze blow it over.

I spy a shoddy xenophobic argument.

I could waste some expensive Logic missiles in destroying it but its much more efficient to let a small breeze blow it over.

If you believe logic works with Chick and other KJV Bible freaks you haven't been paying attention.

Lets not forget that there isn't enough water on earth for a global deluge.

That too. :p

Apparently the bible has always been intended to be in english...

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_07.asp

Wow... I actually read that...So following his logic, if Yahweh intended for the Bible to be in one language only, then why is the OT written in Hebrew and the NT written in Greek? Also, if he intended them to never be translated into any other languages, then why didn't he smite anyone who tried to translate them?

Just some small observation I've made.

Wow... I actually read that...So following his logic, if Yahweh intended for the Bible to be in one language only, then why is the OT written in Hebrew and the NT written in Greek? Also, if he intended them to never be translated into any other languages, then why didn't he smite anyone who tried to translate them?

Just some small observation I've made.

Indeed, the Bible has been translated in every language there is. If the logic in that article is to be believed, all those who've translated the Bible around the centuries should be all dead. Smitten by the Hand of God.

Indeed, the Bible has been translated in every language there is. If the logic in that article is to be believed, all those who've translated the Bible around the centuries should be all dead. Smitten by the Hand of God.

At least divine intervention, like a heart attack while penning a translation of the Bible.

At least divine intervention, like a heart attack while penning a translation of the Bible.

Well Willy-kun, I didn't mean exactly a Holy Hand comming down from Heaven to squish the translator.:p But yes, something along your line of thinking.

Wow... I actually read that...So following his logic, if Yahweh intended for the Bible to be in one language only, then why is the OT written in Hebrew and the NT written in Greek? Also, if he intended them to never be translated into any other languages, then why didn't he smite anyone who tried to translate them?

Just some small observation I've made.

More fundamentally - if 'god' only wanted the text to be in one language for all the world, why scatter the people and confuse their tongues, in Genesis?

I think that the Bible was written by a bunch of barbarians/philosophers who were trying to explain the Genesis of the world. Ironically, they all ended up believing the crap they wrote themselves.

It was written by leaders wanting to control people.
^this
Indeed, the Bible has been translated in every language there is. If the logic in that article is to be believed, all those who've translated the Bible around the centuries should be all dead. Smitten by the Hand of God.


godhatestranslators.com

Somebody call Fred Phelps!

godhatestranslators.com

Somebody call Fred Phelps!

Which means He hates me because that's one of my functions at my job. :p

Which means He hates me because that's one of my functions at my job. :p

Yes Nanatsu... god hates you

check this -> www.godhatesnanatsunotsuki.com

but the rest of us love you.:wink:

I think that the Bible was written by a bunch of barbarians/philosophers who were trying to explain the Genesis of the world. Ironically, they all ended up believing the crap they wrote themselves.

Which would only explain one book.

The Bible was written by a time-travelling Hitler, frustrated at failing in his attempts to bring about the persecution and killing of Jews and homosexuals.

Before anyone goes off on one, I'm being silly, not trying to offend:p