Who wrote the Bible? simple question. simple answer?

I didn't know until probably a few minutes ago that there are actually two views on this. One is that God wrote it through Man. The second is that Man wrote it thinking it was God's Will Godly men wrote it.


aaaaaaaaaannddd GO

47.5 wrote:

I didn't know until probably a few minutes ago that there are actually two views on this. One is that God wrote it through Man. The second is that Man wrote it thinking it was God's Will.
aaaaaaaaaannddd GO

Well, the way you put that second view is a little ambiguous.
You said: "thinking it was God's will".
That opens up a door of all kinds of spin-offs.

And are we talking Old Testament or New Testament or the entire thing?

I'll answer for how I think I feel about the Entire Bible:
"Godly men wrote the Bible."
It is a great tool and reference - when combined with the Church, not alone -
for becoming more Christ-like.

Fair enough?

BeMyIcon wrote:

"Godly men wrote the Bible."

Wouldn't the idea of man writing the Bible throw off its accuracy by a substantial amount?

47.5 wrote:

BeMyIcon wrote:

"Godly men wrote the Bible."

Wouldn't the idea of man writing the Bible throw off its accuracy by a substantial amount?

Absolutely.
Now you're starting to see where I'm coming from.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Absolutely.
Now you're starting to see where I'm coming from.

But do you know the repercussions that follow from claiming that as what you believe? How do you trust any of the Bible at all?

47.5 wrote:

BeMyIcon wrote:

Absolutely.
Now you're starting to see where I'm coming from.

But do you know the repercussions that follow from claiming that as what you believe? How do you trust any of the Bible at all?

That's why we have the Church.
LOL.

Don't you see how it keeps going back to that?

BeMyIcon wrote:

That's why we have the Church.
LOL.

Don't you see how it keeps going back to that?

No no no the Church defines what they believe off of the Bible; not the other way around.


and I just realized HTML is allowed on here now. Ballin.

---

yeah I can make lines. woot. HTML makes things so much easier for me.

47.5 wrote:

BeMyIcon wrote:

That's why we have the Church.
LOL.

Don't you see how it keeps going back to that?

No no no the Church defines what they believe off of the Bible; not the other way around.


and I just realized HTML is allowed on here now. Ballin.

---

yeah I can make lines. woot. HTML makes things so much easier for me.

This is getting so silly.
I understand that's part of what you've been taught as an Evangelical,
but with all due respect, it's not true.
Maybe you should stop capitalizing "Church" and say, "my church",
because then I would agree with you.
Because that's not at all how the Catholic Church (the one who put together the Bible) works.

Know what I mean?

BeMyIcon wrote:

This is getting so silly.
I understand that's part of what you've been taught as an Evangelical,
but with all due respect, it's not true.
Maybe you should stop capitalizing "Church" and say, "my church",
because then I would agree with you.
Because that's not at all how the Catholic Church (the one who put together the Bible) works.

Know what I mean?

But I thought that the Bible was basically the text book for Christianity. The teacher (Church) looks at it to teach off of... I thought that's just how it worked. But if you listen to the Church instead of the Bible, then how do you know the information you are getting is correct?

Bible=straight from God
Church=third party interpreter?

47.5 wrote:

BeMyIcon wrote:

This is getting so silly.
I understand that's part of what you've been taught as an Evangelical,
but with all due respect, it's not true.
Maybe you should stop capitalizing "Church" and say, "my church",
because then I would agree with you.
Because that's not at all how the Catholic Church (the one who put together the Bible) works.

Know what I mean?

But I thought that the Bible was basically the text book for Christianity. The teacher (Church) looks at it to teach off of... I thought that's just how it worked. But if you listen to the Church instead of the Bible, then how do you know the information you are getting is correct?

Bible=straight from God
Church=third party interpreter?

I understand what you're saying. Really, I do.
That's what I thought for the first 32 years of my life.

The Bible IS the textbook for Christianity.
We, as its students, are screwed unless we have a teacher.
A teacher doesn't just hand his student a textbook and say, "Here, learn this".
No.
They ALSO teach it to the young minds.
The difference is, this isn't a classroom setting.
Luckily, we have a tradition of catechism that was around WAY before the Bible was assembled,
and these "teachers" (priests, deacons, etc.) learn the Catholic Catechism, not just study Theology.
Which is why I believe a combination of the teaching of the Church and Holy Scripture is "the way to go".
LOL.


Weird.....it will not capitalize the "S" in Scripture (above) no matter how many times I change it...very odd.

BeMyIcon wrote:

I understand what you're saying. Really, I do.
That's what I thought for the first 32 years of my life.

The Bible IS the textbook for Christianity.
We, as its students, are screwed unless we have a teacher.
A teacher doesn't just hand his student a textbook and say, "Here, learn this".
No.
They ALSO teach it to the young minds.
The difference is, this isn't a classroom setting.
Luckily, we have a tradition of catechism that was around WAY before the Bible was assembled,
and these "teachers" (priests, deacons, etc.) learn the Catholic Catechism, not just study Theology.
Which is why I believe a combination of the teaching of the Church and Holy Scripture is "the way to go".

I take information from multiple resources and compare it to the Bible to test its accuracy. You're just listening to the Church.

It's like doing a research paper but only having one source. With multiple sources, you will have a much better chance at having a higher grade. The Church could be wikipedia. Wikipedia is a very large source and sometimes can cover everything you need to know, however, sometimes (although very rare) wikipedia will have a mistake. If you invest too much into just one source, you have the chance of losing it all. You don't lose a thing if you have 5 sources and every one of them says the same thing. You gain security, though.

47.5 wrote:

BeMyIcon wrote:

I understand what you're saying. Really, I do.
That's what I thought for the first 32 years of my life.

The Bible IS the textbook for Christianity.
We, as its students, are screwed unless we have a teacher.
A teacher doesn't just hand his student a textbook and say, "Here, learn this".
No.
They ALSO teach it to the young minds.
The difference is, this isn't a classroom setting.
Luckily, we have a tradition of catechism that was around WAY before the Bible was assembled,
and these "teachers" (priests, deacons, etc.) learn the Catholic Catechism, not just study Theology.
Which is why I believe a combination of the teaching of the Church and Holy Scripture is "the way to go".

I take information from multiple resources and compare it to the Bible to test its accuracy. You're just listening to the Church.

It's like doing a research paper but only having one source. With multiple sources, you will have a much better chance at having a higher grade. The Church could be wikipedia. Wikipedia is a very large source and sometimes can cover everything you need to know, however, sometimes (although very rare) wikipedia will have a mistake. If you invest too much into just one source, you have the chance of losing it all. You don't lose a thing if you have 5 sources and every one of them says the same thing. You gain security, though.

Well, I agree with that for the most part.
But having multiple choices also increases the risk of bad advice.

And I'm talking strictly "catechism" here, as well.
If any of those sources of mine says something that's clearly against the teachings of the Church,
then I'm out.

I don't as of yet buy the "Mary being sinless" "thing".
But here's the way I view it, which maybe can give you a little more insight into how I approach Christianity
and where I get my ideas:
The Catholic Church believes Mary to be sinless (as did Martin Luther).
I was raised to basically hate Mary and regard her as nothing.
Accepting the concept of her sinless life is not something that I think I will ever do.
But I hope I do, because I know that it's been generally assumed that she WAS from day one,
and there is testimony after testimony about how that allows you to see the Gospels in a different light
and to see the nature of Jesus more clearly, thus leading to a closer relationship and a general better life.

But the Church could be wrong.

At the end of the day, Mary being sinless does not detract from anything that Jesus tried to do.
And I think that's the whole point.

Please try to find something in there that is on-topic.
LOL.
I'm trying!

BeMyIcon wrote:

Well, I agree with that for the most part.
But having multiple choices also increases the risk of bad advice.

Yeah, but I sift through the bad advice and only accept the sources that agree with the Bible. If it goes against what the Bible says in any way, then it is instantly cast out.

BeMyIcon wrote:

And I'm talking strictly "catechism" here, as well.

What is Catechism anyway?

BeMyIcon wrote:

If any of those sources of mine says something that's clearly against the teachings of the Church,
then I'm out.

Alright. So my base of knowledge and accuracy is the Bible. Yours is the Church.

BeMyIcon wrote:

I don't as of yet buy the "Mary being sinless" "thing".

I accept every bit of the Bible and I believe it is impossible to ignore one verse or thought. If the Church is your base of accuracy, wouldn't you have to buy that idea regardless? I read the thing below, but that still does not justify this.

BeMyIcon wrote:

But here's the way I view it, which maybe can give you a little more insight into how I approach Christianity
and where I get my ideas:
The Catholic Church believes Mary to be sinless (as did Martin Luther).
I was raised to basically hate Mary and regard her as nothing.
Accepting the concept of her sinless life is not something that I think I will ever do.
But I hope I do, because I know that it's been generally assumed that she WAS from day one,
and there is testimony after testimony about how that allows you to see the Gospels in a different light
and to see the nature of Jesus more clearly, thus leading to a closer relationship and a general better life.

But the Church could be wrong.

At the end of the day, Mary being sinless does not detract from anything that Jesus tried to do.
And I think that's the whole point.

Please try to find something in there that is on-topic.
LOL.
I'm trying!

Eh... I would ask question about Mary but we would get way too off topic.

Quote :

What is Catechism anyway?

As far as I understand it, it's "What Catholics Believe".
I have a copy of it somewhere, but since the move, I haven't found it.
Bad Christian!
LOL.

Quote :

Alright. So my base of knowledge and accuracy is the Bible. Yours is the Church.

Yep.
And that's the central point to every debate we're going to have, I think.

Quote :

I accept every bit of the Bible and I believe it is impossible to ignore one verse or thought. If the Church is your base of accuracy, wouldn't you have to buy that idea regardless?

Yes, I would.
But 32 years of being told something does not go away that easily.
Have you MET my mother?
LOL.

Quote :

Eh... I would ask question about Mary but we would get way too off topic.

Well, there's a whole thread dedicated to that.
But I'm not very educated on the "defense" of that doctrine.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Yep.
And that's the central point to every debate we're going to have, I think.

Alright well... I don't think it's even possible for us to debate any thing since it always leads to this...

i think this is a pretty obvious answer but... humans were created to bring glory to god.

just thinking about this logically, god works through people... people dont do things on their own. When i evangelize, and somebody comes to christ, it wasnt me that did it, it was bound to happen. God did it and he did it through me. Why? because he wants us to and us doing that brings glory to him.

getting back to the main point, people didnt write the bible. God wouldnt trust man with our complete guide book and arguably our largest connection to understanding god. He worked through these people to write the bible.

phe wrote:

i think this is a pretty obvious answer but... humans were created to bring glory to god.

just thinking about this logically, god works through people... people dont do things on their own. When i evangelize, and somebody comes to christ, it wasnt me that did it, it was bound to happen. God did it and he did it through me. Why? because he wants us to and us doing that brings glory to him.

getting back to the main point, people didnt write the bible. God wouldnt trust man with our complete guide book and arguably our largest connection to understanding god. He worked through these people to write the bible.

I agree 100% with this post except for the part in bold.
We can talk "mystically" all we want, and that's GREAT,
but God did NOT take a pen and paper and write these books.
That's the point I was making earlier to open up another point.
(And that's the same argument evangelicals use when debating with Catholics about
the Eucharist "actually being the Body and Blood of Christ", by the way.---Being "logical" and all that.)

Well, you can't do that with God, and I get that.
I'm just not on board with the Bible AS IS being infallible or not contradictory.

The Bible came after the Church but it was being put together before the Church came about. The answer in my opinion is this simple the Bible is stories handed down generation after generation to show God’s people how He loved and took care of them. Kinda like if you sit at a family reunion and listen to your grandparents tell a story about what life was like back in there day. But yes the stories were put together in a book after the Church came in the picture. Wether it is accurate or not I don’t know. But that is a whole new question.

Nicole wrote:

The Bible came after the Church but it was being put together before the Church came about. The answer in my opinion is this simple the Bible is stories handed down generation after generation to show God’s people how He loved and took care of them. Kinda like if you sit at a family reunion and listen to your grandparents tell a story about what life was like back in there day. But yes the stories were put together in a book after the Church came in the picture. Wether it is accurate or not I don’t know. But that is a whole new question.

Best post yet.
Period.

Nice job.

BeMyIcon wrote:

phe wrote:

i think this is a pretty obvious answer but... humans were created to bring glory to god.

just thinking about this logically, god works through people... people dont do things on their own. When i evangelize, and somebody comes to christ, it wasnt me that did it, it was bound to happen. God did it and he did it through me. Why? because he wants us to and us doing that brings glory to him.

getting back to the main point, people didnt write the bible. God wouldnt trust man with our complete guide book and arguably our largest connection to understanding god. He worked through these people to write the bible.

I agree 100% with this post except for the part in bold.
We can talk "mystically" all we want, and that's GREAT,
but God did NOT take a pen and paper and write these books.
That's the point I was making earlier to open up another point.
(And that's the same argument evangelicals use when debating with Catholics about
the Eucharist "actually being the Body and Blood of Christ", by the way.---Being "logical" and all that.)

Well, you can't do that with God, and I get that.
I'm just not on board with the Bible AS IS being infallible or not contradictory.

honestly thats really scary and i wouldnt go around telling non-christian people that cuz you can and will do a lot of damage. Your idolotry of the church lack of the value of gods word is simply not christian and is obviously herecy to say that every word of the bible isn't true.

The bible says in the beginning there was the word and god was the word and he was with the word. Every word is of God and i think what your doing is putting people on the same level as God when in reality we aren't even a fraction

47.5 wrote:

phe wrote:

honestly thats really scary and i wouldnt go around telling non-christian people that cuz you can and will do a lot of damage. Your idolotry of the church lack of the value of gods word is simply not christian and is obviously herecy to say that every word of the bible isn't true.

The bible says in the beginning there was the word and god was the word and he was with the word. Every word is of God and i think what your doing is putting people on the same level as God when in reality we aren't even a fraction

BeMyIcon wrote:

Best post yet.
Period.

lol ty ...

you agree right?

phe wrote:

you agree right?

yeah. that was just the thing that I keep saying except with balls

47.5 wrote:

phe wrote:

you agree right?

yeah. that was just the thing that I keep saying except with balls

balls are necessary when your talking about god TO CHRISTIANS

Yeah I think God wrote it thru people, but I as a Christian am somewhat troubled with how it was put together. Why were some books left out? Why is the Catholic book larger? Who decided some 300+ years after Christ's death which accounts of His life were acceptable and which were heresy? Why do scholars think that Matthew has been doctored? Why does Paul contradict himself on the role of women in the church in Romans and Timothy? (Some scholars believe that Timothy was not written by Paul, but someone else). What about this ancient bible that is being released for public viewing that has been kept private, mostly in Russia? According to an article I read in the paper, Matthew ends abruptly after Christ's death.

I bring those things up not because I expect an answer, but because I do feel that man has his dirty fingerprints on the bible. The thing is, God speaks to all of us differently when we read His word. He reveals to us what He wants us to see. However, the bible can also be used by bad people for causes of manipulation, such as the justification of owning slaves in 1800's America.

I think there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in churches which is dangerous and confusing. All the denominational squabbling detracts from what should be the central message--salvation through Christ Jesus. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's most important what God speaks to us personally through the bible. That's how I see it, anyway.

To me, God's more personal. A pastor at a church I went to recently said that you can't "feel" God, and that God can only be understood by what is in the bible. I don't think that's true. What's the Holy Spirit for, if not to "feel" God? I think all this works together when reading the bible. We should also be praying for understanding as we read.

my 2 cents.

Playing With Uranium wrote:

I think there's a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in churches which is dangerous and confusing. All the denominational squabbling detracts from what should be the central message--salvation through Christ Jesus. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's most important what God speaks to us personally through the bible. That's how I see it, anyway.

To me, God's more personal. A pastor at a church I went to recently said that you can't "feel" God, and that God can only be understood by what is in the bible. I don't think that's true. What's the Holy Spirit for, if not to "feel" God? I think all this works together when reading the bible. We should also be praying for understanding as we read.

my 2 cents.

And your two cents is worth a lot.

Wow, I'm really not that creative with one-liners, am I?



You hit it right on the head, though.
The argument is not "was it written by man or God and is it Inspired or not".
Or at least it shouldn't be.

The Holy Spirit is Jesus, and interacting with God and his other children needs to be our main focus.
I mean, let's say something awful and corrupt is exposed, and shows that the Bible was somehow
secretly changed by crazy government people.
Does the Bible then lose its credibility?
Of course not.
The message is the same, and it's about God's love, Jesus's commitment to us, and us serving Him
by serving others.
Sure, there's more there, but those are the things I try to remind my self many times daily.
Everything else is [sometimes] fun intellectual bullshit.

Amen.




EDIT: And thanks for posting!

I know this is going to lead to another big discussion that gets us nowhere, and even though I hate to do it, I'm going to follow through with this post.


If you can't trust the Bible, how can you trust the Church (the possibly corrupt association behind the alleged flaws in the Bible)?

47.5 wrote:

I know this is going to lead to another big discussion that gets us nowhere, and even though I hate to do it, I'm going to follow through with this post.


If you can't trust the Bible, how can you trust the Church (the possibly corrupt association behind the alleged flaws in the Bible)?

Was the world "created in seven days"?
Probably not.
Was there a man named Jonah who was in a whale's mouth?
Probably NOT.
Is your entire faith going to be shaken if you find out that those things didn't happen EXACTLY AS TOLD?
Why?

But taking that argument a step further, how do we know Jesus existed at ALL?
A: Because the Church was around, and I trust 2,000 years of doctrine.

I SAID I didn't trust the Church with my SOUL.
But I trust the Church a hell of a lot more than I trust various traditions that constantly disagree
and haven't been around very long.
And a poop of a lot more than I trust mySELF to interpret the "meaning" behind Scripture.

You can call that blasphemy or heresy all you want, you guys, but when you do that,
you're also calling ALL CATHOLICS TODAY, the APOSTLES, and CHRISTIANS before the Reformation
heretics and blasphemers, because that's what those mentioned believe and believed.
What do you think they believed in the 400 years before the New Testament was put together?
They had NO Bible.
How can we live on "Word Alone" with NO BIBLE?
And please don't tell me it was there, because it simply wasn't.
And which version? The English one?
Do you have any idea how much is lost in translation?
What about people who can't read?
When there was no Bible yet, how could the Bible have had the significance it does today?
It DIDN'T.

It's fun to think we know things on a message board,
and God knows I do it ALL THE TIME,
but we really don't know shit.

We know what we've been told, and that's pretty much it.
If you think you're "thinking for yourself", I have one word for you:
LOL.
(not YOU, 47.5, but "people" - ME INCLUDED!)
Everything we think, say, and do has a hint of some prejudice in it,
some color of glasses we're looking through.
So if you want to challenge the Catholic Church, at least do so by trying to see the Catholic point of view,
and that it -heaven forbid - COULD be on the side of "good".
Not "right", as we're not having that debate.
I mean not "wrong" or "tainted" or "evil".
I've BEEN Evangelical...I get it, O.K.?
I know where you're coming from.

But you're telling me that we have to restrict God and His Word to the Bible?
And that he doesn't want us to question the text in a bunch of different books?
No, I don't think so.
He has interaction with people, church service, doing things for others, Communion, etc...
And the Church.
You want to find God?
He's not just in those 66 or so different books (remember, there's not really such a thing as "The Bible" -
it's a collection of books from miscellaneous and UNKNOWN authors).
God is in people, in the poor, in the Church, in camaraderie with friends and strangers,
and in a bar having a beer with a guy who's depressed and listening to his problems, suffering WITH him.
And telling him that there's hope.
NOT "saving" him - that's God's job.
Console him, tell him how YOU get through your struggles if he asks.
NEVER "preach": "Well, in II Corinthians Whatever, God says you shouldn't do this,
and that seems to be why you're suffering because you did THIS or THAT......blah blah blah".
That doesn't work.
Nobody wants to hear that, and that's not our job.
As parents, yes. But not as fellow children of God.
And maybe as close friends.
The point is, you can't "prove" the Bible is the right way to go by QUOTING the Bible,
and why should non-Christians care??
I can't prove something by quoting the SAME THING I'm trying to prove.
That doesn't make any sense.
And going back to "facts", at the end of the day, DOES IT MATTER if Noah had eight sons or nine?
What if someone meant to put eight and accidentally put the wrong number?
Or what if someone who translated the original text from what -
a really bad scroll?...and mistook a seven for a six? Or simply heard it wrong when someone told him the story?
(Those are probably terrible examples and definitely not "factual" at all, but just like I'm doing right now, trying to make a point, I believe that's what was going on in the Bible. Does me getting those numbers "wrong"
somehow change my "message" or make it invalid? No. You may DISAGREE with what I'm saying, but getting the "facts" wrong does not IN ANY WAY change what I'm trying to get across to you - my MESSAGE.)
Your answer to that may be that you believe the Bible to be infallible, so those things MUST be accurate.
But now we're back to the Bible proving ITSELF.
Which is fine - it's what you "believe" - or have been told - whichever, depending on the person.
I'm simply telling you how I feel about it and why I don't agree with it.
I'm not really directing this post AT anyone anymore, I'm sort of just typing.
LOL.



I don't know how long I've been rambling here.........oh well.


I'm not trying to come across like I'm pissed, because I'm not.
Healthy discussion about God is good.
But like I said in that other thread (which one?), there are some things that are debatable
and some that are not.
The Church coming before the Bible is not debatable.
I've said my piece on that, and I'm going to try and leave it alone and let others research it for themselves.
Arguing non-stop about it, like Playing With Uranium nodded toward, is not the answer.

I don't know if this forum is going to work as it is, because arguing about this stuff is totally insane.
And it's my fault.
It's my domain name, and I'm the oldest one here, and I should have known better.

Maybe there are other aspects of the Bible that we can talk about or something, I don't know.

I like the whole debate idea, but it doesn't feel right.
Maybe I'll feel differently in the morning, who knows?

Later, poops!

Alright the only reason any of us use verses to explain our side is because in this debate, we are talking strictly to Christians. If I were talking to someone of a different faith, I would refrain from circular logic, but seeing as this is a fully Christian debate, I would assume using something from the Bible would be not only accepted but encouraged.

Apparently you do not view the Bible as accurate. Alright. Without the Bible being accurate in this debate, I cannot use anything against you.

You stated that one cannot speak without adding his own opinion to the matter. The Bible is written out. The Church is just generation after generation of people telling each other what God wants. Technically, according to your logic, wouldn't the Church have the wrong idea in the long run? Since the Bible is constant (or at least has been since about 100AD) and the Church is constantly having new Popes and bishops, the chance of them being wrong is far greater, isn't it? Even if (if) the Bible was flawed due to people tampering with it or just getting a few things wrong, wouldn't it still be more accurate than 1000s of people?

Eh I don't think I'm putting this out right. Lemme try again.

The Bible originally was pure God. If it were misinterpreted and messed up a little, it still has a good amount if not almost full of what God intended it to have or what would be the most accurate. Maybe it went from 100% facts to... I'll say worst case scenario 55%. The Church got their knowledge the same way you say the Bible did (word of mouth) so that knocks em down a little on accuracy. There could have been some bishops or Popes that decided to change some things. Down on accuracy. In the Middle ages, they changed a lot of their teachings to make the king happy and for money. Down on accuracy. Since this is all on word of mouth, it can never be fully restored to 100% accuracy; just on what the guy in front of them said. In the end, after generations of people possibly changing it, it might have only 20%.

47.5 wrote:

Apparently you do not view the Bible as accurate. Alright. Without the Bible being accurate in this debate, I cannot use anything against you.

Did you actually read my last post or just skim?
I covered this.

Quote :

The Church is just generation after generation of people telling each other what God wants. Technically, according to your logic, wouldn't the Church have the wrong idea in the long run?

What do you mean when you say "wrong idea"?
Are you talking about facts and numbers or are you talking about things like,
"Jesus DOESN'T want us to love our neighbors".
Please give examples.

Quote :

and the Church is constantly having new Popes and bishops, the chance of them being wrong is far greater, isn't it? Even if (if) the Bible was flawed due to people tampering with it or just getting a few things wrong, wouldn't it still be more accurate than 1000s of people?

You're missing the entire point, sorry.
We're not talking accuracy.
We're talking about the Message.
If you're going to say that the Message is wrong, which I don't think you will, please give examples.

Quote :

The Bible originally was pure God.

What does that MEAN?

Quote :

If it were misinterpreted and messed up a little, it still has a good amount if not almost full of what God intended it to have or what would be the most accurate.

And there you have it.
That's the entire point I'm trying to make.

Quote :

The Church got their knowledge the same way you say the Bible did (word of mouth) so that knocks em down a little on accuracy.

Again, what do you mean by "accuracy"?
Please give examples.

Quote :

There could have been some bishops or Popes that decided to change some things.

"Change" the Bible for their own personal gain???
Uh, no dude.
Didn't happen.
And that's a pretty serious accusation.
But I'll play along, because THAT combined with your following sentence, as silly as it is,
actually makes my entire point for me:

Quote :

In the Middle ages, they changed a lot of their teachings to make the king happy and for money. Down on accuracy. Since this is all on word of mouth, it can never be fully restored to 100% accuracy; just on what the guy in front of them said. In the end, after generations of people possibly changing it, it might have only 20%.

Strange how you're willing to accept the false pretense that maybe the "popes and bishops" changed the Bible,
yet you're telling me that it's the Word and the Word alone, and it's 100% factual and accurate.

Which is it?