Who wrote the Bible? simple question. simple answer?

And I'm sorry if I'm coming across like a jack-ass.
I'm just trying to ask the right questions for you to understand where I'm coming from and the point I'm making.
You're smart, obviously.
I just think maybe I'm not explaining myself correctly or SOMETHING,
because it seems like the actual point I'm going for is getting missed.

Damn message boards!

Oh and we have a basic idea of who wrote which books. If you want me to, I can list em but I won't do it unless requested since it'll take a while.


I'll get back to replying to your post later.

47.5 wrote:

Oh and we have a basic idea of who wrote which books. If you want me to, I can list em but I won't do it unless requested since it'll take a while.

Nah.
I get it.
I'm just saying it's not like we can isolate each book to an exact time, place, or person.
It's vague, and people disagree.
So there goes the "factual" part concerning the authors.
That's the only point I was making about that.

It's all good in the hood.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Nah.
I get it.
I'm just saying it's not like we can isolate each book to an exact time, place, or person.
It's vague, and people disagree.
So there goes the "factual" part concerning the authors.
That's the only point I was making about that.

It's all good in the hood.

There's not much debate on the authors except on Genesis.

Wow. I hate coming in at the end of a debate that obviously has gone on to so many new topics from the original question that I feel odd to add in... but I'm going to post anyway! So there!

The Bible was written by men (it would be really weird to call them "godly men" what does that even mean??? - - someone wrote that early on) and is the Inspired Word of God. And if you can't accept that, then its just a book. It is the center of the church because it is the Inspired Word of God. And if it is not then you have cause to worry about the church you are attending.

It should be what you are learning about in the church you are attending. It should be the debate the church goers are having. Reading scripture and discussing the meaning is the purpose of church along with fellowship.

What other books are there out there that claim to be the Inspired Word of God? And if they don't claim that, then why would you be debating over them and using them at church?

POP*ICON wrote:

The Bible was written by men (it would be really weird to call them "godly men" what does that even mean???

LOL.
Good point.
That's totally subjective.

Quote :

It is the center of the church because it is the Inspired Word of God. And if it is not then you have cause to worry about the church you are attending.

Sort of.
But I think what we're actually arguing about is whether the Text in the Bible is infallible
because it's its own Entity, or if Church leaders sat down with text after text and compared them
to what the Church believed and added books they felt were consistent with the teachings.
47.5 believes it to be the former, whereas history will side with the latter.

That's the central argument.

The Church revolves around the Bible to a point.
Because everything in it has been approved by the Church, naturally there won't be contradictions
in the Message and interpretation WITHIN the Church.

Make sense?

BeMyIcon wrote:

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

Yeah I did read. And you say the Bible has mistakes and you also said quoting from a source that the opponent finds wrong is circular logic and does not work.

Quote :

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.

I mean things like I listed a long time ago: Indulgences, the Crusades, etc. These were things the Church found right at the time even though they contradict the Bible.

Quote :

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.

For me, the message=accuracy. If it is actually God's Word, then it is actually the Message.

Quote :

What does that MEAN?

The "Bible is pure God" thing was a mistake on my part. I mean that the Bible is straight from God through intermediary people.

Quote :

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

No, that's my point. You are arguing for the Church's accuracy (or "Message") while I am fighting for the Bible's accuracy. The point I made was in favor of my side.

Quote :

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

What is with you and these examples? I mean that the more accurate something is, the closer it is to what God wrote through men. I mean that if it is fully accurate (exactly what God intended), then it is exactly what God wants us to hear.

Quote :

"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?

Damn you're tricky. And I meant that the leaders of the Church gave different views on what the Bible meant that benefitted them. They said that indulgences were right and even though they didn't change the Bible, they did tell people that's what the Bible said. They said Mary was a prostitute even though the Bible doesn't say it. They changed... connotations(?) I guess.

47.5 wrote:

Yeah I did read. And you say the Bible has mistakes and you also said quoting from a source that the opponent finds wrong is circular logic and does not work.

Come on, dude.
That's not what I said.
Reducing what I said to "the Bible has mistakes" is way too simple AND inaccurate.

Quote :

I mean things like I listed a long time ago: Indulgences, the Crusades, etc. These were things the Church found right at the time even though they contradict the Bible.

Look again at my post.
I was not talking about a few rogue priests.
I was talking about getting the message wrong in the long run.
That didn't change the message of the Church or the Bible.
You're making a counter-point that's off-subject.

Quote :

The "Bible is pure God" thing was a mistake on my part. I mean that the Bible is straight from God through intermediary people.

Yeah, I know that's what you're SAYING.
But what does it MEAN?
Explain "straight from God".
God told them exactly what to write, word for word?

Quote :

No, that's my point. You are arguing for the Church's accuracy (or "Message") while I am fighting for the Bible's accuracy. The point I made was in favor of my side.

The point you made seems to be in favor of yours, if you're talking strictly Church.
Until looked at a little deeper.
You've implied that the Catholic Church may have changed the Bible, and you've said it more than once.
If that's true (which it's not - catechism does not just "change" upon a pope's whim),
how can you possibly defend the accuracy of the Bible?
--You saying that about individual popes and bishops or whatever is the same thing as me using Jimmy Baker
as a definitive representation of YOUR church--there will always be some humans to mess things up temporarily, but it's ONE guy...that doesn't change the "What We Believe" or anything like that---

Quote :

What is with you and these examples?

We can't keep saying "if" all the time if we're going to ever agree on anything, that's why.
Vagueness is not a good thing in debates....especially on message boards....also, I think we're talking about
two different things when we say "accuracy".

Quote :

I mean that the more accurate something is, the closer it is to what God wrote through men. I mean that if it is fully accurate (exactly what God intended), then it is exactly what God wants us to hear.

You did not give an example here.
I was talking about 9 sons vs. 10 sons and if something like that is not 100% historical,
that would not change the message of the Bible.
Because you believe the Bible to be 100% accurate, what would happen if some "fact" were disproved?
Would that then shake the entire foundation of your faith?
I guess that's a hypothetical question, but I think it's a fair one.
Please answer that if you can.


I'd like to address this one again:

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%.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church did not "change" because of this.
Again, I know very little about what you're talking about, but I don't need to.
Human mistakes and What We Believe are entirely separate things.

Quote :

Damn you're tricky. And I meant that the leaders of the Church gave different views on what the Bible meant that benefitted them. They said that indulgences were right and even though they didn't change the Bible, they did tell people that's what the Bible said. They said Mary was a prostitute even though the Bible doesn't say it. They changed... connotations(?) I guess.

So are we agreeing now that the Church has NOT changed the Bible?

Also, considering that the Church was first, and stories and lore meant EVERYTHING,
if it was generally understood throughout history that Mary (Magdalene) WAS a prostitute,
wouldn't that trump the Bible NOT saying it?

The Bible also DOESN'T say that Jesus had two hands and two feet.
Are we to then assume that he DIDN'T?
It's the same argument.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Come on, dude.
That's not what I said.
Reducing what I said to "the Bible has mistakes" is way too simple AND inaccurate.

Sorry?

Quote :

Look again at my post.
I was not talking about a few rogue priests.
I was talking about getting the message wrong in the long run.
That didn't change the message of the Church or the Bible.
You're making a counter-point that's off-subject.

I thought you stated that the Church changed parts of the Bible so I went on that for most of my post.

Quote :

Yeah, I know that's what you're SAYING.
But what does it MEAN?
Explain "straight from God".
God told them exactly what to write, word for word?

I'm actually studying that right now in one of my classes. I guess I would say that God wrote through those men and what God wanted to say was said exactly how He wanted it.

Quote :

The point you made seems to be in favor of yours, if you're talking strictly Church.
Until looked at a little deeper.
You've implied that the Catholic Church may have changed the Bible, and you've said it more than once.
If that's true (which it's not - catechism does not just "change" upon a pope's whim),
how can you possibly defend the accuracy of the Bible?
--You saying that about individual popes and bishops or whatever is the same thing as me using Jimmy Baker
as a definitive representation of YOUR church--there will always be some humans to mess things up temporarily, but it's ONE guy...that doesn't change the "What We Believe" or anything like that---

I can't defend the accuracy of the Bible, actually. I believe that it is right, and if I believe one part, I must believe it all.

I have no clue who Jimmy Baker is, but no one protestant man has the power to change what we believe; it is written down in the Bible. I assumed that the Pope, however, could change catechism and apparently by what you say, he cannot.

Quote :

You did not give an example here.
I was talking about 9 sons vs. 10 sons and if something like that is not 100% historical,
that would not change the message of the Bible.
Because you believe the Bible to be 100% accurate, what would happen if some "fact" were disproved?
Would that then shake the entire foundation of your faith?
I guess that's a hypothetical question, but I think it's a fair one.
Please answer that if you can.

Yes, I guess that if something were wrong like Noah having nine sons instead of ten, it would shake my thoughts on the Bible's accuracy as a whole.

Quote :

I'd like to address this one again:

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%.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church did not "change" because of this.
Again, I know very little about what you're talking about, but I don't need to.
Human mistakes and What We Believe are entirely separate things.

I thought the Catechism was just the way the Church thought about certain things. I thought that to create something like Indulgences they would have to change the Catechism to include that.

Quote :

So are we agreeing now that the Church has NOT changed the Bible?

I don't think the Church changed the Bible, or at least I hope not.

Quote :

Also, considering that the Church was first, and stories and lore meant EVERYTHING,
if it was generally understood throughout history that Mary (Magdalene) WAS a prostitute,
wouldn't that trump the Bible NOT saying it?

No, because rumors are not always true while the Bible is straight from God (from my standpoint).

Quote :

The Bible also DOESN'T say that Jesus had two hands and two feet.
Are we to then assume that he DIDN'T? It's the same argument.

Come on, that's a little different. Saying Mary was a prostitute would be adding something to it that is not normal, while everyone can assume that Jesus had hands and feet because even though it doesn't say it, we can infer. Jesus not having hands and feet would be strange, while Mary being a prostitute would be strange.

Quote :

Yes, I guess that if something were wrong like Noah having nine sons instead of ten, it would shake my thoughts on the Bible's accuracy as a whole.

I'll ask it like this:
Q#1: If Noah had nine sons, not ten (I guess we're going to continue using that one, huh? LOL),
and somehow it were proven to be so, then using your line of thought about "One Thing Right = All Are Right",
wouldn't then "One Thing Wrong = All Wrong"?
See how silly that is?
Black and white thinking and "facts", in my opinion, need to stay far away from the teachings of Jesus.
It confuses the Message.

Q#2: I asked earlier if your FAITH would be shaken if that were the case.
Not your belief in the Bible being factual.
If so, why?
Shouldn't our faith be in Jesus and not the Bible?
Jesus does not equal the Bible.

Quote :

Come on, that's a little different. Saying Mary was a prostitute would be adding something to it that is not normal, while everyone can assume that Jesus had hands and feet because even though it doesn't say it, we can infer. Jesus not having hands and feet would be strange, while Mary being a prostitute would be strange.

You're right: terrible example, LOL.
I'm just saying that no, something should not CONTRADICT the Bible, sure.
But just because the Bible does not explicitly explain every detail about something does not mean
that it isn't so.
Say what you want about Catholic tradition, I guess - but when you completely disregard ANY tradition,
you're venturing off into a different argument, and it doesn't seem rational.
I mean, if people back then believed her to be a prostitute, and that understanding carried into today,
why do you have a problem with that?

BeMyIcon wrote:

Quote :

Yes, I guess that if something were wrong like Noah having nine sons instead of ten, it would shake my thoughts on the Bible's accuracy as a whole.

I'll ask it like this:
Q#1: If Noah had nine sons, not ten (I guess we're going to continue using that one, huh? LOL),
and somehow it were proven to be so, then using your line of thought about "One Thing Right = All Are Right",
wouldn't then "One Thing Wrong = All Wrong"?
See how silly that is?
Black and white thinking and "facts", in my opinion, need to stay far away from the teachings of Jesus.
It confuses the Message.

Well the Bible's factuality over the years is a major contributing factor to my faith. If the Bible were full of errors, I would not believe it.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Q#2: I asked earlier if your FAITH would be shaken if that were the case.
Not your belief in the Bible being factual.

The Bible is my faith. If the Bible is wrong, there is no one else to believe.

BeMyIcon wrote:

If so, why?
Shouldn't our faith be in Jesus and not the Bible?
Jesus does not equal the Bible.

As a Protestant, yes, he kind of does. What he did is expressed through the Bible. The Bible (to me) is the written Word of what God wants to say to us. Plus, how can we follow Jesus without having something tell us what he wants? The only other way for us to follow Jesus without relying on the Bible would be fore Jesus to be here telling us himself.

BeMyIcon wrote:

You're right: terrible example, LOL.
I'm just saying that no, something should not CONTRADICT the Bible, sure.
But just because the Bible does not explicitly explain every detail about something does not mean
that it isn't so.
Say what you want about Catholic tradition, I guess - but when you completely disregard ANY tradition,
you're venturing off into a different argument, and it doesn't seem rational.
I mean, if people back then believed her to be a prostitute, and that understanding carried into today,
why do you have a problem with that?

Because I think that many things could have been twisted over the years since it traveled by word of mouth; not in the Bible. Many traditions aren't right but we do them anyway because they are just that. Tradition.

I am reluctant to follow what anyone else says without looking at the Bible first. If a tradition doesn't match up with the Bible but doesn't contradict it, I still will not believe it (that is, if we are talking about a tradition concerning the Bible).

Quote :

The Bible is my faith. If the Bible is wrong, there is no one else to believe.

The wording here is wrong.
The Bible is NOT your faith.
Faith in Jesus Christ is your faith.

Quote :

The only other way for us to follow Jesus without relying on the Bible would be fore Jesus to be here telling us himself.

Well, you know my answer to that.

BeMyIcon wrote:

The wording here is wrong.
The Bible is NOT your faith.
Faith in Jesus Christ is your faith.

Yeah you're right. But I do mean that the Bible is the resource through which my faith is based. I mean that if the Bible is fake, then everything I believe in return is fake unless there is another source through which God reveals Himself.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Well, you know my answer to that.

That you can rely on the Church to tell you rather than the Bible?

Quote :

Yeah you're right. But I do mean that the Bible is the resource through which my faith is based. I mean that if the Bible is fake, then everything I believe in return is fake unless there is another source through which God reveals Himself.

Sure, but let's not think about it as real vs. fake.
Many of the books were written almost 100 years after Jesus went to heaven,
and were based on word-of-mouth tradition, right?
So if a number is "wrong", what does it matter?
I just don't feel that a number can have enough power to shake someone's faith in God.

Quote :

That you can rely on the Church to tell you rather than the Bible?

Yes, but nobody's saying "rather than".
I believe they are the same thing.
That wasn't the issue, though.
You had said that the only other way to follow would be if Jesus were here Himself.
Which He is, actually, but I know what you mean.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Sure, but let's not think about it as real vs. fake.
Many of the books were written almost 100 years after Jesus went to heaven,
and were based on word-of-mouth tradition, right?
So if a number is "wrong", what does it matter?
I just don't feel that a number can have enough power to shake someone's faith in God.

It would shake my faith because I believe the information in the Bible is from God, not just a written down version of what was orally passed down. The last book written in the Bible was Revelation, written around either 98 AD or 60-something AD.

BeMyIcon wrote:

Yes, but nobody's saying "rather than".
I believe they are the same thing.
That wasn't the issue, though.
You had said that the only other way to follow would be if Jesus were here Himself.
Which He is, actually, but I know what you mean.

I know Jesus is here, but I mean he isn't walking around and talking to people like he did before the resurrection. for some reason I felt like writing that even though you said you knew what I meant...

And you believe the Bible is on the same level as the Church? I thought you said the catechism was above what the Bible said.

Quote :

And you believe the Bible is on the same level as the Church? I thought you said the catechism was above what the Bible said.

The go hand in hand.
The catechism of the Church defined what the Bible was to be.
If the Church had decided for some reason it didn't like the Book of Matthew,
it wouldn't have "made the cut" when it was Bible Making Time.

I'm not sure if I ever said it was ABOVE the Bible, because I don't know how that would work.

BeMyIcon wrote:

They go hand in hand.
The catechism of the Church defined what the Bible was to be.
If the Church had decided for some reason it didn't like the Book of Matthew,
it wouldn't have "made the cut" when it was Bible Making Time.

I'm not sure if I ever said it was ABOVE the Bible, because I don't know how that would work.

So if Noah had 9 sons in the Bible and 10 sons in the catechism, which would you side with?

47.5 wrote:

BeMyIcon wrote:

They go hand in hand.
The catechism of the Church defined what the Bible was to be.
If the Church had decided for some reason it didn't like the Book of Matthew,
it wouldn't have "made the cut" when it was Bible Making Time.

I'm not sure if I ever said it was ABOVE the Bible, because I don't know how that would work.

So if Noah had 9 sons in the Bible and 10 sons in the catechism, which would you side with?

It wouldn't work that way.
They can't contradict each other like that.
Also, I don't believe the catechism gets into things like that, anyway.

BeMyIcon wrote:

It wouldn't work that way.
They can't contradict each other like that.
Also, I don't believe the catechism gets into things like that, anyway.

I thought at one point you stated that if the Church disagreed with something in the Bible, you sided with the Church

Holy Scripture is inspired of God, and contains no errors or contradictions. ( 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16,17)

"The mission of the church is primarily to preach and to teach the Gospel and all that the Lord has commanded in Scripture, and thus to fulfill the commission given it by the Lord." (That's from my church)

"All teaching in the church is to be taken from, and is to be faithful to Scripture. It is to be tested in the light of Scripture." (Jeremiah 23)

47.5 wrote:

BeMyIcon wrote:

It wouldn't work that way.
They can't contradict each other like that.
Also, I don't believe the catechism gets into things like that, anyway.

I thought at one point you stated that if the Church disagreed with something in the Bible, you sided with the Church

Unless I was really drunk and delusional, I don't think I said that.
LOL.

(been known to happen!)

BeMyIcon wrote:

Unless I was really drunk and delusional, I don't think I said that.
LOL.

(been known to happen!)

Whoa alright so you believe the Bible is more accurate than the Church? It has been my understanding that Catholics believed what the Church said and didn't really give a shit for the Bible. I mean, they acknowledged its word but they always only listened to the Church.

47.5 wrote:

BeMyIcon wrote:

Unless I was really drunk and delusional, I don't think I said that.
LOL.

(been known to happen!)

Whoa alright so you believe the Bible is more accurate than the Church? It has been my understanding that Catholics believed what the Church said and didn't really give a shit for the Bible. I mean, they acknowledged its word but they always only listened to the Church.

Well, I can't speak for other Catholics, but as far as I go,
the Bible CAN'T contradict the Church, and vice-a-versa.

The Church has its catechism of What It Believes based on the Old Testament
and Jesus's teachings.
When Jesus left, he put Peter in charge of His Church.
So everything after that that was to be "added" to the Bible had to
1-agree with the Old Testament, and
2-agree with the post-Christ teachings.

So they couldn't possibly contradict each other.
The Church was left to interpret the Scriptures for us,
as we cannot have a million different interpretations.
That wouldn't make sense, and could only lead to divisions,
as we have today, unfortunately.

I don't know who these Catholics are that you're talking to,
but that's not the way it's supposed to work.

It's not like the Bible is going to say Noah had 10 sons
and the Church is going to say it had 9.
LOL.
It's more like: "The Bible says Jonah was in a whale's mouth.
O.K.
Well, we don't know if that actually happened.
But let's look at the message behind it and what God wants
us to learn from it and if it was meant to be literal right there."
And so on and so on.
(I actually have no idea what the Church believes about the Jonah thing,
I'm just using that as an example.)

Does that make it clearer on where Catholics are coming from?


Also, people are encouraged to have Bible studies and individual Bible readings
as much as possible.
But when it comes down to interpreting something, then yes,
we believe that it's time to go to a priest to give us a hand
and tell us what the Catholic Church believes certain verses are meant to
be saying.
It's nice to have an authority like that.

What about adding things that weren't originally in the Bible? Like Purgatory?

47.5 wrote:

What about adding things that weren't originally in the Bible? Like Purgatory?

The Catholics believe that IS Biblical.

Now, debating the existence of Purgatory: that's a different debate.

BeMyIcon wrote:

The Catholics believe that IS Biblical.

Now, debating the existence of Purgatory: that's a different debate.

So you mean they can add to it but they don't change any of it? Where did they get the idea of purgatory?

Quote :

So you mean they can add to it

Add to WHAT?
The Bible?
Because I'm assuming that this whole time in all of our debates
that by "adding to", you are talking about text.
Because anything else is not "adding to"; it's interpretation.

Quote :

Where did they get the idea of purgatory?

I'm not really sure.
I'll ask my deacon friend next week.

POP*ICON wrote:

Holy Scripture is inspired of God, and contains no errors or contradictions. ( 2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16,17)

Exactly.
But I seriously doubt the author was referring to every word, number, and time frame. Again, those aren't "errors" when not taken literally.
The "Word of God" is not the TEXT in the ENGLISH BIBLE.
How could that even be?
If Jesus says, "Love your neighbor" in one place, He's not going to say "Hate your neighbor" somewhere else.
THAT'S a contradiction, and you won't find that in the Bible.
Pull out a verse here and compare it to a verse there, and you will absolutely find contradiction after contradiction.
But it's not meant to be read like that.

Quote :

"The mission of the church is primarily to preach and to teach the Gospel and all that the Lord has commanded in Scripture, and thus to fulfill the commission given it by the Lord." (That's from my church)

And that's exactly right.
The part in bold refers to the Church that was started with Peter.

Quote :

"All teaching in the church is to be taken from, and is to be faithful to Scripture. It is to be tested in the light of Scripture." (Jeremiah 23)

Right on, sista.
Which is why the Catechism does not mess with tradition and there is no "Bible Editing" going on.

Quote :

Pull out a verse here and compare it to a verse there, and you will absolutely find contradiction after contradiction.

Example please? Just not savy on the contradictions people talk about when on this subject. I'd like to be informed.

And I also don't believe it is to be taken literally. Believe as a child believes. Scientists will say they need proof, people (quit asking me which you know there are a majority that do) need guidelines (something they can read and be definitive on for right and wrong), they want reassurance. It is hard for our "logical and rational" brains to wrap around someone just saying "believe in Me and you will be saved" ..... and that's where the church and fellowship helps us remember that ALL people are going through the same thing and reminds us of staying true to the faith and not needing God to show before us to believe He is real.

The message is the Word of God. The purpose is to bring us to Him and be saved.

POP*ICON wrote:

Example please? Just not savy on the contradictions people talk about when on this subject. I'd like to be informed.

Found this site.
Didn't really look through it much, but I will later:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#beasts_in_ark


EDIT:

Here's another:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm