It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who really....really wrote the Bible?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 01:33 PM
Quoting from the bible does not prove who wrote it. Get a couple of my buddies together, buy a big fat pizza, a six pack or five, and believe me, we could write a bible that will blow your mind. Of course the central character will be a supreme being called Bjamison. Of course I would copy right the thing so as to make sure that in 2000 years my family is still receiving royalties.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 03:31 AM

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by infinite

It goes back to Adam and Eve, the whole eating from the wrong tree business. We sinned big time there, pissed God of alot and alot more afterwards aswell.

But being all knowing did he not create us to do just this?

Or was our actions a suprise?

You cannot have a fixed destiny from an all-powerful being and freewill at the same time, how could he know the future if we are free to change it?

How can we have freewill if our actions have been mapped out millions of years ago? whoops I forgot the universe is only 6000 years old

[edit on 1-8-2004 by Amuk]

God did not map out anything, he gave us free will. But he obviously knows human nature VERY well...

[edit on 2-8-2004 by ANOK]

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:48 AM

Originally posted by LadyV
Yes, take the would "heaven"

Nice point of debate, unfortunately it isn't very well researched.

A word sometimes has more than one meaning.
I am sure you have heard that words do that sometimes. Take "trunk" for instance.

The easiest way to refute your argument that all instances of Heaven refer to the sky is to point at the creation story in Genesis 1 where "Heaven" was created twice. (Gen 1:1,8)

Of course, this does support your argument to some extent. As "Heaven" could be referring to "sky" in at least some of the 582 verses in which it is used. However, "all" is is not supported.

Also, I think you should read up on the history of the KJV.

I do not refute the accuracy of the translation. "If the KJV was good enough for the apostles, it's good enough for me."

Before you think me serious, you are correct in you assessment of the translation. There are numerous web pages detailing them. However, the majority really do not change the meaning of a verse. The part in quotes was an old joke.

Take Care.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Raphael_UO]

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:01 AM
Free will is like a river.
There is a beginning and an end, just like our mortality, but the river swells from rainstorms or heat melting snow capped mountains, sometimes overflowing its banks and running wild. Other times it becomes tame due to drought, the torrents a trickle. Pushed to these limits by circumstances.
In that way we utilize free will, reacting to events and circumstance, but always doing what we deem is the right thing to do (for ourselves) even though it may be the wrong thing. Even rivers can change their course and wind up drying in the deserts, to become rain again elsewhere.
But in the end most waters reach the ocean
On who wrote the bible, there is no question...we did. The important thing is that we were inspired to write the Bible, Koran or whatever theology you can think of. I like to think of God as being everything in existance, from the lowliest life form on an alien planet to the fiery furnace of Betelguese, from mankind on Earth to the tiny smear of stars in our Milky Way galaxy. It is all God.
Whatever is conceived by us thereby comes from God...

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 06:17 AM
But the point is that's only because you beleive that to be doesn't make it fact!

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 07:34 AM
The only fact is change. There is nothing in the universe that does not change. All of that which we take for granted can and will change. There are no permanent facts. There is only what we see, feel, hear with our limited senses. That which we sense, we believe to be reality. But since that reality is based on our faulty perception, it is relative to our ability to make sense of it all.

We take the permanence of our life giving-sun and planet for granted. It is an act of faith. It is a belief that we should survive as a species tomorrow.

Facts are a changeable fallacy.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:01 AM

Originally posted by LadyV
But the point is that's only because you beleive that to be doesn't make it fact!

Simply because you disagree the words in the book have any real meaning, does not mean the nature of language changes.
There is nothing for me to believe here. Words can have different meanings. You said a particular word in a particular book always had the same meaning. I showed you in context where that word could not always have the same meaning as the book was written. That does make the point I was making a fact.

Unless you were replying to another point, then we just have a problem with communication and clarity.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Raphael_UO]

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:24 AM
My guess is that like most religions and myths around the world, the Bible was passed on orally through generations. Each generation would make their own spin on the tales presented during the original version and eventually the legends and myths would have some elements of truth in them.

Im not saying the Bible is not correct in any sense of the word...for all I know it could be totally correct. However, upon saying that one must realize that the Bible is a collected volume of myths that were passed down through the ages. This is true of most religions, and it doesn't mean that any of them are more correct than the next, but that we all must realize that it was HUMANS that wrote the Bible. Sure, some will make the argument that GOD wrote it, but it was HUMANS whom he dictated it to. With this comes human ignorance and our own take on things.

One of the first posters on this thread stated that the Bible was written by God, which was dictated to humans, and that the concept of God is to complex for the human mind to understand. What this poster must realize is that if a complex idea is dictated to humans in which they only have the faintest idea of what it means, one must come to the conclusion that they put their own spin on the Bible.

I doubt that much of the King James Bible that most people use now is very correct. Language translations, different views on religion, etc. have taken their toll on the old book and what we see now is probably only a piece of what God wanted us to see.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Jazzerman]

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:36 AM

Originally posted by infinite
A man once said "If God doesn't exists, there would be no need to invent him"

I am going to have to disagree with you on that quote. Think about what you get from your belief/relationship with God? Now if your concept of God is not in fact true, then would you not still desire whatever it is that you get from believing it is?

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 12:10 PM
We are told that scribes wrote the Bible. While that is likely true, recording of the events in the Old Testament would not have come to be until at least 2,000 after Adam's birth, or around the time of the flood.

Cuneiform, a Sumerian/ Iraqi pictoral method of record gave birth to writing. The earliest known dates back 4,000 years to the time of the flood. It is highly unlikely for a number of reasons that the events of the 2,000 years prior could have been recorded as clearly as they are depicted in the OT of today, not the least of which, the dialogue contained therein. In fact, cuneiform tablets dating back to 1500 B.C recording the flood gives one pause when reading the translation.

The NT we are told, was written by 3 Disciples, while a fourth man who was born after Christ died, claims authorship to the majority of the books. This fourth man, Paul, convened the Jerusalem council to craft Christianity and set down its laws. Two hundred plus years later, Constantine created the Nicene Council to cement Christianity as belonging to Rome and therein the plundering and subsequent destruction or concealment of artifacts, scrolls and all such documents began. The NT began to take form as we know it today, elisions abounded throughout the ages well into the period of Inquisition.

Certain books are excluded and labeled sacrilegious because they tell the tales from an un-welcomed perspective. Archaeological discoveries within the last century seem to have unearthed some of what was hidden to avoid destruction, but with the stories solidly engrained in the hundreds of generations since, the masses have difficulty believing in their authenticity, thanks in large part to the OpusDei. Notable with one of these discoveries containing a vast number of scrolls is the appearance that the 4 Gospels were written from a single point-form like source.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by LadyV
there is more proof of UFOs than there is this

Is there

pffftt...please your making me laugh

There is no evidence to suggest intelligent life from another planet is visting earth. But anyways, this isn't the Alien/UFO section.

Read it again, she wasn't talking about Aliens, she was talking about UFO's.

Anyway carry on...

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 12:22 PM
This may be a little picky, but Cuneiform is not a pictorial form of writing. If writing uses a pictorial form to express ideas it is known as a Pictogram. True cuneiform writing is called ideograms when the language became syllabic with the takeover of the Assyrians.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:24 PM
What I don't understand is that much of the Bible and the consequences to certain actions are because God became "angry".

It doesn't make sense that a supreme omnicient and omnipotent being would display such a ridiculous flaw such as anger, and especially acting on that anger... it seems like too much of a flaw for such a supreme God.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 01:55 PM
The point I was trying to make, is that no one can prove the bible was written by men inspired by a God! Sheeeeesh people! Do I, as a pagan, believe the bible? I do to an extent...but not the way it is and not literally. As for the remark I made about UFOs, well.........I, like many others, have seen a UFO, have you seen God?

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 02:26 PM

Originally posted by bjamison
This has confused me for years.

Apparently it was written 60 years ofter the death of Jesus Of Nazereth.

If the desciples were the same age as Jesus, at his death. they would have been 93years old.....

Pardon me for getting back to, and being a bit picky about the initial question of when the Bible was written. I'm guessing you're referring to the gospels of the NT telling about the life of Jesus. Last I read, from what we know, Matthew, Mark and Luke were written 60-80 A.D.; not 93 A.D.

I was waiting for one of the Biblical scholars here on ATS to say something, but they never did so...

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 04:14 PM

Originally posted by LadyV
The point I was trying to make, is that no one can prove the bible was written by men inspired by a God! Sheeeeesh people! Do I, as a pagan, believe the bible? I do to an extent...but not the way it is and not literally.

Well, if that was the point you were trying to make, I do have some secular advice.

First, when you wish to make a point, focus on the point. Your post about "heaven" and KJV had nothing to do with no one being able to prove the bible was written by men inspired by God. You were actually trying to prove another point, which is that the translations is not accurate.

The argument for heaven did have merit, however, it wasn't researched enough. Had you attempted to disprove your own argument before presenting the idea the fallacy of your argument would have been clearly seen, as the counterpoint was found in the first 8 verses of the Bible.

Second, when trying to prove a point, it is wise to realize you cannot prove a negative. No amount of debate will "prove" something didn't happen. The best you can do when trying to "prove" a negative, is to attempt to prove the positive and dismiss the positive due to lack of evidence.

Take care.

[edit on 2-8-2004 by Raphael_UO]

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:23 PM
Who wrote the bible?

The first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses, well It has been credited to Moses himself but religious scholars came to the conclusions that it was more than one author.

Who wrote/compiled/edited (and when) the various histories in the Old Testament (such as Judges, Kings)? Biblical histories through this time were had to corroborate days and eras of the different kings of the time also more than one author is credited for these books.

Joshua - Was passed through oral narrative
Judges - Was passed orally but in 600 BC was compiled by hand
Samuel - Two authors are credited in the compilation
Kings - The prophet Jeremiah was credited to writing this text
Deuteronomistic History - Scholars does not know who compiled this books
Chronicles - It is been attributed to a school of though meaning more than one individual.
Ruth - It is credited to Samuel but the histories are from the time of Solomon
Esther - Was attributed to a Hebrew writer
Maccabees - Hellenistic influence but not writer was to be name

Amos, hosea,Isaiah, Micah,Zephania, Nahum, Habakkuk, Ezekiel, Jeremiah,
Lamentations, Zechariah and Haggai, Malachi, Joel,Jonah, Daniel.

Some of this books where either written or orally pass over by the authors themselves or by the students some of them were adopted by the Catholic and Orthodox but not in the Hebrew and protestant ones.

The books of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, The first are attributed to Solomon, The second to David, and the last also to Solomon.

Who wrote most of the New Testament?

Actually nobody really knows, the first generation of Christians did not have written records of the work of Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, and the Secret Book of John, did have some conflicting stories so scholars until this day does not really can point out as to who really wrote the Gospels. Iraneus, the bishop of Lyons in 180 AD was the one that decided wish of the stories were to in validity to be apostolic.

Synoptic Gospels were agreeing upon to be in the same time line of Jesus.

Who decided which books should be included and which excluded from the Bible.

The Hebrew bible was born in 90 AD, and it had 39 books to the Jews it was the laws of Moses to the Christians it was the old testament.

In the 4th century AD. Eusebius was a prolific church historian who gave us most of what we know of early church history. Eusebius created what was probably the first Christian Bible as we know it today.

Under Constantino the Great 27 works of the new bible was finalized.

In the tenth century the book of revelations was included and only 22 books were recognized.

Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox bibles were created from the original bible in the tenth century.

And finally now a day you can find a version of the bible to sooth your personal and spiritual needs

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Jazzerman
This may be a little picky, but Cuneiform is not a pictorial form of writing. If writing uses a pictorial form to express ideas it is known as a Pictogram. True cuneiform writing is called ideograms when the language became syllabic with the takeover of the Assyrians.

No problem, being picky can often result in weeding through the muck for the substance. However, the cuneiform of the Sumerians was indeed a pictorial method, which as you allude to, took on a more syllabic look under the Assyrians. Pictorial; meaning like a picture, and pictogram representing the more etymologically correct; pictograph, which by definition is a pictorial of symbols used in writing.

Nevertheless, I had hoped to provide the starter of this thread with some information relative to who wrote The Bible, either the Christian or the Judaic compendium of books, or both, as time stamping and understanding the state of the art of writing at the time is very relevant for forming one's own an opinion.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:33 PM

Pardon me for getting back to, and being a bit picky about the initial question of when the Bible was written. .

I think the question was, "who" wrote the bible"

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 10:47 PM
ladyV not body realy knows. How and actually when the bible was compiled and written.

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in