Proof of the Divine Authorship of the Bible

originally posted by: Albert999
Nice post but not proof I'm afraid. If you had proof of the divine, you would be very famous.


ETA I know this was a pretty ignorant thing to say, but I genuinely don't mean to upset anyone by it. 🙏🏻

This is not accurate in the least.
Human being, as we are (flawed) can find reasons not to accept anything as truth.
It is how we were created.
We have freewill.
Freewill allows us to deny what we do not want to perceive as truth.
That does not make it any less true.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Albert999
Nice post but not proof I'm afraid. If you had proof of the divine, you would be very famous.


ETA I know this was a pretty ignorant thing to say, but I genuinely don't mean to upset anyone by it. 🙏🏻

This is not accurate in the least.
Human being, as we are (flawed) can find reasons not to accept anything as truth.
It is how we were created.
We have freewill.
Freewill allows us to deny what we do not want to perceive as truth.
That does not make it any less true.

I hear you, but I prefer to see repeatable, demonstrative evidence before I believe something as true.
I understand I may never see this, and I am not saying 'There are no gods' - that would be ignorant.

We are discovering amazing and surprising things we thought were not possible about our cosmos every day, I believe literally anything is possible. But when it comes to 'proof of anything', for the time being, I will need demonstrable repeatable evidence to agree that it is true. Books don't do it for me I'm afraid.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Albert999
Nice post but not proof I'm afraid. If you had proof of the divine, you would be very famous.


ETA I know this was a pretty ignorant thing to say, but I genuinely don't mean to upset anyone by it. 🙏🏻

This is not accurate in the least.
Human being, as we are (flawed) can find reasons not to accept anything as truth.
It is how we were created.
We have freewill.
Freewill allows us to deny what we do not want to perceive as truth.
That does not make it any less true.

You gave me the idea freewill is our sinful nature which I found to be an interesting idea. Rationally it sounds different from following god.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Free will also allows us to believe in what we perceive to be truth, you see it works both ways.

More like Authorian-ship.

The Bible has more then one author, while the New Testament is 2nd an 3rd hand accounts all about Jesus, whom he himself never wrote anything. While the very same was hand picked by the Roman Empire that became the Holy Roman Empire, which is the very much the 4 an 1 st beast, which ended up being the authority of it all.

If I could sum it all up on what’s makes the Bible so valuable is that it is built on failure, much like Civilization.

a reply to: randomuser

Jesus is God, a part of the Trinity - all of one power, the same essence, but individual beings.

Jesus also claimed to be God: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.“
Revelation 1:8

a reply to: randomuser

God supernaturally had a son with a human woman = begot, in order to reconcile man to God. Jesus was with God in the beginning, but Jesus became human to live as a flesh and blood being in order to show he was perfect and to prove he had the right to be judged as perfect by God and to take on all of mankind's sins.

It's so simple that it becomes difficult for many to grasp.

By the way, I'm not being argumentative, I'm just laying it out as I see it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, please. All Christians believe in the same god and the same book? But few of you agree on the contents of that book and what your god and its 'son' believed in and what messages they announced. How does this make your book clear, or precise, or technical, or any sort of forecast, or - in the OP - the authorship of your god?

You say the Bible is Scientifically accurate. Then why does it say in Ecclesiasties 1:5 that the Sun goes around the Earth ?

Also...you do realize that if the Bible is true and accurate then Jesus HAD to be both male and female. At least I cannot see any reasonable way around it.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
You say the Bible is Scientifically accurate. Then why does it say in Ecclesiasties 1:5 that the Sun goes around the Earth ?

Also...you do realize that if the Bible is true and accurate then Jesus HAD to be both male and female. At least I cannot see any reasonable way around it.

The statement found there that, "the sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again," is just explaining the apparent motion of the sun in relation to a human observer. Do you still use the terms "sunrise" and "sunset?" I know I do, and we both know the earth revolves around the sun.

It may be explaining it but it explained it wrongly. The sun doesn't hurry back to its starting point. I wouldn't expect the smartest man to have ever lived to explain it wrong. Would you ?

a reply to: randomuser

a reply to: Albert999

I understand I may never see this

We are discovering amazing and surprising things we thought were not possible about our cosmos every day

but I prefer to see repeatable, demonstrative evidence before I believe something as true.

Perhaps you do see it and don't realize it because it's not what you are looking for.
Take human DNA for example.
It has been found that it is actually digital coding. Freewill allows us to brush it off as evolution or being natural because many don't want to see what else it could mean.
You mentioned the cosmos, many see the amazing and surprising things we are discovering as proof of Divine Authorship,
many don't. That is Freewill.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Correct me if I'm wrong, please. All Christians believe in the same god and the same book? But few of you agree on the contents of that book and what your god and its 'son' believed in and what messages they announced. How does this make your book clear, or precise, or technical, or any sort of forecast, or - in the OP - the authorship of your god?

In this thread I go into a little detail about how the apostasy developed in the Church, that explains why not all people who claim to serve the God of the Bible or believe its teachings do.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Quadrivium

Free will also allows us to believe in what we perceive to be truth, you see it works both ways.

Star for you!
However, I never said it didn't work both ways. It would not be freewill if it only worked one way.
You can believe anything, that is freewill. Yet, you can't claim all that you believe is truth.
Truth is based in facts and logic.
Belief and Faith are based in philosophy and spirituality.

originally posted by: Untun

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Albert999
Nice post but not proof I'm afraid. If you had proof of the divine, you would be very famous.


ETA I know this was a pretty ignorant thing to say, but I genuinely don't mean to upset anyone by it. 🙏🏻

This is not accurate in the least.
Human being, as we are (flawed) can find reasons not to accept anything as truth.
It is how we were created.
We have freewill.
Freewill allows us to deny what we do not want to perceive as truth.
That does not make it any less true.

You gave me the idea freewill is our sinful nature which I found to be an interesting idea. Rationally it sounds different from following god.

Why? Would it be better if God forced you to follow?
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean?

originally posted by: HarryJoy
It may be explaining it but it explained it wrongly. The sun doesn't hurry back to its starting point. I wouldn't expect the smartest man to have ever lived to explain it wrong. Would you ?

a reply to: randomuser

From our point of view on earth it does. There is nothing inaccurate about the statement.

The same is true with the Genesis account. The 6 creative days are not, like many claim, referring to the creation of heaven and earth. It is dealing with God's preparation of the earth for life. In Genesis 1:1, the very first verse of the Bible we are told:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Now scientists believe that the universe did have a beginning, they can detect this because of the red shift in supernova that tell us the universe is expanding from a certain starting point. Does it say how long ago? No, some time in the indefinite past.

When the events in verse 2 start we're already dealing with a universe that exists, including our sun and the earth and the moon. Understanding these things and looking at the Genesis account from the proper perspective you really begin to see how accurate the Bible really is:

"Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters."-Genesis 1:2.

So during this time the earth existed. The entire surface was covered by water. There was no land. And the light from the sun did not penetrate the thick atmosphere, therefore the surface was dark. That is literally what it is telling you. You see you have to get the right perspective and then it all falls into place.

How did the Bible writer know there was a point in earth's history that it was covered entirely by water, and that the atmosphere was so thick the that earth's surface was constantly in darkness?

"And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."-Genesis 1:3-5.

A lot of people like to claim that the Bible is inaccurate because God makes light (in their eyes he created the sun) here. But that is obviously not what is being described here. In verse 1, sometime in the distant past the universe had already been created. In verse 2 we see the surface of the earth covered entirely by water and enshrouded in darkness, caused by a thick atmosphere. So in this verse the atmosphere is cleared up enough so that light penetrates to the watery surface of the earth. And a division of night and day becomes apparent. The sun and moon are still not visible.

Also you may want to note that in Hebrew the word for day can denote not just a literal day, but periods of time. In the very next chapter in Genesis 2:4 it uses the same word for day to include all of the preceding days:

"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."-Genesis 2:4.

So the idea that Genesis has to be wrong because the entire universe was not created in 6 literal days is obviously false.

"Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so.  God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day."-Genesis 1:6-8.

On the second day God divided the waters above the earth's atmosphere with the waters on the surface.


"Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so. And the earth began to produce grass, seed-bearing plants and trees yielding fruit along with seed, according to their kinds. Then God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day."-Genesis 1:9-13.

On the third creative day, or epoch, or era, God separated the water from the earth, and had dry land appear. And created plants and trees. Coincidental the photosynthesis involved in this production would take CO^2 out of the air, and pump oxygen into the air, clearing up the thick atmosphere.

On day 4 God made the sun and the moon appear in the heavens. The thick atmosphere cleared enough so now that the already existing sun's and moon's light penetrated to the surface.

On day 5 God created the creatures in the sea and the birds of the heavens.

On the 6th day God created land animals, both wild and domestic, and concluded by creating the first man and woman.

The fossil record testifies that this is how life arose. Just as it was penned by Moses thousands of years ago. And it wasn't a gradual development, but the appearance of life was sudden in the fossil record just as written.

So scientific textbook? No. But scientifically accurate? Yes. There is no way Moses understood all of this when he wrote it. It was divinely inspired.

There are other scriptures that talk about the water cycle thousands of years before humans knew about its existence. (Job 36:27-28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6 -The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.)

It says that the earth is round and hangs upon nothing, quite contrary to the thoughts of the time. -Job 26:7

The waters of the oceans once stood above the mountains and have risen and fallen. In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods. -Psalm 104:6, 8.

a reply to: randomuser

Nobody knows that the universe had a beginning. The available evidence shows that the universe is expanding, and continues to accelerate its expansion. From this, scientists surmise that the universe 'began' at some point by reversing the acceleration rate as a guide to the age of its birth. But that is an assumption, not a fact.

Plants - indeed all life's ancestors - first formed on the ocean shoreline. It is this life that created the first oxygen, not the trees and other plants that appeared around three billion years later.

According to the fossil record birds did not appear at the same time as oceanic animal life - there is a gap of 3.5 billion years.

Again, according to the accepted fossil record (i.e. accepted by everyone other than creationists), human beings - or even the first primates - appeared a very long time after life first appeared on land. We're talking of billions of years.

Billions. Thousands of millions of years.

The fossil record does not concur with Genesis at all. It also doesn't 'suddenly appear'. The Cambrian discovery happened over hundreds of millions of years - and these are only the species that have been preserved in that location. We now know how to look for soft body fossils, and new discoveries are being made every week.

A scientific textbook? Absolutely not. Scientifically accurate? Absolutely not. Close? Not even a cigar.

The statement IS entirely inaccurate...that's the point. But you want to fall back on the position that it is a simple human perspective while simultaneously defending the book as divinely inspired.

And it was a Greek that discovered that the Earth revolves around the sun. A Christian would have never questioned it because they would have felt they already knew the answer.

You can't have blatantly inaccurate perspectives being passed off as words of wisdom from a man that God supposedly personally gifted with wisdom and understanding surpassing every person on earth.

It's just a really bad look and all it does is cause anyone to realize that every word in there is questionable as to whether it is divinely inspired or just a simple human perspective. At least that's the only way I can see it. I'm not going to say that some of it may not be divinely inspired. But only God can tell you which parts are...lol.

And as far as saying science backs the Bible or vice versa. Science doesn't have the answers to those questions...all they can do is postulate at this point. So you saying that this and this and this is how it all happened has absolutely no weight...it's all speculation.




reply to: randomuser

a reply to: TerraLiga

But that is an assumption, not a fact.

Exactly like your entire argument.

a reply to: TerraLiga

It's called the Big Bang, and it is mostly accepted as a fact that the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago. Anything beyond that is metaphysics, not really science at all. Like you pointed out there is no way for real science to go beyond that.

The Bible does and does so accurately. As it accurately said the earth is round and hung upon nothing. And accurately depicted how life arose on earth. And accurately depicts the rain cycle, among other things. There are many things Bible writers wrote that they could have no knowledge of otherwise. For example DNA is discussed in detail long before it became known.

But like I said this thread wasn't made to debate science, it is dealing specifically with Bible canon. There is no way a human creation could have brought about such a work and have it all in agreement over such a vast amount of time. This is very convincing proof that it has as its author Jehovah God:

"I am Jehovah. That is my name."-Isaiah 42.8.