Kevin's Watch

I'm sure majority here in the Close believe the Bible is made up, and I've heard lots of reasons why, but they all seem to be why the Bible can't be legit, rather than some evidence of it's being made up. Are there evidences? For instance, who made it up, when, why? I hear about how it's changed over the years, how do we know? We must then know what it's changed from, so what was it changed from? And what's the difference b/w Old and New, are they both made up? Then same questions apply.

I wouldn't say "made up". I suspect much of it stems from oral history/legend, and another big chunk stems from visions experienced by the various authors.

IMHO, anyway. I'm no Biblical scholar.

Actually, the majority of people on the Watch are christians. And it's not so much that it's made up, as that it is neither contemporary (of the time), nor the "revealed word of god."

As for changes over the years, most of them have been due to translation issues I think. However, in general, when we talk about things like, that people are referring to the gnostic gospels, which were declared non-canonical and therefore not to be included in the bible.

Many canons have been proposed over the years, the first, in 140AD contained only 10 epistles of Paul, and parts of the gospel of Luke.

The major writings (especially of the new testament) were pretty much agreed on by 300 AD or so, but other attempts at defining a difinitive canon persisted.

In 367, the Bishop of Alexandria gave a list of the same books that exist in the new testament, except he included the Book of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah in his bible, and eliminated the book of Esther.

From the fourth century, Christians in the West were in agreement with the New Testament as it is today, and within a hundred years or so, the eastern orthodox religions (with few exceptions), came to agree as well. (Specifically on the Revelation.)

Martin Luther tried unsuccessfully to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the bible though, and it wasn't until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox that the question of canon was officially closed.

Among the major books considered excluded from the canon are:

Gospel of Mary (recovered in 1896)
Gospel of Thomas (versions found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in 1898, and again in the Nag Hammadi Library)
Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi Library)
Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Library)
Gospel of Judas (recovered via the antiquities black market in 1983, and then reconstructed in 2006)

--A

Cybrweez wrote:I'm sure majority here in the Close believe the Bible is made up, and I've heard lots of reasons why, but they all seem to be why the Bible can't be legit, rather than some evidence of it's being made up. Are there evidences? For instance, who made it up, when, why? I hear about how it's changed over the years, how do we know? We must then know what it's changed from, so what was it changed from? And what's the difference b/w Old and New, are they both made up? Then same questions apply.

Isn't that a variation of the "you can't prove that God doesn't exist" statement?
What does "made up" mean anyway?
It was written by various men over what....3000 years?
Bound to be some edits even assuming it all came from God's...however he got the word out originally.
That's why the Dead Sea scrolls are important.
It's the oldest version of the Bible I think.
I believe that the Old Testament has a more accurate historical record than it's given credit for.

The New Testament is even more screwy.
There are Books that the Church deemed repetitive or unnecessary so they left it out.
What's up with that?

Or incompatible with the established teachings of the church.

--A

The history is incredibly complicated...for one thing, there are written versions of various parts of the bible that are older than Christianity, and some that are even older than Judaism and the old testament [the most commonly known is the flood story, there are written versions of it 1000 yrs older than the first Jewish person.]

made up? what does that mean "made up"?

dude it's fairly easy to find information on the document(s) referred
to as "the bible".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

i'm sure there's more in depth info elsewhere on the net alone,
not to mention the vast quantity of study that's gone into the thing.

i've no idea what you meant by "made up" so i'm answering to the
best of my ability.

Made up, as in, not written as believed by many Christians. Each book was written by someone, at a certain time, like Matthew sometime in 60'sAD. Either that's true or not. If not, then Matthew, or someone else, made it up, right? And pretended he wrote it at that time.

The belief most commonly is, or so I hear from Christians, is that while it was written by man, the words written were divinely inspired, the actual Word Of God, merely set down by man. As such, God would not allow any obfuscation, or translation errors.

Seven Words wrote:The belief most commonly is, or so I hear from Christians, is that while it was written by man, the words written were divinely inspired, the actual Word Of God, merely set down by man. As such, God would not allow any obfuscation, or translation errors.

This is true for those who claim every word is literally true [ exactly 7 normal, human days to make the world, etc.,...which not all believers do]
This runs into problems, naturally, since so many are demonstrably different, ones "real" bible is just as much a matter of faith as ones God.
Those who take a more metaphorical stance have fewer problems in some arguments, more in others...and the switch hitters are usually the worst of the bunch [these are the people claiming "fags are evil" with one breath, and are still ok with war, despite "Thou shalt not kill."]

Actually, the bible doesn't say thou shalt not kill. In the original Hebrew, the commandment reads "Thou shalt not murder." A small but crucial distinction.

--A

cyber the documents are the documents.
do the research dude.
the documents were written and compiled by people.
(and, through the ages translated and retranslated
and edited, etc so on and so forth)
they are actual documents.

they aren't a rumor. they're real.

now what exactly is your question?

The documents are real. So written by who the church has said wrote them? And they are accurate? I've done the research, I'm trying to get some ideas about support for the idea that the Bible was compiled some time after, by people who weren't eyewitnesses, and it's unlikely most of it was true. You know, the common stuff you hear about the Bible. I'm just looking for why that's the common belief.

EDIT: maybe I'll expand on vraith's comment, you have to have faith to believe the Bible is not the word of God, as much as to believe it is. There's no evidence to support the former.

Avatar wrote:Actually, the bible doesn't say thou shalt not kill. In the original Hebrew, the commandment reads "Thou shalt not murder." A small but crucial distinction.

--A

Precisely my point. There was no "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" either in Hebrew or early Greek versions...another small detail, but there are much larger issues of what's in, out, translated, and sources.

It was assembled by the Church from existing documents on or near the First Council of Nicea in the 3rd Century. That's undisputed.

Vraith,

"My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" is a quote from Psalm 22:

Psalm 22
1My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

2O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

3But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

4Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

5They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

6But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

7All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

8He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

9But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

10I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

11Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

12Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

13They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

14I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

15My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

16For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

17I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

18They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

19But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me.

20Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.

21Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

22I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.

23Ye that fear the LORD, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

25My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.

26The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.

27All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

28For the kingdom is the LORD's: and he is the governor among the nations.

29All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

30A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

31They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.[emphasis added]

I rambled on a bit in this post. But it's how I see things, near enough.



The question of who wrote the bible is a pretty complicated one. Some parts we know the names, most of the new testament, for example. Yes, there were edits and translations over the years. Other parts of he bible, particularly old testament, are a combination of folk tale and oral history collected into written form and passed down over the years (and yes, collected and edited and translated and altered to fit the evolving faith), and have no definite author - you can name a person who wrote down one particular telling of a folk tale, legends, etc, but you can't really say that a single person originated the tale. These things develop over generations of hearsay, legend, and storytelling. The creation myth, for example.

I think you are wrong to say that it takes faith to claim the bible is not the word of god; it is as simple as saying a collection of folk tales of any culture is nothing more than that. Of course I'm talking about the more mythological portions of the bible here; the historical record, the letters, and so on, are simply informed by their individual authors' beliefs.

It requires no faith to consider that a religious nation which considers its rulership appointed by god would ascribe actions and motivations of that ruler to the word of god also - it acts as a blanket justification for the ruler's actions while he lives, and paints him in a positive light to record his reign in such a way in your history books. The people who record history are no less likely to possess beliefs that have no basis in reality than anyone else. They may believe their King was appointed by god simply because it is what everyone believes, what they were told from childhood.


Men tell stories. It is a simple fact of human nature, and not a difficult one to apply to these cases. Men also use the faith of other men to manipulate, that too is a simple fact. Thus the mythological tales of a culture become used as the justification for events in its history, and that history later becomes part of the mythology, because men used one to get what they needed from the other.



So, we can discard the letters written much later by members of the faith - they are simply men's beliefs. We discard the records of one man's life written 300 years after the fact based on passed down stories. (Those same tales closer to the events we might look at more carefully, but can't set aside that they were written by believers in him with the aim of spreading his word.) We discard the historical record of Kings and nations chosen by God - they are wish fulfilment of men wanting to know they are superior to other men.

And all we're left is mythology, which cannot be traced to an original source, but can be traced through many variations and retellings all the way back into the earliest parts of recorded history. And from there, can be matched to fanciful retellings of actual events - the story of the Flood, seens as far back as ancient Sumeria, one of the first known civilisations, can be traced to their civilisation's founding in the flood plains of the Mesopotamian river basin.


I believe the fatal flaw in religious faith is that no man can ever believe another man's revelation. One must experience it for onesself, or there is no way to know that what the other man saw was truth, falsification, delusion, hallucination, or simple misinterpretation.

Regarding translations, bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm has these for the passage in question - 2 Timothy 3:16.

New International Version (©1984)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

New Living Translation (©2007)
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.

English Standard Version (©2001)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

International Standard Version (©2008)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval.

King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

American King James Version
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

American Standard Version
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

Bible in Basic English
Every holy Writing which comes from God is of profit for teaching, for training, for guiding, for education in righteousness:

Douay-Rheims Bible
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

Darby Bible Translation
Every scripture is divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

English Revised Version
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness:

Webster's Bible Translation
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Weymouth New Testament
Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing;

World English Bible
Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness,

Young's Literal Translation
every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that is in righteousness,

There are some pretty different meanings there. Which means that God, basically, dictated the Bible to the various humans who actually did the physical writing, so that it's impossible for them to be inaccurate in the original language? And which is the definitive translation into English? And is it possible to translate something the size of the Bible in a way that can be considered the one-and-only accurate way? And is a literal translation of each word the best approach; or is preserving the meaning better?

And after all that is decided, there's interpretation to consider. Is a literal interpretation of the end result the best way to go; or are there metaphors all over the place? If a mixture, who gets to decide which are literal and which are metaphors?

Cybrweez wrote:EDIT: maybe I'll expand on vraith's comment, you have to have faith to believe the Bible is not the word of God, as much as to believe it is. There's no evidence to support the former.

Well, of course, first you have to accept the unsupported belief that God exists. Not that there's evidence againt God. How could there be? But there's none for God. Believing that is a pretty big leap. Not having reason to believe in God, the question of whether or not the Bible is the word of God doesn't even come up.

SerScot wrote:It was assembled by the Church from existing documents on or near the First Council of Nicea in the 3rd Century. That's undisputed.

Vraith,

"My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" is a quote from Psalm 22:

But I'm talking about the other one, on the cross [been a long time, one of the M's, Matthew or Mark I think]...in some versions, especially non-Latin ones, this line and other parts of the scene are absent or different.

The thing is, things are always lost and altered in translation, even if there were no politico-religious motivations and manipulations.
Simple example, everyone knows virtuous means good: but that is simply the result of misunderstandings, changes in translation, and context...it really only meant "excellence"...when definitions change, meaning/understanding/interpretation all change.
The entire concept of "true" shifted radically between Greek and Roman thought. [and between Greek and Latin].

Vraith,

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. The Psalms were written by King David. Christ was quoting the Psalm from the Cross.

'Weez wrote:There's no evidence to support the former.

You don't need evidence to support a negative. You can't prove something doesn't exist, but you can prove that something does.

SerScot wrote:It was assembled by the Church from existing documents on or near the First Council of Nicea in the 3rd Century. That's undisputed.

Although the First Nicene Council was an ecumenical council, it nonetheless did not define the books of the Bible. Much argument was involved over whether certain phrases were scriptural, but it didn't set out to, (or end up) making a definitive statement about what was officially to be considered the Bible as far as I find. They were trying to agree on doctrine, not canon.

(Here's an interesting link to what they did actually do: The Council of Nicaea and the Bible) (Scroll down past the first few sections.)

As I mentioned earlier, it wasn't until the Council of Trent (1545–63) that an Ecumenical Council issued a definitive list of what was officially to be included in the bible. (Or at least, that was the one that finally got accepted...it was attempted often before.)

The canons issued at Nicaea were legal ones...rules of discipline.

Personally, I'm more interested in what historical authenticity the Bible has.

--A