The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

To be fair, he has half a point, it's just that the analogy doesn't quite work.Certainly we would judge the most likely hypothesis to be that the fifth date was wrong --- pending further investigation.When it comes to the Gospels, the sort of "further investigation" we'd want to do would be rather difficult.Perhaps we should drop the whole rock analogy, it's not helping.

ok hold on there. you said a bunch in one post makes me write pages upon pages ok anyway ok now WHY isnt the New testament part of the Canon? many many sects use KJV, NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc. they are all the same lol unless your talking about Jehovah's whitness bible, or the satanic bible. if Jesus said "i am that you say i am" in 24 books and another book was found that said that jesus said "i am God" WHICH one do you think is going to get in the Canon? you think tehy just blindly chose what book to put in there? NO NO NO they decided this over months of hard work and comparing and seeing which agreed with the other and seeing WHO was against God and whatnot i dont see how, just because the books that were inspired by God were put together by men whom ALSO could have been inspired by God, is now man made. -_-....and look read the bible im sure you have, check it out, man could not possibly make such a great thing no you just dont know why it looks like tehy contradict, one is a roman so they write that way and etc. there is no error, where is there error? and where do you get these facts? how could people write what jesus said WORD for WORD many decades after his death? and HOW do you know it was many decades after his death? again with carbon dating?and what makes you say its unknown people, John clearly states HE wrote John, i dont follow your logic and accusations REALLY? where is this OLDER genesis? do you have it or something cuz i really want to read it.and TALES in Genesis 2? what makes you think they are tales?you pose TONS of arguments here, please lets only pick one

Tazmanian Devil, you are the most ignorant person I've ever listened to. You think you know everything about Biology? Well then answer me this:~When the Oxygen level on Earth in the very beginning was zero, how could the rocks have absorbed Oxygen in order to complete the Primordial Soup Theory? Totally off-topic. Please do not do such messages again. Others - Do not reply (under threat of suspension) to this message. - AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Posted off-topic warning.

Have you ever heard of Judaism? What makes you think they did write what Jesus said word for word. Or, alternatively, someone else clearly states that John wrote John.The apocryphal Book of John the Evangelist also states clearly that it's written by John, and it is, moreover, in the first person, which is more than can be said of the Gospel of John --- but you don't accept the authenticity of the B.o.J.t.E, do you?I, John, your brother and partaker in tribulation, and that shall be also a partaker in the kingdom of heaven, when I lay upon breast of our Lord Jesus Christ and said unto him: Lord, who is he that shall betray thee? [and] he answered and said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish: then Satan entered unto him and he sought how he might betray me ...It says it's by John, but in fact its author is unknown.

Jim Hawkins clearly states that HE wrote Treasure Island (with a couple of chapters filled in by Dr. Livesey). Yet we know Jim was just a fictional character.If I wrote, "This post was written by George W. Bush", would you believe it?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

yes but...i also know that the OT talks about Jesus Faith in God yes and by that logic i can say there are men running around inside the TV to make it go, you cant prove me wrong cuz they dissapear when you go in there to look.........i can prove anything by that logic. lol you cant prove the big bang happened. you got facts? how do you know they are true? you got numbers? how do you know those are right.with the logic you go about in, we wont get anywhere. how about tell me the "WHY it dont work" instead of a "WHAT makes you THINK that is" route no i dont becuase Tribulation hasnt taken place yet, and this guy says he is taking part of it, so obviously he is working on his own accord.plus im not dodgy or anything i need to go to sleep this would probably be my last post lol

no becuase George W. Bush would not be that intelligent.plus, that reasoning would bite you in the butt. Then how can you personally believe anything to be facts with what your saying

Hang on now, those kind of translational errors can be enormous. Especially when you are dealing with literalists.Further, you are dealing with translations not just from one language to another, but like a game of telephone, from Aramaeic into Archaic Hebrew into Greek into Latin into German into Victorian English into Modern English. (Yes, I'm sure I've screwed up the order or skipped a step in there, it's an example).Many people struggle with Shakespeare and that's translating from Old English into New English."God called forth Adam from the ground."
"God called Adam from the gravel."
"God pulled Adam from the gravel."
"God pulled Adam from the stones."
"God drew Adam from the stones."
"God drew Adam from stone."
"God shaped Adam from stone."While the overall idea that "God made Adam" stays intact, the philosophical/cultural ramifications of being pulled out of the Earth vs being chiselled from stone could be very significant.Given that documents were done by hand, aged, copied, etc. spelling mistakes, punctuation, translations etc were sure to creep in.Here's a great example of how issues with spacing cause a problem.In many early texts words run together without spacing - so you get "Godisnowhere"
"God is now here" or "God is nowhere"? Which did the original author mean?

We can confirm something to be fact if it agrees with other facts. If other writers outside the Bible wrote about Jesus, that would tend to confirm that He existed.What we can't do is use the Bible to confirm the Bible.And we can confirm something to be fact if different people from different cultural and religious backgrounds study the same materials and draw the same conclusions. If a Hindu and an atheist studied all the available documents and concluded that Jesus existed, that would tend to confirm that it was true.What we can't do is accept the assurances of people who have already decided that every word in the Bible is true.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

just a tiny nitpick: shakespeare is actually Early Modern English. you want to see old english? go here:
Kingdom of Lochac – The SCA in Australia and New Zealand
check out the difference between the lord's prayer of 1611 and that from 1000. The 1384 example is middle english.okay, done with the nitpick.

Well, the question "is the Bible the work of man of Godly made" is a large question even if unimportant in the larger scheme of the faith. There is much to cover, and the evidence that the Bible is the work of man, dedicated and inspired men, but just man none the less, is overwhelming. No, those are simply translations and versions. I am talking of entirely different Canons.The problem is that many Christians are totally ignorant about the breadth and history of the Faith, and unfortunately, that includes a very large percentage of today's Christian Clergy. They are simply ignorant of basics such as the various Canons. I'm not sure why the Samaritan Christian Church only accepts the first five books, the old Torah, into their Canon and not even the whole Tanakh. That is a good question.But at the other extreme, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has 81 books in their Broad Canon. Thank you. You have simply supported my point. What you describe is exactly how the different Canons were developed, although it is not just a mater of months but of years and even centuries.These committees were the ones making decisions, and even though they might be inspired, it is still just men making bibles. The proof is that different committees came up with different lists of what books should be in the Bible.If the Bible was Godly made then there would be one list of which books should be included. I'm sorry but that is just making excuses, and it also just supports my point. When we look at the Bible we are not looking at what GOD said but rather just what men said about what God said, with all of the limitations of the man. Claiming that there are no errors in the Bible is simply lying to oneself and others. Many parts of the Bible contradict other parts. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other on both order and method and describe to entirely different aspects and visions of God, as I have already pointed out to you. We have a pretty good idea about when most of the books of the New Testament (and in fact most of the apocrypha) were written. And, as you said, "How could people write what Jesus said WORD for WORD many decades after his death?"The answer is that they didn't. The older Genesis stories are the ones that are found in Genesis 2. The story found in Genesis 1 is the younger of the various creation myths.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

then what about Romans writing pamphlets about Jesus before his death?
what about 200 other people who documented their accounts of meeting with Jesus?how much more do you need?study Simon GreenleafEdited by Juraikken, : No reason given.

thats a good point but does it say that God DOESNT make man? the idea has not been changed it only becomes a problem when someone comes up with the idea of Evolution....but then check it out, if THAT sentence says stone, then another from another book woudl say dust, so it wont match, that means it would be changed BACK to the original

Clearly you are misunderstanding the problem. Think bigger than EvC debateMary was a maiden.In the Greek this means she was a young girl.
In the English it also implies virginity.But that implication is not part of the Greek.So was Mary a virgin before the translation or only after?What is the "maiden" equivilent in Hebrew? Latin? German?For a modern example take the word "Macho"
Macho means "manly". But what it means to be a man in Spain is different than what it means to be a man New York City.Does that mean that the people of NYC can not be "macho", or does it mean that something is lost in the translatioin

well im one of them =p ok maybe you misunderstood me, the 4 gospels were Matthew Mark Luke and John right? now what did they write? their accounts on what happened during Jesus' time on earth. Now, they WROTE their own books according to what they saw, now God wouldnt go to a Jew and ask him to write in Japanese....one of the guys was a Roman so he wrote IN roman what he SAW as it was happening. and plus where would THAT change anything? what if when God inspired him He inspired him in that persons own language? there is no wrong in thatThe Bible was inspired by God, BUT written by man in their own language, writing styles, etc. it did NOT sprout out of man th ideas of the biblethats what i meant to say at first the BIBLE was INSPIRED by God, written by man. now the Apocryphia(sp) was put together, thank you, by centuries of work, discerning who was FOR God and who was AGAINST God to put together the Bible. and in those days im SURE many people besides the authors of the bible wrote whatever they wanted and when jesus said "the world will hate me before they hate you" then im sure that there were a TON of people who wrote bad about Jesus, THOSE books written by haters were not inscerted into the actual bible.everything that was written INSPIRED by God was put into the bible, those haters and what they said was inspired by Satan, not God. So i stand by my argument that the ENTIRE Bible was inspired by God. those guys looked through everything, if it took centuries, and put ALL that supported God and left out all that hated God. why do you think the Judas book isnt in it? because he didnt want to be the failure, so he made a book against God.its not like they are leaving truths out, those books that arent included are people who HATED God or Jesus so if those men were putting together the Bible all about the glorification of God and Jesus, those other books dont belong there no i am not making excuses its truth, when your going to analyze a book, FIRST you must analyze who wrote it, what time period, what language, etc. thats what you do right? ok then i forgot who was the roman one and the hour of day when Jesus was crucified was different than the rest, why? cuz he used Roman time. HE was writing in his own tongue, unless he began saying Jesus died during a completely off time then we got a problem but the time corresponds with the others.the bible was written by MAN but inspired by God, if those 4 gospels werent inspired by God, they woudlnt be written. and i never said God didnt tell anyone to write something word for word, he could do that BUT man woudl still be writing it. they could insert their own, "this is John and its my book" bla bla they could do that, God didnt tell him to write this he did it on his own. you think it contradicts yet you dont understand, Genesis 1 is talking about creation, Genesis 2 recaps creation in one sentence then talks about putting man in a garden where God Sprouts out everything FOR the garden ONLY! while the rest of the world was ALREADY created. see? thats why a lot of people get confused about the contradictions. they didnt because they wrote it right after his death. really? i would like to know how you got that answer fromcuz Genesis 2 starts by: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the Seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the sevent day from all his work which he had made."thats how genesis 2 starts, if the entire bible started this way umm, what happpened to the previous 6 days? it seems like there was a previous chapter missing here. so i dont thing Genesis 2 is the beginning chapter in teh bible.Chapter 1 starts out like this: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.""in the beginning" instead of "thus the heavens and the earth"......big difference