The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

I quote the topic title from a message of Juraikken's at the "Exodus Part Two: Population of the Exodus Group" topic. There has been an ongoing discussion there (and elsewhere?) that has little (IMO) directly to do with the topic.Jar has taken part in the above cited discussion, and it's largely an exploration of Jar's "The map vs. the territory" analogy.So, the repeat the topic title, Juraikken asserts that "The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made."Might I suggest, that man has had a hand in the manufacturing of the physical book? Also, down through time, that man has had a hand in translating and editing the content of the Bible (the variety of your choice, as Jar points out, there are many variations on what is "The Bible"?Now I ask, being that man is the screw-up prone creature he is, how successful has God been at maintaining Biblical quality control down through the ages? Perfect quality control? Near perfect? The general story is correct? The book still has some valid use? It's worthless?I say, real quality control, now there God would have pulled off his greatest miracle.Maybe I can get fast admin action, in getting this topic into the "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" forum. MooseAdded by edit: I have now discovered the older Determining a book's truth topic. Perhaps my new topic is redundant to that topic.Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

well heres the deal, teh topic on creation and religious things were very very very important and looked great upon back in those days, so until they had complete translations (KJV) i would say that it hasnt changed at all. look at it this way, ive come across many people who have thrown me a lot of contradictions and so far ive been able to re-asses all of them to show little errors in their ideas.i'm not tlaking about something so miniscule as"God called forth Adam from the ground"(original for example)
"God called Adam from the gravel"(translated)that doesnt change anything. Translation only gets in the way if they change the meaning of the sentence. Now i pick the best one that has been translated as close as possible KJV. so far as i read it, i havent found any inaccuracies. I would enjoy being able to talk about it, but this isnt a thread about that.The quality i could say has been kept in tact, because the hebrew text can go along with the english right? im not so good with that part of biblical history if someoen may show me if thats true or not.

One of the first evidences that anything called a Bible is just the product of man is that there is no such thing as "The Bible".There are actually a few "Bibles", the books determined by various Canons. The smallest Canon has only 5 books, the largest Canon has over 80 books.To claim that "The Bible" was Godly Made, you need to explain why there is not one Bible, but several. You also need to justify why whichever one of the many Canons YOU happen to choose is the "Godly made" one as opposed to the others.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ok what IS the smallest Canon?and ive also read SOME of the books that are not part of the regular bible today, it goes against what Jesus teaches. its like this all 4 gospels said the same thing, if a 5th came along and said completely different it gets tossed aside, is that wrong? science does that everyday doesnt it?

A scientist would want to know which, if either, of the two accounts was true before deciding which one to "toss aside".

Notice that this is the bible: accuracy and inerrancy section of the board. Please refrain from using this opportunity to make cheap and ignorant smears at science.We now return to our regular broadcast.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

i understand that perfectly clear. there are some times when a scientists finds a certain data that is completely off from other data which are agreeable with others, and THAT new data that is incorrect is wrong. for instancelets say some scientists date a rock123,000,000
122,000,000
123,500,000
123,000,000
817,192,213which one would be considered wrong? compared to all the data that last one is unfortunately wrong and will be tossed aside, this has happened

alright then, how would be be able to discern the bible being fact without looking at facts, i was using a mere example to show what i meant by WHY they tossed aside a certain book

Please refrain from making cheap and ignorant smears at science. Violating the 9th commandment would hardly support your case.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

As I said, the smallest Canon contains only the Pentateuch and excludes everything beyond that including ALL of the New Testament. There is no such thing as the "regular Bible" today. Never has been. What constitutes the "regular Bible" depends on the Christian Sect you belong to. That is not how science does it at all. Nor is it the case with the different Canon. For example Enoch, the source for the story about Satan's Fall is included in some Canon, excluded in others. 2Peter, 2 & 3John, Jude and Revelations are included in some canon but excluded from others.It is not a matter that something new comes along, it is that the men, plain old men that decide what is in a particular Canon make choices.The Bible is definitely not "Godly made", but rather very much the creation of man.And, of course, none of the 4 Gospels say the same thing, they all have areas of contradiction.Even the very existence of four Gospels is evidence that what we see is the work of man, not GOD. GOD would certainly be capable of telling the story one time, fully, completely and without error. But that is not what we see. Instead, the four main Gospels (and there are actually quite a few Gospels in addition to the basic four) were each written by unknown people, many, many decades after Jesus death.There are many other such examples. The creation story in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the older, combined tales found in Genesis 2. Even the depiction of God found in the two tales is entirely different.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i dont see how its a cheap and ignorant smear, am i wrong? science doesnt do that? im not even putting down science, lol im using the scientific method here to discern truth from fact, you observe...etc

actually, science would attempt to explain why that "817,192,213" was so far off from the rest. it would not throw it out just because it disagrees without looking for why it disagrees.science does not reject data out of hand. at least, not science done properly.

Well, for me, bearing false witness includes telling half-truths. You've described a part of something while leaving out the rest and called it "the scientific method". God help us if people actually believe you that what you are using is the real scientific method. But what does it matter, nowadays we have people who remembered 2 words from his high school biology text book and thinks he's a biologist.For admins, sorry for the interruption. It just itched too much to not point out violation of the 9th commandment.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

At that point you'd make more measurements. And you'd try to replicate the methodology of the fifth measurement. And you'd calibrate your measuring equipment. Oh, and you'd also check to see whether this was, in fact, the same rock.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.