The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

As you've already been told, he was a Jewish historian who was eye-witness to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE ("Common Era", a non-Christian date designation for practical purposes equivalent to "AD"). In college, I researched his original writings to see that alleged mention of Jesus for myself and how the original Greek had read. Yes, Greek. Koine, the lingua franca of the Roman Empire.That passage wasn't there. In a footnote where it was supposed to have been, the editor noted that it doesn't exist in any of the Greek manuscripts, but rather first appears on an Old Church Slavonic translation, which indicates that it was more likely added much later by an overzealous monk.

Manuscripts of the New Testament exist from ancient times. The text of those manuscripts differ from each other; the text has changed.Does Luke 2:14 say "and on earth peace, goodwill toward men" or "and on earth peace among men of goodwill" (which could also be translated as "among men receiving God's goodwill" -- that's part of the ambiguity of the genitive case). Depends on which manuscript you use, one which includes or omits a final sigma on eudoxia, goodwill. With the sigma, eudoxia is in the genitive, but without it it's nominative. Changes the meaning of the verse. Most of the verses differ in some way from one manuscript to another. Even the verses in Revelations, which contains the admonishment you quoted warning against changing any of the text (Rev 22:18-19).

We don't need to find such a wild difference as you suggest. If the meaning changes, then the meaning is indeed different. For example, we have these two sentences in English:
"Dog bites man."
"Man bites dog."Simple word differences. Actually, the words are identical; it's just the order that's changed. But the meanings of the two sentences are entirely different.How's your grammar? Do you know what grammatical cases are and what they do? If you've ever studied Latin, Greek, German, or Russian, then you should know. If you're a monoglot or have only studied the Romance languages (like most), then you probably don't have a clue. Cases are used in inflected languages (ie, languages in which words change, usually to indicate how they are being used in the sentence). Case indicates how nouns and adjectives are used in the sentence; in inflected languages this is indicated by endings or changes in the root (though German does it through the articles and adjective endings), whereas in languages like English it's indicated by word order, as demonstrated above. To demonstrate in German (also changing the sentences' word order to be identical, so that the only difference is in the case):
"Der Hund beit den Mann." ("The dog bites the man.")
"Den Hund beit der Mann." ("The man bites the dog.")
"der" indicates nominative case, which here would be the subject, the one performing the action of the verb. "den" indicates the accusative case, which means that the noun is the direct object, that upon which the action of the verb is being performed.Again, minor changes, only single letters, but ones which completely change the meaning of the sentences. And they do not even need to be differences to the order which you describe as being necessary.Now, a number of the differences between the manuscripts of the New Testament are fairly minor and don't make any real difference in the meaning. But a number of them do. Uh, no. They are different. They have different meanings. "Different" means "different". What part of "different" don't you understand?"and on earth peace, goodwill toward men"
"and on earth peace among men of goodwill"The first one states that that there will (or should) be peace on earth and that "men" are to receive goodwill and it does not restrict who those "men" are; basically, it says that everybody is included.
The second one states that "men" will receive peace (not goodwill) and it further restricts which men will receive peace, namely those "of goodwill".The two have different meanings. What part of "different" don't you understand?If the Bible is supposed to be taken literally, then which one meaning is supposed to be the right one? This is important, because entire doctrines have been spun from single verses, like from the long ending of Mark, which does not exist in the earlier manuscripts and so is considered a later addition.Oh, didn't you know that already? Mark 16:9-20; Mark 16:18 is the single verse that has spawn venomous-snake-handling and the drinking of poison. Well, those verses are not in the older manuscripts. Or else there is in some a "short ending" which reads thus in the NRSV:

quote:

---

And all that had been commanded them they told briefly to those around Peter. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.

---

Or, both appear in some manuscripts, the short ending followed by the long.BTW, the KJV has the long ending without the short.Gee, an entire half-a-chapter added on. Now that's a difference. Or do you claim that they both "have the same meaning"? Please bear in mind that I'm not claiming that you hold this claim or have made this claim. But I have frequently been told by "creation science" proponents that they only believe the "Word of God", which they identify as the Bible. Furthermore, they declare their deep and firmly-held belief that the Bible is free of all error because if it is ever found to contain even a single error, then the entire Bible is false, Christianity is a complete lie, and God doesn't exist and they must become atheists. That is exactly what so many creationists and other fundamentalist Christians have told me; I swear to God and three other white men (an old Redd Foxx line; I've been waiting for decades to use it and just could not resist the temptation any longer). But then when I ask them where in the Bible it tells them that, they become utterly silent and disappear very quickly.Juraikken, you have just expressed the same belief, that the slightest error in the Bible make the entire Bible false as well and the Christ, etc, and then "all falls apart." Where does that belief come from? Does the Bible tell you that? Or only your religious leaders and teachers? Where did they get it from? Theology is man-made. In my opinion, one should learn where their beliefs come from and what they are based on. Especially beliefs that require you to abandon your faith should they ever turn out to be false. For example, "creation science" makes a multitude of false and contrary-to-fact claims and teaches that should any of those claims turn out to be false, then "Scripture has no meaning", which then leads to the scenario you describe because, as you just witnessed, that is what you are taught you must do in such a case.In other words, such beliefs create a test that, when it fails, would prove conclusively that God does not exist. And they have rigged that test so that it's guaranteed to fail. Which causes you (pl.) to go into deep denial, burying your (pl) collective head in a sandy desert of apologetics, desperately blinding yourselves to the results of that test. All that results is a very fragile faith -- extremely strong convictions, but they need to be so strong in order to shield that fragile faith from the truth. Plus, you have given the anti-religious Christian atheists (many of them ex-Christians who had already fallen prey to that test) the perfect argument for proving that God does not exist; all they have to do is apply your test and show that it fails. And on top of that, you have given non-Christians a very good reason to write Christianity off as hokum, because they will receive your test, apply it, and find that it does indeed fail. Too bad the test itself is false.I don't know whether you are yourself a biblidolator, but we all too often see Christians who worship the Bible, putting it even before God. That does appear to be what you are doing here when you make the truth of the Christ dependent on the truth of the Bible. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Wouldn't a faith that is Christ-centered and God-centered be much stronger than one which is Bible-centered? In such a faith, it would not matter whether the Bible was written by man or whether it was not perfect (which it is not). And "inspired" would have a more truthful meaning than your current fragile faith requires it to have -- I think that ideas about the meaning of "inspired" is a principal source of the problem and that it should probably have a thread devoted to discussing that meaning.[segue (sounds like "segway")]
There's a filk song (that was not a typo) called "Word of God", in which each verse ends with a refrain that changes a bit as it evolves:
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks."
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky."
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life."
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world."
[/segue]Which leads me (hence the segue) to a devout Christian grandfather, George H. Birkett, who has put some of his thoughts about religion and his faith on his web site at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/geobrkt/faith/toc.htm:
"The First Testament" (at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/geobrkt/faith/faith0/ftog.htm) is what God wrote, the true "Word of God", namely Nature:

quote:

---

Unlike the Bible, which many claim is God's divine word written by men at the behest, direction and inspiration of God, The First Testament of God is written by God in His own hand. For those of us who seek God's divine word, this is it. We have found it.

​

. . .

​

Okay. If this be the case how does the Bible fit in?

​

For me the Bible has become much more interesting than it formerly was. It's a kind of primer, an introduction to humanity's growing awareness of a Supreme Being. It gives us a place to start on our personal journey of discovery. Besides being fine literature it is incredibly candid and honest. But it is less about God and more about men: written by men about men. It is the account of the Hebrew people's struggle to know and understand God, the evolution of one monotheistic religion, so to speak.

---

In "Ignorant Adoration?" at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geobkt.com/blendingfaith//faith04.htm, he expresses his concern that too many Christians just blindly accept what they're told, "what someone says the bible says or some kind of denominational tenet or doctrine or dogma that encourages denial of evidence (clues) and interferes with our applying our God given intellect to contemplate what the evidence tells us."Just some food for thought.And a Bible verse, 1 Thessalonians 5:21:
KJV -- Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
New KJV -- Test all things; hold fast what is good.
NIV -- Test everything. Hold on to the good.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

When comparing apples to apples, meaningful differences are definite and definitive. When comparing apples and oranges, it is much more difficult to describe what the meaningful differences are, because the baseline similarities are themselves too different. So how much harder must it be when comparing apples and mercury-pool delay-line computer memory hardware (read the first page of Asimov's 1951 "Caves of Steel")?The descriptive narratives in the cited filk song and from the cited site are obviously metaphors. I hope you do know what a metaphor is -- if not, then consult a literature textbook or Wikipedia.Birkett's metaphor is nothing new. It was also used during the Enlightenment where God was the God of Nature and the world of Nature was refered to as the True Bible which was "read" by studying the natural sciences. For an readily accessible example, refer to Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason".Part of what Birkett seems to be addressing on his site is how to handle conflicts with what we see in nature and what our interpretation of the Bible is. I would prefer that you read it for yourself, since I would not want to mistate his position. But let's face it, reality is reality and the facts and the evidence are what they are and any religion that insists on making claims that are contrary-to-fact is just begging for the trouble that it'll cause its followers. Birkett does express concern and problems with the ideas of biblical inerrancy and with the practice of placing the Bible above and before God.I don't like getting into that quagmire of claims of inerrancy and "fullfilled prophesies." I am highly skeptical of such claims, but it's so much pain to try to reason with creationists when the facts are crystal clear and cut-and-dry, that I do not have the time nor patience to try to reason with an inerrantist in murkier waters. Needless to say, such extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Such proof has not yet been forthcoming. But I have far better ways to waste my time than to try to go through that evolution (Navy-speak for "drill", as in "what's the drill?").While the writings in the Bible are man-made (inspired by their ideas of God -- as I said, a definition of what "inspired" is supposed to mean would be a good idea, otherwise everyone will just be talking past each other; creationists and inerrantists would just love that situation, but a seeker after the truth would definitely want to get that definition nailed down), they also represent the collected wisdom of a people and are valuable as such. Study of nature allows us to see how nature works; you may find some ideas about nature as it was viewed back in ancient times, but those ideas will fall far short of reality. At the same time, the Bible's ideas about human nature would have a place in study of human nature, along with other sources.But why are you so concerned that someone who "reads the First Testament of God" might not adhere strictly to your dogma?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Scene in a PBS miniseries about the Manhattan Project. Group discussion trying to solve a serious problem with the gun design for the atomic bomb (later use in "Little Boy", Little Boy - Wikipedia). Oppenheimer (Sam Waterston) cites Navy research in high-velocity gunnery and the problem they encountered with the barrel warping after a few firings; (quoted from memory):

quote:

---

Voice in the back of the room: Uh, excuse me, may I ask a question?
Oppenheimer: Yes, certainly.
Voice: How many times is this gun going to be fired?
[scattered laughter throughout the room]
Oppenheimer: Good point. OK, next problem!

---

A stupid question if I may: Why this belief that the Bible was made by God? Where does it come from? What is it based on?Compounded with this basic question is my observation of several creationists who insisted emphatically that they only believe the Bible, along with insisting that if even one single error is found in the Bible, then the entire Bible is false, God is a liar and doesn't exist, etc. Does this mean that the Bible itself says those things? If so, then where? Interestingly, those creationists I requested that information from did everything they could to avoid responding.So then, that belief that the Bible: where does it come from and what is it based on?Edited by dwise1, : Corrected actor's name