The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

look into context, and ask yourself some questionswhy would God choose her? there are plenty of MAIDENS this is a specific onewhy did Joseph get angry with Mary when she was pregnant? maybe she was suppose to be a virgin!?etc. analyze, read the entire chapter to realise the true meaning of the word

no i got what you mean, "very bad translation" i know but if thats the case then LOOK AT THE CONTEXT, you dont even need that one word. OK lets say it could mean girl, virgin, or an only daughter...ok? now, lets look into the CONTEXT to understand what the word SHOULD be?we know that she SHOULD be a virgin because when she was pregnant Joseph was angry. so even without looking at that word WE KNOW THIS becuase of the contextif i am to use your example if i may"i am a macho man becuase i lift weights and am strong"so we know that macho usually means simply "male" in Spanish, right? ok so by only reading the sentence what do you think that word is implying? that i am a male man? NO that woudlnt even make any sense! it means that i am masculine and strong and how do i get that? from reading on, i life weights and am strong....that means that word "macho" isa derogatory term for strength and masculine! i agree. if all else fails look in the context im hoping its more complicated than that, after reasearch in the language they would get the best english word that fits for it yes, but it certainly wouldnt be ENOUGH to change the idea completely and plus, we can read the context and make our OWN word or even an idea that english doesnt have a word for, for Mary. i agree that would be a problem, but i assume they are trying their best to translate it as close as possible, and early english has a lot more words to use from than modern english, thats why i use KJV. but either way, context would help if the word is not understanding. that would be overreacting a bit because it was hand picked from the INCORRECT piles, becuase no matter the language you KNOW if the text is disagreeing with God is going to be tossed out. it doesnt matter the words used or the language it was written it, when you have one that agrees with God, THEN you got the difficulty of translating as carefully as possible. so that actually cut down A LOT of texts to be put into the bible.so in other words: todays bible is not much more different than yesterday's because if I can come up with the context problem im sure smart analysts at the apocripha(sp) used that knowledge to get the right texts into the whole actually that is bad because in the end of the bible it says "and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life and out of the holy city, and FROM the things which are written in this book"so changing the bible only means bad things for you. AND it is bad to change the bible because that means that YOU, MAN are wanting to change what GOD, NOT MAN has said and done. God never changes his mind, God is constant and what he says stays, you cant change it. that act does not take place anymore because Jesus was the last cattle to die on the cross for our sins, so therefore there is no need to do that ANYMORE becuase HE was the corruptless lamb to completely die for our sins, if we accept that, then we do not need to do that anymore. then this calls for a new Constitution of the United States, cuz its getting old now. and OH lets change the laws too, they are old as well.it doesnt work that way, if somethign gets old that doesnt lose its validity! then Einsteins theory of relativity should be discarded cuz its old? oh NO! we cant do that now can we?no no no, the bible is contstant, TRUTH alwasys stays the same, you speak with your mouth, THAT act will never change, you will ALWAYS speak with your mouth, thats truth, and truth is always there, constant and infinite. you can destroy the bible, but God's words will never change no matter what MAN does

i believe you said this... whos he if your not talking about Jesus. and OK lets go into other religions who also speak about a worldwide flood that they wrote about. ive researched that and a TON of other religions speak abotu a GREAT flood in their history. alright that makes sense but they were eyewhitness accounts of seeing jesus, being healed, raised from the dead, etc.if things like this didnt take place then thats a pretty BIG assumption to take on AS truth.look up what Simon Greenleaf has proved, he has the evidence and he is an analyst. and why is that?

i know they did it RIGHT after he died. if not, how do you know that seeing that both books very similar is not an excuse to say they copied off eachother verbatim how do you come up with this assumption? so just cuz he never had an encounter with Jesus makes him non-existant there? no, i am found all around crowds at special gatherinds, but heck you can ask anyone if Eric was there, lol they would be like WHO? i agree he was more intellectual in his writing style ive read some of the gospel of Thomas and has nothing to do with what Matthew, Mark, or Luke have to say. in The so called Gospel of Thomas it says that Jesus said that we should make women into men by teaching them the ways of God....what idiocy is this? yes i have actually i was very intrigued to read about them one day i came across the Adam and eve one, and i must say that it is completely a fake cuz of the things that happened werent true and were of extraodinary incorrectness.The Gospel of Thomas is a complete nonsensical book becuase it claims things that Jesus never said. Thomas made a book as a sexist and turned Jesus into the sexist God. a lot of those books were bias to one side and not neutral or even on Gods side completely. the Adam and Even book, i read some complaints about how life was. what makes you think these books arent forgery to mock God? what makes you think that these books werent created by some folks to descieve? if you check what i said in another thread, i say exactly that. but every punctuation, sentence, paragraph was put together using common knowledge in english grammar. IF the bible was put together in any different way, the context woudl be skewd to the max, making a lot of things make no sense at all. that is the perfection of English, even though it is a very difficult language it is made to discern fallacy from...the good. lol as an adult if you read a sentence that is written and punctuated the wrong way, you would feel a little uneasy that theres somethign wrong about it. so you would try to fix it. im sure a ton of analysts over the years have read the bible to see about those uneasiness i noticed that as well but for a reason it is part of Genesis 2, because no long is Genesis 2 talking about CREATION it is now talking about the Garden of Eden and the fall of man, that is the reason why it begins there for Genesis 2 please state your sources, i dont see hwo it could be two cultures, because BOTH chapters speak about days being actual days and both speak about God making man on the 6th day....so what is the difference? why should i ask the question to the answer i already know?it doesnt, Genesis 1 is CREATION Genesis 2 is the FALL OF MAN, it doesnt say anything about creating the sun, moon, stars or even creating the grass animals birds bla bla. it is merely recaping what happened on creation then talking about the creation of Adam and eve, notice how Adam was created outside of Eden then put INTO The garden. also at the beginning of Chapter 2 it explains how God HAD created plants animals and such THEN it talks about God putting adam in the garden of eden THEN sprouting plants and animals again, so does that mean that God made plants twice in chapter 2 and ONCE in chapter one? NO!!!! chapter one explains the creation, chapter two explains the fall of man, and in the beginning it explains the story of Creation in a few sentences THEN brings Adam into eden where he brings forth the plants ONLY in the garden because the rest of the word was already created