The whole Bible is not from God

[Brian2]

Haven't you read it?

Try the flood, just for example: Were there no minors in Noah's day? No infants and children? For what "justice" were they slaughtered by God's rain? How about the first-born of Egypt? Were they all adult, and therefore responsible for their own crimes, or were any of them children? If God had an argument with Pharaoh, where's the "justice" in killing the children of Pharaoh's helpless subjects? Were there no children among the Canaanites who God ordered slaughtered (or in the case of virgin girls, "take(n) for yourselves")? What is "just" about killing a virgin girl's parents and brothers, and then taking her home for your own "purposes?"

It never ceases to amaze me that Christians can't look those details in the face and ask themselves, "is this a just God?"

God created all things, including us humans and we rejected Him and we are told that the inclinations of our heart were only evil from our youth. God has a right to wipe out everyone if He so chooses, and to keep some alive if He chooses.
This, it seems to me, is not the final judgement and is not meant to be 100% just for every single person.
God did the flood to accomplish His purposes on the earth. A world that is evil in it's heart all the time is not going to pull itself up to a higher plane of existence. Things imo would just go down hill more.
The final judgement is a different thing however and God will judge each person separately and apply justice and mercy as He sees fit.
It is the same with Egypt. God wanted to judge the whole land for what they had done, and yes the innocent suffered.
With God as the King of Israel God was seeking also the good of Israel and to give brides (not sex slaves, as you seem to imply) for all the men.
As King God could have said to kill all of the enemy and drive them out of the land but you judge God as evil for saving some of them alive.
It is not easy at times to look at things from God's pov but to get a better picture of God, that is what you need to do.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

God created all things, including us humans and we rejected Him and we are told that the inclinations of our heart were only evil from our youth. God has a right to wipe out everyone if He so chooses, and to keep some alive if He chooses.
This, it seems to me, is not the final judgement and is not meant to be 100% just for every single person.
God did the flood to accomplish His purposes on the earth. A world that is evil in it's heart all the time is not going to pull itself up to a higher plane of existence. Things imo would just go down hill more.
The final judgement is a different thing however and God will judge each person separately and apply justice and mercy as He sees fit.
It is the same with Egypt. God wanted to judge the whole land for what they had done, and yes the innocent suffered.
With God as the King of Israel God was seeking also the good of Israel and to give brides (not sex slaves, as you seem to imply) for all the men.
As King God could have said to kill all of the enemy and drive them out of the land but you judge God as evil for saving some of them alive.
It is not easy at times to look at things from God's pov but to get a better picture of God, that is what you need to do.

Wow, you got to be pretty limber to survive contortions like that!

 

[Brian2]

Wow, you got to be pretty limber to survive contortions like that!

Thanks.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is not easy at times to look at things from God's pov but to get a better picture of God, that is what you need to do.

Not easy? I'd say, not being "God," that it was impossible. And yet, you pretend that you can do it, and in that way assuage your conscience of all the evil you apparently condone (when done to others, of course), or might even be capable of yourself. Just as the Inquisition found itself so morally bankrupt as to condone the hideous burning alive of human beings for not holding "correct" theological beliefs.

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

 

[Twilight Hue]

Err. I don't know who said "complete works". No one speaks like that. So if someone said that, please ask them and let me also know what they say.



Of course it's a fragment. Maybe you didn't read what I said but stopped at "P52". Please go back and read what I said.



That's just a blatant lie someone has made up and told you, and you repeat it.

The Gospel of John is theorised to have four different writers by literary critics. There are variations inserted by some writers with agenda. Of course. But that's not "filling the gaps left by fragments". That's nonsensical. And if you even read for like 10 minutes you will know that most of these interpolations were done way after the 4th century sinaiticus, alexandrinus, and vaticanus. So what you are saying is not based on scholarship, but just someones made up rant. Don't just listen to people, but actually take up some books written by NT scholars and read up.



In literary criticism, scholars know when someone writes something else and inserts it. Because lets say you have a manuscript from the 2nd century, and then you find another manuscript from the 3rd century, even if they are jotted down by different copyists, the scholars can identify if they come from the same original author or not. That is why scholars say that John has a redaction, and that the prologue was from a different author, etc etc. So if any church wrote things to fill the gaps left by a fragment, scholars would know it.

Your claims are just false. Someone told you wrong.

I'm sure this conjecture comes from academia or perhaps a more theistic source?

There's little doubt wherever the completed Bible originated from, and that's the Catholic Church who filled in the gaps from vauge the bits and pieces and compiled it into its written form.

 

[firedragon]

I'm sure this conjecture comes from academia or perhaps a more theistic source?

Nope.

There's little doubt wherever the completed Bible originated from, and that's the Catholic Church who filled in the gaps from vauge the bits and pieces and compiled it into its written form.

This statement is too vague.

 

[Brian2]

Not easy? I'd say, not being "God," that it was impossible. And yet, you pretend that you can do it, and in that way assuage your conscience of all the evil you apparently condone (when done to others, of course), or might even be capable of yourself. Just as the Inquisition found itself so morally bankrupt as to condone the hideous burning alive of human beings for not holding "correct" theological beliefs.

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

We cannot look exactly from God's pov but if we read a novel we can try to look at things from the pov of the characters and in that respect we can get more of a glimpse of God's pov.
God is the creator of all things and so it is easy to see why He has a right to be the judge of His creation and the owner of it, the one who has the right to give and take away as He sees fit.
If this God who has these rights is also loving, as the story indicates, we can try to see things from the pov of this God who does things out of love for His creation.
This can mean looking at the whole story and what God is working towards.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nope.



This statement is too vague.

Yep. Without the Catholics there would be no Bible.

 

[firedragon]

Yep. Without the Catholics there would be no Bible.

You mean the collection they call the Bible. True. The name Bible was invented later so you are right. But your earlier claim was that the catholic church wrote most of the Bible. Which is false, so you have changed your position now.

Also you must note that I asked you for scholars who said that if an earlier bible fragment was found, the catholic church wrote the rest of it. Especially considering your reiteration this happened in the fourth century. None of these things you alluded to are true. But you did not provide a scholar, yet you said that I am using "conjecture" and am using "theistic sources". If you think like that, you should provide your scholar. Guessing you are referring to the New Testament. I think I have explained enough so it's not necessary any further. I get the feeling that when you say "theistic sources" you mean any Christian who ever studied in a university and got a Phd in New Testament studies is a theistic source. Just my feeling. That is not a valid approach if that is your opinion. It's bias.

Anyway, if you only will respect atheists, read Dominic Crossan, and of course the very well known Bart Ehrman.

Cheers.

 

[Starlight]

I'm saying that doesn't appear to be the OP's argument. One could dislike love and justice and still measure weather or not antique sayings measure up to love and justice or not. In other words it is not about personal likes of the OP, it is just coincidental if they like love and justice.


Why is it better to have a different understanding of verses that have not been demonstrated to be divine in origin than to reject them?

In my opinion.

I am saying parts of the Bible are not from God because they are against the principles of love and justice.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anyway, if you only will respect atheists, read Dominic Crossan, and of course the very well known Bart Ehrman.

I was not aware that Crossan self identifies as an atheist. May I ask where?

 

[firedragon]

I was not aware that Crossan self identifies as an atheist. May I ask where?

No. I can't call Crossan to be an atheist. He is very vague always. But I don't think he is an atheist. He is just far from dogma of the church. He has his own footing on historical studies.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We cannot look exactly from God's pov but if we read a novel we can try to look at things from the pov of the characters and in that respect we can get more of a glimpse of God's pov.
God is the creator of all things and so it is easy to see why He has a right to be the judge of His creation and the owner of it, the one who has the right to give and take away as He sees fit.
If this God who has these rights is also loving, as the story indicates, we can try to see things from the pov of this God who does things out of love for His creation.
This can mean looking at the whole story and what God is working towards.

Once again, your analogy leaves out one important consideration -- when I read a novel, I cannot look at things from the POV of the characters, I can only look from the POV of the author who invented said characters. Even if I read a history, so long as the historical figure in question is not cited in his own (or near his own) words, I can really only get the POV of the historian doing the writing.

And I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in the POV of the authors of the Bible -- they were human, and they lived in a remote time in which practically nothing of our world and how it works was even vaguely understood. Which is why so very much of what they wrote smacks of magic, which we no longer see today for the simple reason that we have more knowledge.

 

[John D. Brey]

The whole Bible is not from God. Some people who wrote parts of the Bible were wrong about God. God has never asked us humans to kill each other. . . Yes many parts of the Bible is from God, but some parts of the Bible is not from God

And Jesus knew their thoughts and said unto them that every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation and every city or house or holy book divide against itself shall not stand.

Matthew 12:25.​

John

 

[Larry R Camp]

The whole Bible is not from God. Some people who wrote parts of the Bible were wrong about God. God has never asked us humans to kill each other.

Yes many parts of the Bible is from God, but some parts of the Bible is not from God

How to know what is from God in the Bible? That is simple. God is love and just. What is against love and justice is not from God. God is against killing innocent people.

Any thoughts? Do you agree og disagree?

 

[Larry R Camp]

None of the BIBLE was written by man. Though men penned the texts, ALL THE WORDING WAS HIVEN THESE MEN COMES FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT making it INFALLIABLE. WHY is it that the greatest minds in U.S. HISTORY, John Quincy Adamd and John Marshall had no problems with it?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

None of the BIBLE was written by man. Though men penned the texts, ALL THE WORDING WAS HIVEN THESE MEN COMES FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT making it INFALLIABLE. WHY is it that the greatest minds in U.S. HISTORY, John Quincy Adamd and John Marshall had no problems with it?

So THERE!

 

[Dao Hao Now]

None of the BIBLE was written by man. Though men penned the texts, ALL THE WORDING WAS HIVEN THESE MEN COMES FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT making it INFALLIABLE. WHY is it that the greatest minds in U.S. HISTORY, John Quincy Adamd and John Marshall had no problems with it?

Well!
Bald assertion followed up by an appeal to not quite authority (unaware of either fine gentlemen being biblical scholars), I simply can’t imagine how that might be refuted!

 

[Larry R Camp]

Well!
Bald assertion followed up by an appeal to not quite authority (unaware of either fine gentlemen being biblical scholars), I simply can’t imagine how that might be refuted!

 

[Larry R Camp]

Learn U.S. History 101. John Quincy Adam's was president of the Smerican Bible Society. Both men wrote often and extensively on the BIBLE'S value in legal decisions. You speak from ignorance, or you are too stupid to understand facts. This is factual, not insults.