Why is the Bible even considered in the first place as being foundational for Christianity?

[Twilight Hue]

No one even knows who first wrote it. It could have been written by anybody, anytime, anywhere.

There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game?

The Bible is not a two thousand year old book as some claim it to be.

Oral tradition has time and time again proven to be unreliable in terms of accuracy no more different than oral recollections are now.

King James had no access to the Dead Sea scrolls. They were found in 1947. Bit of a problem there. Wouldn't you say? Apologists?

God didn't write it. It's not God's word.

So..

It's therefore obvious people themselves not God that also, for some strange reason, remains completely anonymous other than for a collective acknowledgment right out of the blue, that they were definitely people inspired by God. Whoever they were. . .. How does that work?

 

[idav]

With the Abraham religions there is a trust factor involved, not with a particular writing, but of who wrote it. Whether one wants to trust the supposed authorshiop of any particular book in the Bible is important to consider. Depends a lot on whether someone trusts John, Matthew, Paul and/or Jesus as being legit historical prophets of God. That takes the sort of faith that goes beyond the writings themselves.

 

[Muslim-UK]

No one even knows who first wrote it. It could have been written by anybody, anytime, anywhere.

There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game?

The Bible is not a two thousand year old book as some claim it to be.

Oral tradition has time and time again proven to be unreliable in terms of accuracy no more different than oral recollections are now.

King James had no access to the Dead Sea scrolls. They were found in 1947. Bit of a problem there. Wouldn't you say? Apologists?

God didn't write it. It's not God's word.

So..

It's therefore obvious people themselves not God that also, for some strange reason, remains completely anonymous other than for a collective acknowledgment right out of the blue, that they were definitely people inspired by God. Whoever they were. . .. How does that work?

It may have its problems, however:

The Bible is a important set of books under one cover. It contains prophecies, history, genealogies and talks about important people that lived and breathed. It is without doubt the building block for our understanding of why we are here, and what our purpose in life is. Love it or hate it, believe or disbelieve it's importance on the people of this planet is uncontested and has shaped the lives of Billions of people.

We Muslims believe in the Bible, but have been told man changed and corrupted parts of it. However the central core message has remained in tact:

The Lord our GOD is ONE, worship HIM Alone. <<<<< Those words are a direct communication from GOD through His Prophets and Messengers. This is the benchmark for all human understanding. Any Faith/Religion that does not promote this core Doctrine is respected but ultimately rejected.

 

[eldios]

No one even knows who first wrote it. It could have been written by anybody, anytime, anywhere.

There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game?

The Bible is not a two thousand year old book as some claim it to be.

Oral tradition has time and time again proven to be unreliable in terms of accuracy no more different than oral recollections are now.

King James had no access to the Dead Sea scrolls. They were found in 1947. Bit of a problem there. Wouldn't you say? Apologists?

God didn't write it. It's not God's word.

So..

It's therefore obvious people themselves not God that also, for some strange reason, remains completely anonymous other than for a collective acknowledgment right out of the blue, that they were definitely people inspired by God. Whoever they were. . .. How does that work?

I am a servant of God who has been used to testify to the knowledge of God called Christ. I am the only one on earth who can vouch for the previous servants of God called prophets, saints and apostles that you can read about in the Bible. However, there are many words written in the Bible that come from information called Satan and the beast while all the prophecies come from information called Christ. Most of the new testament came from information called Satan and the beast which as confused every single reader of those words.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Authorship is a big thing lets face it, we like to know something about the man or woman who wrote what we are reading, especially if they are making "extraordinary claims", except when it comes to religion. Religion gets a free pass, people park their rational mind outside the temple and lower the bar for good evidence to ground level. It is a remarkable human trait, the disconnect, the double standards. A man or woman may work as a scientist, a detective, a historian during the day, examining evidence, examining claims and using rational means to decide the likelihood of them being true. In the evening they are prepared to believe in invisible deities and demons, a man living inside the belly of a fish for three days, virgins giving birth to deities, prophets galloping off on a winged horse, all because it says so in some holy book written by ancient superstitious people. I'm buggered if I can work it out!

 

[Muslim-UK]

Authorship is a big thing lets face it, we like to know something about the man or woman who wrote what we are reading, especially if they are making "extraordinary claims", except when it comes to religion. Religion gets a free pass,

Yes very important point. We need to know who people are, are they trustworthy, reliable, honest etc. And you can read about the people who wrote the Qur'an, from the man who received revelation, right through to the scribes, furthermore you can even read about the Companions and family of the Prophet pbuh

".... prophets galloping off on a winged horse, all because it says so in some holy book written by ancient superstitious people."

There is nothing about a winged horse in the Qur'an. The account is found in Hadiths which are fallible, however many believe it to be true including myself, based on the fact, the Qur'an is ample evidence pointing to a Divine source, and so stories in Hadiths are accepted, as long as they do not go against the Qur'an.

I'm buggered if I can work it out!

Don't be buggered, just be perplexed, that way you can keep it halal

 

[omega2xx]

No one even knows who first wrote it. It could have been written by anybody, anytime, anywhere.

There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game?[/QUOTE]

Because the author is not important. Only the One who inspired what is written in the Bible is important.

The Bible is not a two thousand year old book as some claim it to be.

The mss used to translate the Bible are older tan 2000 years

Oral tradition has time and time again proven to be unreliable in terms of accuracy no more different than oral recollections are now.

Conservative Christianity doe snot accept or use oral traditions for it theology.

King James had no access to the Dead Sea scrolls. They we
are found in 1947. Bit of a problem there. Wouldn't you say? Apologists?

Not at all. The DSS only confirmed some of the mss already in in our possession, They did not add anything new.

God didn't write it. It's not God's word.

The secretary did not determine what was in the letter, her boss did.

So..

It's therefore obvious people themselves not God that also, for some strange reason, remains completely anonymous other than for a collective acknowledgment right out of the blue, that they were definitely people inspired by God. Whoever they were. . .. How does that work?

He does not remain anonymous. He takes full credit for all of the Scriptures.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

Yes very important point. We need to know who people are, are they trustworthy, reliable, honest etc. And you can read about the people who wrote the Qur'an, from the man who received revelation, right through to the scribes, furthermore you can even read about the Companions and family of the Prophet pbuh

I consider Mohammed to be a liar though mate, I've no good reason to think he was anything more than a person like you and me. People lie all the time, right? Just as true then as it is today, with ancient writ making extraordinary claims there is no way of judging the honesty and integrity of the authors. The sensible thing is to treat it with the scepticism it deserves, not to believe it because others believe it, apply the same standards of scepticism you apply to modern media stories for example.

There is nothing about a winged horse in the Qur'an. The account is found in Hadiths which are fallible, however many believe it to be true including myself, based on the fact, the Qur'an is ample evidence pointing to a Divine source, and so stories in Hadiths are accepted, as long as they do not go against the Qur'an.

Sure, I put that one in for you! It wouldn't impress me if it was part of the Qur'an tbh, I'm not going to believe one holy book to be false, and accept another as having the monopoly on truth, why would I? Even if the authorship of the Qur'an is better attested to than the New Testament (I accept that it is btw), you still have the massive problem of believing the extraordinary claims it makes to be credible. Not a problem if you've been told it is true from childhood? Maybe not, but it jolly well should be!

Don't be buggered, just be perplexed, that way you can keep it halal

It was figurative language of course, perhaps "perplexed" is a better word, just doesn't have the same emphasis!

 

[james bond]

No one even knows who first wrote it. It could have been written by anybody, anytime, anywhere.

There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game?

The Bible is not a two thousand year old book as some claim it to be.

Oral tradition has time and time again proven to be unreliable in terms of accuracy no more different than oral recollections are now.

King James had no access to the Dead Sea scrolls. They were found in 1947. Bit of a problem there. Wouldn't you say? Apologists?

God didn't write it. It's not God's word.

So..

It's therefore obvious people themselves not God that also, for some strange reason, remains completely anonymous other than for a collective acknowledgment right out of the blue, that they were definitely people inspired by God. Whoever they were. . .. How does that work?

As usual, atheists are wrong again .

Of course, this could be just ignorant opinion or a great misunderstanding. Regardless, it's a sloppily put together argument.

The OP wants accuracy, but he's wrong about the most basic facts. The DSS were found between 1947-49, 1952-56 and 2017. It comprises over 900 manuscripts found in twelve caves.

11 Caves
The Dead Sea Scrolls - Discovery Sites

12th Cave
Qumran Cave 12: New Dead Sea Scrolls Cave Discovered | Archaeology | Sci-News.com

Learn about the scrolls
The Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me that the foundation of Christianity has rarely if ever been the Bible proper. And that is a good thing.

Historically, most Christians haven't even read much of the Bible. If anything, that was even more true before recent times.

Not counting the Jewish tradition, I believe that until nearly exactly 500 years ago, there were hardly any Biblical texts in any languages beyond Latin and specialized dialects of Hebrew and Greek. Nor were too many Christians even literate to begin with. Translating the Bible was one of the demands of the Protestant Reform.

Even today, when interest in directly reading the Bible is probably at an all-time high, only a small percentage of believers have actually read much of it.

So, in practice, the foundation of Christianity has considerably more to do with the concept of the Bible then with the text itself.

And, again, that is a good thing. Apparently in divergence to the OP, I do not think scripture is a good basis for religious traditions.

If anything, the increased reliance on the Bible in recent decades has played a large role in the loss of trust and relevance of the tradition. People are far better off when they reason and discern on their own terms instead of attempting to find living wisdom among static words on paper.

The apparent reason why the Bible is so often presented as authoritative for Christianity has very little to do with the text itself. Instead, it is a tradition of seeking central authority for validation that comes from very early Christianity, all the way back to Constantine and Paul, and is arguably necessary for its continued well-being.

 

[Sand Dancer]

As usual, atheists are wrong again .

Of course, this could be just ignorant opinion or a great misunderstanding. Regardless, it's a sloppily put together argument.

The OP wants accuracy, but he's wrong about the most basic facts. The DSS were found between 1947-49, 1952-56 and 2017. It comprises over 900 manuscripts found in twelve caves.

/QUOTE]

The dead sea scrolls don't even specifically mention a historical Jesus though. What's the big deal?

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is no established/known authorship for each individual book within the Bible either. Guessing game?

Because the author is not important. Only the One who inspired what is written in the Bible is important.



The mss used to translate the Bible are older tan 2000 years



Conservative Christianity doe snot accept or use oral traditions for it theology.



Not at all. The DSS only confirmed some of the mss already in in our possession, They did not add anything new.



The secretary did not determine what was in the letter, her boss did.



He does not remain anonymous. He takes full credit for all of the Scriptures.[/QUOTE]
How are biblical authors selected, and how are they chosen to represent the Bible? More importantly, why are names of authors not divulged nor put into record leaving people to simply guess as to who wrote it? How is something like that even credible to start with?

To put in perspective, what if everyone in the Bible was just as anonymous and no one knew their names?

Authorship is a big thing lets face it, we like to know something about the man or woman who wrote what we are reading, especially if they are making "extraordinary claims", except when it comes to religion. Religion gets a free pass, people park their rational mind outside the temple and lower the bar for good evidence to ground level. It is a remarkable human trait, the disconnect, the double standards. A man or woman may work as a scientist, a detective, a historian during the day, examining evidence, examining claims and using rational means to decide the likelihood of them being true. In the evening they are prepared to believe in invisible deities and demons, a man living inside the belly of a fish for three days, virgins giving birth to deities, prophets galloping off on a winged horse, all because it says so in some holy book written by ancient superstitious people. I'm buggered if I can work it out!

It's amazing people accept something like the Bible, a foundational text upon which the religion is based, without even knowing exactly who wrote it.

 

[Kenny]

Because the author is not important. Only the One who inspired what is written in the Bible is important.



The mss used to translate the Bible are older tan 2000 years



Conservative Christianity doe snot accept or use oral traditions for it theology.



Not at all. The DSS only confirmed some of the mss already in in our possession, They did not add anything new.



The secretary did not determine what was in the letter, her boss did.



He does not remain anonymous. He takes full credit for all of the Scriptures.

'nuff said! Plain and simple to understand.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As usual, atheists are wrong again .

Of course, this could be just ignorant opinion or a great misunderstanding. Regardless, it's a sloppily put together argument.

The OP wants accuracy, but he's wrong about the most basic facts. The DSS were found between 1947-49, 1952-56 and 2017. It comprises over 900 manuscripts found in twelve caves.

11 Caves
The Dead Sea Scrolls - Discovery Sites

12th Cave
Qumran Cave 12: New Dead Sea Scrolls Cave Discovered | Archaeology | Sci-News.com

Learn about the scrolls
The Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library

That's fine, but that still doesn't explain the version attributed to King James.

It's clear he did not even know what the Bible was.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Conservative Christianity does not accept or use oral traditions for it theology.

Can you please refer me to the written source (scripture) supporting the claim that abortion and same sex marriage are anathema to God? I'm pretty sure that both of those are oral tradition of relatively recent origin.

 

[omega2xx]

Because the author is not important. Only the One who inspired what is written in the Bible is important.



The mss used to translate the Bible are older tan 2000 years



Conservative Christianity doe snot accept or use oral traditions for it theology.



Not at all. The DSS only confirmed some of the mss already in in our possession, They did not add anything new.



The secretary did not determine what was in the letter, her boss did.



He does not remain anonymous. He takes full credit for all of the Scriptures.

How are biblical authors selected, and how are they chosen to represent the Bible? More importantly, why are names of authors not divulged nor put into record leaving people to simply guess as to who wrote it? How is something like that even credible to start with?

To put in perspective, what if everyone in the Bible was just as anonymous and no one knew their names?

Every jot and tittle in the Bible was inspired by God, who held the pen is irrelevant. No theology or doctrines would change.

It's amazing people accept something like the Bible, a foundational text upon which the religion is based, without even knowing exactly who wrote it.[/QUOTE]

What is really amazing is that you don' seem to understand "inspired by God."

 

[omega2xx]

'nuff said! Plain and simple to understand.

I am sure he understand, he just doesn't want to give up his position.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the author is not important. Only the One who inspired what is written in the Bible is important.

Why do you use the word inspired rather than authored?

Inspired isn't good enough. The Flintstones was inspired by The Honeymooners (Fred is Ralph Kramden, Wilma is Alice, Barney is Ed Norton,etc), and West Side Story was inspired by Romeo and Juliet. Are the inspired examples close enough to the originals to say that they are the same things, or are they significantly altered?

If the Bible is only inspired by God, then it's not the same book that He would have written had He been its only author.

 

[omega2xx]

Can you please refer me to the written source (scripture) supporting the claim that abortion and same sex marriage are anathema to God? I'm pretty sure that both of those are oral tradition of relatively recent origin.

Abortion---You shall not murder---Ex 20:13

Same sex marriage.: It is no the marriage that is sinful, it is the sexual activity that is involved.

Lev 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.

Rom 1:27 - and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men, committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

[omega2xx]

Why do you use the word inspired rather than authored?

I use what the Bible says, 2 Tim 3:16.

Inspired isn't good enough. The Flintstones was inspired by The Honeymooners (Fred is Ralph Kramden, Wilma is Alice, Barney is Ed Norton,etc), and West Side Story was inspired by Romeo and Juliet. Are the inspired examples close enough to the originals to say that they are the same things, or are they significantly altered?

That is not spiritual inspiration.

If the Bible is only inspired by God, then it's not the same book that He would have written had He been its only author.

It would be exactly the same.