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

[Limo]

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?

This is a good question...
There is no trusted narrations especially for NT Bible books. Scholars say that the 4 books were anonoumus for tens of years till it takes its names Mark, Luke, Mathew, and John
The known Christianity theology is totally disconnected with OT theology and laws.
The surprise is , known Christianity theology is also based on amegous understanding of NT. Trinity is a vague example, some Churches say it's biblical, some say the opposite.

It doesn't end here, if you look to Jesus life and tradition in NT , you'll find a well practicing Jew, believe in one God, never praise the Cross, never say Trinity, never went to a church,,,,,

The known Christianity is not only disconnected to the Bible but to biblical-jesus as well

 

[omega2xx]

This is a good question...
There is no trusted narrations especially for NT Bible books.

Speak for yourself, not for Christians. We trust the narrations in the whole Bible. Do you really believe man has the ability to compose such a book?

Scholars say that the 4 books were anonoumus for tens of years till it takes its names Mark, Luke, Mathew, and John

Who and when the Bible was written is irrelevant. God may not have held the pen, but he inspired what is written in all the Bible.

The known Christianity theology is totally disconnected with OT theology and laws.

Not if you understand both, which obviously you don't.

The surprise is , known Christianity theology is also based on amegous understanding of NT. Trinity is a vague example, some Churches say it's biblical, some say the opposite.

Some understand it, some don't.

It doesn't end here, if you look to Jesus life and tradition in NT , you'll find a well practicing Jew, believe in one God, never praise the Cross, never say Trinity, never went to a church,,,,,

The known Christianity is not only disconnected to the Bible but to biblical-jesus as well[/QUOTE]

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you really believe man has the ability to compose such a book?

"Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived. So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon

God may not have held the pen, but he inspired what is written in all the Bible.

Inspired isn't good enough. If every word was not chosen by a god, then it's got man's fingerprints all over it, meaning that even if some of it were authored by a divine source, we would have no way to know which parts those were.

The task at hand in trying to decide if the Christian Bible was written by a god that created this universe is somewhat akin to encountering a suspension bridge, finding "Jesus wuz heer" sprayed onto one of the footings, and wondering whether the author of the graffiti was also the designer and builder of the bridge. The book has too many mistakes in it to believe that it was written by the source of our universe.

 

[omega2xx]

"Imagine how spectacular a book would be if it were authored by a deity who created the universe. Yet there isn't a sentence in any holy book today that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century, and anyone today could easily improve on any of the holy books that people still follow. If a deity exists, it would be far more intelligent that anybody who has ever lived.

Then why haven't they. No one has written "Love your enemy." "To become strong you must become weak, to save you life you must lose it. To be free you must become a slave.

Here is my favorite one---Althought He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become righ.

So what does that say when anyone can improve on the Bible and Qur'an, but very few can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?" - anon

Good choice. A few years he gave a formula the tole the exact temperature of the BB, then gave the exact temperature 1 minute later. The could improve his writing by putting all of books in fiction section of libraries.

Inspired

isn't good enough. If every word was not chosen by a god, then it's got man's fingerprints all over it, meaning that even if some of it were authored by a divine source, we would have no way to know which parts those were.

Right. Inspired is not good enough. It must be inspired by God. You don't have to be concerned abut which parts are inspired. They all ere, even the jots and tittles.

The task at hand in trying to decide if the Christian Bible was written by a god that created this universe is somewhat akin to encountering a suspension bridge, finding "Jesus wuz heer" sprayed onto one of the footings, and wondering whether the author of the graffiti was also the designer and builder of the bridge. The book has too many mistakes in it to believe that it was written by the source of our universe.

Why don't you post the biggest mistake in the Bible, to show us all you actually know what you are talking abut. Is there not a chance you don't understand it?

Let me warn you, atheist web-sites don't understand the Bible.

 

[JustWondering]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/num/5.html#21
Are you serious? That is not about abortion, let alone approving of it.

The first example concerns women suspected of committing adultery. They are given a "magically" blessed potion that will cause their belly to swell and thigh to rot (unable to conceive children), thus killing any unborn children she may have conceived through adultery. If she did not commit adultery, the "magical" potion does nothing to her and she can conceive children. This is OBVIOUSLY a form of abortion, in the bible, condoned by the bible writers. You refusing to except this won't make it go away.

The second example condones burning pregnant women to death. Not much concern for fetuses there either. Again, refusing to except what is clearly in the bible in black and white won't make it go away. It will just prove that you are not honest.

I personally consider abortion murder, because logically, that's exactly what it is. If Christians hate abortion so very much, teaching their children about birth control will go a long ways towards preventing such a situation (unwanted pregnancy) from occurring in the first place. The religion teaches that everyone's a sinner anyway right? Why not use the brain your supposed god gave you and teach your kids about safe sex. Ignorance is not bliss.

 

[JustWondering]

Actually, in the Bible, a fetus isn't even considered alive. Life begins with the first breath:

• "The spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." - Job 33:4

• "Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord." - Ezekiel 37

• "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - Genesis 2:7

The bible shows no concern for unborn fetuses whatsoever. It basically boils down to Christians inventing new beliefs, that are not scripturally supported. I don't think abortion is a good thing. That's why proper birth control should be taught to children. That's why technologies that allow fetuses to be removed from mothers that don't want them and implanted into women who cannot normally have children should be developed. As well as technologies such as artificial wombs fetuses could be placed into. Imagine a world with zero unwanted pregnancies and zero deaths. However, since many theists are anti-science, they will likely find some crazy reason to fight that tooth and nail.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No one has written "Love your enemy." "To become strong you must become weak, to save you life you must lose it. To be free you must become a slave.

I don't consider that first comment to be good advice, and the last two are common sentiments in a large variety of traditions, especially Eastern philosophies.

Why don't you post the biggest mistake in the Bible, to show us all you actually know what you are talking abut. Is there not a chance you don't understand it?

The Bible is not difficult to understand. Much of it is vague or ambiguous, meaning that it has no specific meaning. Much contradicts itself, such as the report of the perfect god who regretted its mistake with mankind (a logical impossibility), and decided to start over, but used the same breeding stock. One doesn't need to be a god to see the folly in that.

Let me warn you, atheist web-sites don't understand the Bible.

Atheist web sites? What are those? The sites of atheist organizations like the American Atheists and thee FFRF? They tend to not discuss the Bible. And unbelievers have no reason to defer to the opinions of believers regarding what the scriptures mean. We are free to call them as we see them as I have just done regarding the flood. The believer is forced to reconcile them in creative but unconvincing ways as you will likely do with the scriptural errors just cited.

 

[omega2xx]

The first example concerns women suspected of committing adultery. They are given a "magically" blessed potion that will cause their belly to swell and thigh to rot (unable to conceive children), thus killing any unborn children she may have conceived through adultery. If she did not commit adultery, the "magical" potion does nothing to her and she can conceive children. This is OBVIOUSLY a form of abortion, in the bible, condoned by the bible writers. You refusing to except this won't make it go away.

The second example condones burning pregnant women to death. Not much concern for fetuses there either. Again, refusing to except what is clearly in the bible in black and white won't make it go away. It will just prove that you are not honest.

I personally consider abortion murder, because logically, that's exactly what it is. If Christians hate abortion so very much, teaching their children about birth control will go a long ways towards preventing such a situation (unwanted pregnancy) from occurring in the first place. The religion teaches that everyone's a sinner anyway right? Why not use the brain your supposed god gave you and teach your kids about safe sex. Ignorance is not bliss.

Since the first 2 of your comments are not about abortion, I am not going to respond. Protestants are not opposed to birth control. I am glad that you are opposed to abortion and consider it murder.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't consider that first comment to be good advice,

It is not about if it is good advice. It is about whatn men had not said.

and the last two are common sentiments in a large variety of traditions, especially Eastern philosophies.

Then quotes some of them.

The Bible is not difficult to understand.

That is disproved every day in this forum

Much of it is vague or ambiguous, meaning that it has no specific meaning.

Not for those who study it enough to understand it.

Much contradicts itself, such as the report of the perfect god who regretted its mistake with mankind (a logical impossibility), and decided to start over, but used the same breeding stock. One doesn't need to be a god to see the folly in that.

God was sorry for mankind because because of the problems they would face since the fall. If he was sorry for creating man, he could have destroyed them all.

Atheist web sites? What are those?

Get serious. That is self explanatory.

The sites of atheist organizations like the American Atheists and thee FFRF? They tend to not discuss the Bible. And unbelievers have no reason to defer to the opinions of believers regarding what the scriptures mean. We are free to call them as we see them as I have just done regarding the flood. The believer is forced to reconcile them in creative but unconvincing ways as you will likely do with the scriptural errors just cited.

WE reconcile what you can't understand by studying the Bible enough to understand it.

 

[Limo]

Speak for yourself, not for Christians. We trust the narrations in the whole Bible. Do you really believe man has the ability to compose such a book?



Who and when the Bible was written is irrelevant. God may not have held the pen, but he inspired what is written in all the Bible.



Not if you understand both, which obviously you don't.



Some understand it, some don't.

It doesn't end here, if you look to Jesus life and tradition in NT , you'll find a well practicing Jew, believe in one God, never praise the Cross, never say Trinity, never went to a church,,,,,

The known Christianity is not only disconnected to the Bible but to biblical-jesus as well

[/QUOTE]
Give me the chain of narrations from the writer till oldest writen copy.
Do you know the full biography of one the writer of one book like full name, birth date and place, his travels and its dates, his teachers, students,,,,

 

[omega2xx]

Give me the chain of narrations from the writer till oldest writen copy.
Do you know the full biography of one the writer of one book like full name, birth date and place, his travels and its dates, his teachers, students,,,,[/QUOTE]

It is not necessary to know that information. It would not change what is wrotten and it is obvious that at least 2 of them were eyewitness to what they wrote,

The only important thing is did God inspired the writers what to write. The Bible says He did. If anyone can prove He didn't, I will jump the theology fence and get on your side. If they can't, you should consider jumping the fence and get on my side.

 

[JustWondering]

Since the first 2 of your comments are not about abortion, I am not going to respond. Protestants are not opposed to birth control. I am glad that you are opposed to abortion and consider it murder.

The examples I gave from the BIBLE clearly demonstrated that the bible authors did not consider fetuses people. Ignoring that FACT won't make it go away. The "Christian" pro-life stance is a NEW belief that is not scripturally supported.

There are a lot of protestants that prefer teaching their kids about abstinence rather than birth control. Then they're shocked when their ignorant kids end up with unintended pregnancies, and/or diseases.

 

[omega2xx]

The examples I gave from the BIBLE clearly demonstrated that the bible authors did not consider fetuses people,

Not true. If the fetus dies, it is very clear the death penalty can be imposed

Ignoring that FACT won't make it go away. The "Christian" pro-life stance is a NEW belief that is not scripturally supported.

You don't understand the Bible.

There are a lot of protestants that prefer teaching their kids about abstinence rather than birth control. Then they're shocked when their ignorant kids end up with unintended pregnancies, and/or diseases.

Teaching abstinence is not about birth control. It is about not committing the sin of fornication or adultery.

 

[JustWondering]

Not true. If the fetus dies, it is very clear the death penalty can be imposed

Yet in multiple other instances in the bible, that I pointed out, fetuses are not valued as persons or due any protection. It's in the bible in black and white, ignoring it won't make it go away.

You don't understand the Bible.

The bible was written hundreds of years before abortion was ever a thing. To say the bible is against something that didn't exist when it was written and in FACT, has passages in it that clearly show the bible authors did not consider fetuses deserving of protection is clear evidence that YOU don't understand what is in your own holy book.

Teaching abstinence is not about birth control. It is about not committing the sin of fornication or adultery.

Lol, you didn't address the point of my argument at ALL.

 

[omega2xx]

Yet in multiple other instances in the bible, that I pointed out, fetuses are not valued as persons or due any protection. It's in the bible in black and white, ignoring it won't make it go away.

The verse you quoted were not even about abortion or fetuses.

The bible was written hundreds of years before abortion was ever a thing. To say the bible is against something that didn't exist when it was written and in FACT, has passages in it that clearly show the bible authors did not consider fetuses deserving of protection is clear evidence that YOU don't understand what is in your own holy book.

The fetus is a life---killing it is murder. In Gen 38:9-10, Onan, instead of trying to have his brothers wife have a child, spewed his seed on the ground and God took his life. There is life even in man's sperm, and God considered what he did murder.

Lol, you didn't address the point of my argument at ALL.

Because it wasn't relevant to the subject.

 

[columbus]

The fetus is a life---killing it is murder.

Not by the standards of the biblical authors. By their primitive understanding, a creature was alive if it breathes. No breath meant dead.

We know a lot more about life now than they did. Lots of other things as well, not just biology. Our morality and ethics are better as well. We don't always put them in practice, any more than they did. But the reason I oppose elective abortion is a combination of modern science and secular morality. You will not find that in the Bible, because the primitive people who wrote it just didn't know any better.

You are clearly demonstrating that your beliefs are NOT based on the Bible. You've decided what you want to believe, and then read it into the Bible even when it is not there.
Tom

 

[metis]

In Gen 38:9-10, Onan, instead of trying to have his brothers wife have a child, spewed his seed on the ground and God took his life. There is life even in man's sperm, and God considered what he did murder.

Onan was killed because he disobeyed God's orders to sire a child. Sperm has never been considered life itself in theological circles.

 

[columbus]

Onan was killed because he disobeyed God's orders to sire a child. Sperm has never been considered life itself in theological circles.

Onan was required by law to get his brother's widow pregnant so his brother would have an heir. If Onan didn't, he could inherit his brother's estate.
And he didn't, deliberately.
Then Onan died.

This has nothing to do with sex or reproduction, it's about greed and inheritance law.
That's the problem with people reading things into the Bible when they don't understand the context in which it was written. People often superimpose their own beliefs onto vague stories and claim "God says..."
Tom

 

[metis]

Onan was required by law to get his brother's widow pregnant so his brother would have an heir. If Onan didn't, he could inherit his brother's estate.
And he didn't, deliberately.
Then Onan died.

This has nothing to do with sex or reproduction, it's about greed and inheritance law.
That's the problem with people reading things into the Bible when they don't understand the context in which it was written. People often superimpose their own beliefs onto vague stories and claim "God says..."
Tom

Yes, and with Judah being a prophet he was essentially doing God's bidding on this, which explains why it was God who killed Onan (verse 10).

 

[omega2xx]

Not by the standards of the biblical authors. By their primitive understanding, a creature was alive if it breathes. No breath meant dead.

That is not Biblical

We know a lot more about life now than they did.

What do we know now that was not known in the past.

Lots of other things as well, not just biology. Our morality and ethics are better as well.

Are you serious? Our morality and ethics has gotten worse for at least 30 years.

We don't always put them in practice, any more than they did. But the reason I oppose elective abortion is a combination of modern science and secular morality. You will not find that in the Bible, because the primitive people who wrote it just didn't know any better.

You need a new source of information. The people of the OT were not primitive. One of Cain's son invented the forge and one invented musical instruments. The people of Egypt were more intelligent than most of Europe during the "dark ages."

You are clearly demonstrating that your beliefs are NOT based on the Bible. You've decided what you want to believe, and then read it into the Bible even when it is not there.
Tom

What is clear is that you are guilty of what you are accusing me of. The Bible clearly teaches that a fetus is a living being.