Is this not evidence against the Bible?

[alsarg72]

Today and over the past hundreds of years there are and have been many very great authors with access to all the philosophical, ethical, and other resources that humanity has thought up or discovered throughout history, and with access to the actual Bible.

Given that, then if the best and brightest of them could be brought together couldn't they write a better version of the Bible without Gods help?

Shouldn't the inspired word of God surpass man's writing ability? And be extremely convincing?

Does all that not count against the divine origins of the actual Bible?

[sleepyhead]

Hello alsarg,

The bible consists of 66 books each independently written. The reason each individual book became part of the bible would be a story in itself. The moral here is that the value of each individual book has to be determined by you.

The bible at present isn't standing on it's own bottom but is popular because of its promotion by Christian churches. There have been many books written by individuals which have been able to stand the test of time, even without promotion by some group. Using "pilgrims progress" as an example it has no group promoting it yet it's been read for 100s of years. This book was actually a dream the writer had. More recently the book Jonathan livingston Seagull was a dream. Someone once asked Edgar Cayce what book would be the most valuable to read. His reply was the book you write yourself. He of course was referring to keeping a dream journal.

The value that the bible has over allo other books is that if we assume reincarnation as the afterlife then the bible would be part of our past life subconscious memory.

[whirlwind]

Today and over the past hundreds of years there are and have been many very great authors with access to all the philosophical, ethical, and other resources that humanity has thought up or discovered throughout history, and with access to the actual Bible.

Given that, then if the best and brightest of them could be brought together couldn't they write a better version of the Bible without Gods help?

Shouldn't the inspired word of God surpass man's writing ability? And be extremely convincing?

Does all that not count against the divine origins of the actual Bible?

The Bible isn't to be a "version." It is Truth. It is completely convincing when that truth is revealed and understood.

[alsarg72]

The Bible isn't to be a "version." It is Truth. It is completely convincing when that truth is revealed and understood.

whirlwind, I think you are the most easily convinced person I have ever come across.

There are so many ways in which if it were a book published today it would be canned by the critics.

[whirlwind]

The Bible isn't to be a "version." It is Truth. It is completely convincing when that truth is revealed and understood.

whirlwind, I think you are the most easily convinced person I have ever come across.

There are so many ways in which if it were a book published today it would be canned by the critics.

The critics have tried to can it for generations.

You see it as a "book" to be published. It is living Alsarg....a living testimony about what was, what is and what is to be. To call it a book is as calling the Pacific Ocean a puddle.

[alsarg72]

Thanks sleepyhead. My post aimed specifically at people who think the Bible is the Word of God. I assume you are not a Christian, and I agree with you.

Something else I wonder is if men wrote the 66 books, which of course they did...

If God inspired them, in what way did he inspire them? If the beauty of nature inspires a poet to write a wonderful poem, nature is the inspiration, but it can claim no credit for the content. The content is entirely the poet's own. So God can't have inspired in that way. Did he 'inspire' by dictating? Presumably for Genesis he must have since no one was there to see it happen. Mmm.

[alsarg72]

Yes whirlwind, you keep asserting that it is the Word of God and lots of other colorful descriptions of why it is so deliriously wonderful. But we have to believe it is actually true before we accept any of that. And you don't give us any reason to believe that it is true. You just say "It is the truth. It is the truth. It is the truth." I am not credulous and gullible. I need at least a tiny bit of a reason to believe in something other than people telling me "It is the truth. It is the truth." That is how 4 year olds believe.

[Miles]

Shouldn't the inspired word of God surpass man's writing ability? And be extremely convincing?

A not uncommon thought. I think that some, like whirlwind here, find it completely convincing because it fulfills a psychological need. It's form (perceived truth) follows it function (fulfilling a need).

[Flail]

Shouldn't the inspired word of God surpass man's writing ability? And be extremely convincing?

A not uncommon thought. I think that some, like whirlwind here, find it completely convincing because it fulfills a psychological need. It's form (perceived truth) follows it function (fulfilling a need).

Well said. I imagine that Allah fulfills such needs for the Muslim just as Santa fulfilled them for me long ago...which is the trouble with talking people into things that have no evidence to support them...when evidence is lacking,memberhip rituals and incantations become the substitute for reason.

[BwhoUR]

Today and over the past hundreds of years there are and have been many very great authors with access to all the philosophical, ethical, and other resources that humanity has thought up or discovered throughout history, and with access to the actual Bible.

Given that, then if the best and brightest of them could be brought together couldn't they write a better version of the Bible without Gods help?

Shouldn't the inspired word of God surpass man's writing ability? And be extremely convincing?

Does all that not count against the divine origins of the actual Bible?

I love this question! I believe absolutely if it was inspired or dictated by god it would easily surpass man's writing ability, but not in the way it is currently viewed, one day one scripture means this, the next day it is used to mean that, the next day it is literal, the next day it is a metaphore, fill in the blanks with whatever you want and never retract, just change and change back, and on it goes. And so many blanks to fill in, like a bad horoscope. It would UNFOLD as time went on and make more and more coherent sense, like puzzle pieces being put together. And would it be so boring and uninteresting? So and so beget this person and beget that person, geez.

It would be greater than the common awe of nature and science.