What do you know about the Bible?

A lot...off and on during my childhood my parents were extremely religious, but then they just kind of backed off and now my mother still is very religious.

I think anyone who was raised with a religious parent has a basic understandinng of what is written. I have been so surprised to find out what we aren't told, and it often leads to people not understanding the meanings.

But I "have" read a good part of the Bible when I was younger so have come to my own conclusions...so I think that is good...I didn't just "take someone else's interpretation and accept it alone!

I think that is the biggest mistake some people make is waiting for some body to tell them what it all means. You are growing in a good direction then my friend! Hugs and Blessings!

I have very up and down feelings regarding the Bible. I was raised Roman Catholic and decided in my late teens that Catholocism isn't the right religion for me. I have my own beliefs as to spiritual and religious mentionings. However, I do believe that there is a higher power. I consider myself to be Christian. I have not found a Church that suits me just yet. Many are glorified churches here in Arizona and I just don't like that. Many guilt you into donating, and right now I can't put food on the table let alone make a donation. There are many controversial writings in the Bible, in my opinion. I do not agree with the Bible's view on gay/lesbian relationships. Maybe then it was ok to say things like that, but thousands of years later.. things change, society changes and people find happiness in different ways now. In a way, the Bible makes me feel like the "rules" set forth thousands of years ago are supposed to be upheld forever.. I don't feel that way at all.

I really hope that my comment hasn't offended you in any way. These are my honest opinions. I could go on for days about the Bible. I was forced to read it SEVERAL times as a child and have blocked a lot of it from my memory. I do have faith, a small amount but it is my own and I am comfortable with that.

Sex was put between men and women not for the greatest pleasure they can obtain but to replinish the earth with more people.  It is Lucifer that tells people sex can be any way you like it, just aim for your greatest delight and pleasure.  Sex between a man and a man and sex between a woman and a woman equals "uncleanness" and this is listed in the bible under what is "unrighteous."  I don't hate anyone that is deceived into believing homosexuality is alright and it was a mistake God made at their birth, they should have been a girl but turned out a boy.  God does not make mistakes like that, but Lucifer tells people these lies and deceives them into believing this so they will continue down a road that leads straight to the pit where he is destined to go, and why is because Lucifer hates everybody.  Jesus loves everybody.  Jesus does not give anyone permission to be a homosexual or to have a sex change.  Lucifer is the author of all such nonsense as this, and after he gets people to perform such acts on each other, he turns away and laughs his head off, just like the person on the street that suddenly grabs someone's purse and runs away, they think they have won, and so does Lucifer when he deceives people into such "uncleanness" as this.

Sex is only to replenish the earth with more human beings and was meant only to be between men and women to accomplish this.  God made it enjoyable so that men and women would be lured to one another often enough to accomplish the replenishing of the earth with more human beings.

Lucifer is the author of homosexuality.

I definitely didn't mean for that comment to go in that direction. Each person is entitled to his/her own beliefs. I'm not going to go into this any further. You have your beliefs, and I have mine.. lets leave it at that...

Oh my, where to begin...

Sarah,

I am not ever offended by somebody stating their opinions or beliefs. It is when stating those things requires them to bring down others or are hateful to others that I get offended. Needless to say, I am not easily offended anyway. I think that I have found it is the church not the denomination that calls me. I have been a member of Grace Lutheran for 10 years or so, but it is not that I think the Lutherans have all the answers. It is because the minister answers to God, doesn't believe in judgment of others, and everybody looks out for those around them, whether they are members or not.

I believe that the laws God set out where done for reasons. They didn't have the medical treatments, and solutions we do, so many diseases that today have been neutralized or rendered minor, were a lot more serious in the old testament times. That is why there were things they had to do if somebody had certain symptoms or signs.

However, it is not so much the content of what is written as the history of it.

Connie,

Lucifer can only warp what God has made. He thrives on hatred and condemnation. Jesus came to teach LOVE, Forgiveness, and understanding. Hugs and Blessings.

Sarah,

I never intended to go there either. I respect your  beliefs, and find a lot more of the love and understanding I learned from Christ then other comments. I am not trying to start hatred. I wonder why there is always a need to jump up in judgment of others?

That is the way of the world Lisa. I try to stay neutral and choose my words wisely as to not offend or cause tension. Maybe I should have left my comment to myself on this one??? I do have strong beliefs, but they are my own. I am open minded, maybe more-so than others. If you'd like, I can delete my initial comment... might save us both some trouble???

There is no need to do that Sarah. You have no need to apologize or remove your beliefs. It is through discussion, which should be done with respect to each other's points of view, that we grow and learn. I appreciate your willingness to comment!!

" it was a mistake God made at their birth, they should have been a girl but turned out a boy. God does not make mistakes like that." -Connie

Connie, first please understand I am not even coming close to challenging your beliefs. As you will see, I am not questioning anything but presenting a medical/scientific fact to you on this one (quoted above) point.

You state that God does not make mistakes like the example you gave. Can you answer a question, please?

If it is impossible for this type of "mistake" to be made, then how do you explain infants that are born with the organs of both male and female sexes?

While it is more rare for this "deformity" to happen, it does indeed happen. The parents of the infant have to chose which organs to keep.

Men and women are truely different, Mars VS Venus. Chemical make-up is different. I feel it is possible for an individual to have the body of one gender and the "internal (none organ) make-up" of the opposite gender.

Until you can get up close and personal with someone who feels this way, I wouldn't be so fast to judge that a "mistake" was not made.

Well said Melanie! These things occur, that is medical.

Thank you for your input!

Sarah wrote >>Maybe then it was ok to say things like that, but thousands of years later.. things change, society changes and people find happiness in different ways now. In a way, the Bible makes me feel like the "rules" set forth thousands of years ago are supposed to be upheld forever.. I don't feel that way at all.<<

Actually, when that was written (both the first time and 1600 years later) most of society, not only had no problems with homosexuality, it was, often, a part of their religious practices. God, apparently once again, was going against the flow. We aren't the same kind of "progressive" society as in the middle-east and Europe back then, but please do not confuse that with we've "progressed." If it makes you feel any better, it was no more acceptable to say those kinds of things then, as it is now. On the other hand, it sure gives a clearer picture that God hasn't changed.

Connie wrote >>Sex was put between men and women not for the greatest pleasure they can obtain but to replinish the earth with more people.  It is Lucifer that tells people sex can be any way you like it, just aim for your greatest delight and pleasure.<<

Wow, so your saying God made a mistake when he gave sex as one of the greatest pleasures? I don't think God is so short sighted to have made sex solely for "replinishing." (I also don't think it was plenished before, so didn't need to be done again, but that's got nothing to do with your idea.) I do suspect God made sex feel so very good, because if it was like filling out yearly income taxes, we'd have never plenished in the first place. Man is into enjoyment, so God found a great way to make sure we want to have kids. (At least, a mojority of people.)

As for the whole concept that Satan makes us sin? Low concept of the evilness in Man's heart. Right before and after the flood, God gave a clear verdict of what he thought of humans, "Man's heart is on evil continuously." We sin because we are naturally evil. Not just sexual sin - all sin. Knowing we are all like that, we can't (although seem to way too often) really hate anyone for any particular sin. Not a person alive who has never sinned, thus what should be our understanding of others and, with God working through us, our compassion and love for all others. (And not saying any of us do that remotely perfectly. lol)

Please don't blame Satan for what we do. We sin purposely, so often, we actually don't know all the times we do so - and that's not just for sexual sins either.

And, Sarah, please don't think I'm pointing out one mere sexual sin - homosexuality. I know hetrosexuals sin sexually as much as, if not more than homosexuals. Jesus said that if we even look at a woman in lust, we commit adultery. He clarified that sin is sin in thought, word or deed in that passage. (He goes on with other sins from there in that section.) I don't think I've ever met a sexually active person, who does not "look on a woman" (or man) without visualizing, so I've probably never met anyone who does not sin sexually.

Melanie,

I'm not done reading all the comments, but, so far, yours' scares me the most. You think cross-gender is a mistake? Yikes! Do you think being blind, deaf, disabled, or any other deformities or physical problems that come along after being born are "mistakes," too?

God has purpose for all of us. Not saying it's guaranteed a good purpose for all of us, too, but, for some of us, he makes life somewhat or MUCH harder than others. Are these deformities or disablities nothing? Absolutely not! They cause great confusion, frustration, fear, and more confusion. They must be dealt with every day, some times every moment. They are challenges, none I'd ever want to have to face, but do not confuse that with God's booboos. He doesn't make booboos.

Granted, sin itself has deformed the entire world, (remember there were no thorns and no pain in childbirth, among other things, pre-fall), but these physical problems need compassion, love, understanding, and God! We all need him - physical problems, no matter how hard or even minor, are like a "thorn in the flesh," a constant reminder that we cannot do this life alone. (Paul went through a lot of physical pain, and health problems, so he wasn't saying anything minor there when he talked about that thorn. I do not guarantee his physical problems was his thorn, but it is possible.)

I'm truly worried that you know someone born with both genders, and think you are being sympathetic by telling them that it was merely God's mistake. I cannot think of any other words that would make me feel so dang hopeless. Maybe if you could stop thinking God makes mistakes, you can offer your friend/love one more hope. I'm sure life will never be easy, no matter which gender chosen, if ever chosen, but, like I said, we all need love.

Lynn- That was a good attempt at avoiding my question.

Whether it is a "mistake" or not does not matter. The fact is that abnormalities do in fact exist, even ones regarding gender.

You make it sound like it is impossible for a man to be man with all of the male organs yet be a woman from birth because God does not make "mistakes"

Well, call it a challenge, anything you want, but the possibility does exist. How can it not if an abnormality such as I used as an example exists?

You are very good at twisting people's words and point of views, and at keeping your mind very closed. That is much more scary in my opinion.

If my mind is closed because I do not consider people with both genders as "mistakes," so be it. (I also do not think any unusual birth defect or disability is a mistake - more like a plan from an omnisicient being.)

As for your question going unanswerd - here was the question, "If it is impossible for this type of "mistake" to be made, then how do you explain infants that are born with the organs of both male and female sexes?"

I answered. I did not answer as Connie would, but I did answer. It's also not merely a "possibility." It does happen.

I will always shutter at the thought that you would call such a person a mistake. I cannot imagine either having to decide which gender my baby "should" be, or which gender I am, if I were born like that. I've always known why an old friend didn't want to talk about it, and respected that decision. Truthfully, even then, I thought the closed-minded people were most likely Christians. My "closed-mind" has just changed that opinion.

I am attending Liberty University online right now Psychology~Christian Counseling emphasis.  It's eye opening isn't it?????  I love it and all the learning based on the Bible.  I think that it doesn't matter who wrote the Gospels, that they were written by man but given to man by God.

The fact is, that many of the Gospels were written within 70 years of Jesus life. There are very few differences in wording among the copies of the manuscripts that have been found.. These facts alone are amazing to me. Unfortunately, by not telling the history of the bible, we leave new believers open to those who spread doubt, because of things that aren't understood.

Lisa,

The entire way the Bible was assembled and the books were chosen is just as amazing. (They're also not a secret, just mostly as exciting as watching grass grow or paint dry. lol) Want to read that "exciting," but truly miraculous history of how the Bible came to be? (It helps if you get into semantics, too, like I am. lol) I recommend "The Books and The Parchments" by F. F. Bruce.

"  . . but does the fact that they were not all written by those that they are named for matter to the gospel? What say you?"

I say, why are you stating such a thing as a fact?

Because it IS a fact? Another question christians should ask is "why are so many "Gospels" left OUT of the Bible. One good example is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene! Could it be because during the time of the Council of Nicaea the known world was a male dominated world?

Or, do we want people to know the truth about Jesus coming the aid of the prostitute about to be stoned and how that appears NOWHERE in original scripture, but was added several hundred years later in the margins by a well meaning monk?

Thank you Spartan.

The issue is that by NOT knowing the history of the bible, the control, and the knowledge of the truth is not being shared. GOD's word is being decided by men who have since tried to put their own words there. Yes, we can get translations that are accurate. There are manuscripts dating back to the 1st century, and most of them only have minor wording issues, but by not teaching these things, we are leaving more open to ignorance and distortion. It is well known the the RKJV bible was translated behind closed doors, and NONE of the bearers of the original manuscripts made it there. It is things like this that causes doubt.

Spartan,

The church, even now, reviews manuscripts and looks for consistancy among the things attributed to Jesus. It looks to outside sources to try to verify most of what is contained in them. Many of the scrolls not accepted by Christian churchs are due to tampering from Hellenistic sources at the time of their creation. It is uncertain how much is authentically from the author it is attributed to and how much has been "pencilled in". It is because of the distortion of man that we should know the history, and understand why books were or were not included in the bible. I am stating that there are things we as Christians NEED to know to share and understand the life of Christ. I am not taking away from the Gospels. Luke was a physician who was a disciple of one of the apostles. He was a very educated man, and that is why his accounting is more detailed and chronological than Mark. The author of Mark grouped events based on area, not on a timeline. I have known people who were confused by the problems with sequence of events and such. Part of it comes from the fact that some of the writers took from the same source, and Matthew and Luke both took from Mark, which was the first one written.

Spartan,

"Because it IS a fact?"

Because you think it is?

Talk to Biblical scholars John, you might learn a few things.

Ditto what Lisa said...LOL

Lisa,

(I already have a Lord, Lisa, and his name is not Lisa ; )

I ask again; Why are you stating such things are facts? Do you believe that the "Biblical scholars" you happen to hear from and accept as authorities, are infallible?

John,

It is through much thought and prayer that I was lead to take these classes. God has a purpose for me, and helping to have a greater understanding of the life of Jesus and his word is the work that God has put in my heart. I am NOT, nor have I ever proclaimed myself Lord. God gives knowledge and understanding, and he also gives wisdom to those who study to understand. The scholars are no more infallible then you are John. We are all human. The scholars are working to show how the bible fits into historical literature, instead of being claimed as fable by those who do not know its history. The facts I am stating are things that have been studied by Christian Scholars, in language studies, and in the study of the society of the time. They are increasing the proof that the bible does fit into historical context, and that many previously thought things that people used to condemn the bible are now being show to be wrong!! Why do you feel the need to attack somebody who loves God and is trying to show the beauty of what He has given to us, by understanding all about it?

Lisa,

"The scholars are no more infallible then you are John. We are all human"

Then I suggest you speak of their opinions as possabilities, rather than facts.

and I suggest that their research has more fact than your opinion.

Well said Lisa!

Actually, Spartan, it's not a fact. As for why other gospels aren't in there? Sound logic decided at the time of their creation several hundred years later, by the scholoars of that time period. Again, the book I just recommended to Lisa explains all of this.

John,

Do you have trouble with all that fallible man writes? If so, how did you learn to work the computer? The directions and help files were all written by fallible people. How do you take care of your electronics and car? Were your text books and references books all chalk full of mistakes, simply because written by fallible people? Fallibility doesn't always = opinion. When we want to learn something, we are perfectly capable of learning any given topic, and write about it without a single mistakes. Since this is commonly understood, why does this common understanding suddenly fly out the window with one single book? If you claim this one book must be opinion, then be consistent and assume all info is merely opinion. Then again, if consistent - quick! Get out into the open. That building your reading this in was also created by fallible man. ;)

Rober wrote >>Well said Lisa!<<

THAT opinion, I second!!!

Lynn,

I don't really understand what you are talking about. I merely questioned the assertion that it is a "fact that they were not all written by those that they are named for" . . . I do not understand how Lisa could possibly know that as a fact. That Lisa chose to become abusive of me for asking why she calls that a fact, when she herself says the researchers are fallible, is not my problem.

John,

I have not become abusive of you in any way shape or form. I have not called you names, insulted your family, nor I have said anything other then pointing out things to try to get you to widen your view. I will say then, if you object to fact, which I have not said was fact, but you decided was implied, that research indicates that the Gospels were written, with oral tradition, and other sources by the people named, though many mistake them for the apostles, when they were often the disciples of the apostles. If you read through the comments, you will see that I did not say the person named by the book did the writing. It is based on the style and study of the writing that they have been able to determine which of the Gospels were to be considered unadulterated accounts, as opposed to those left out of the Bible.

John,

I was answering your assertion here -

Lisa,

"The scholars are no more infallible then you are John. We are all human"

Then I suggest you speak of their opinions as possabilities, rather than facts.

If you believe that Lisa must speak in those terms, so must you, in all writings written by fallible man (which are all writings.) The argument doesn't stand, given my explanation above.

Lisa,

" . . nor I have said anything other then pointing out things to try to get you to widen your view. "

And just how, pray tell, do you know what my view is? Did your Biblical scholars teach you of me? Did you gaze into my mind with a crystal ball? Did a spirit visit you in the night, and whisper "facts" about my views in your ear? Please, explain how you could even know what my views on this subject are?

I am sorry if expressing disbelief of Biblical scholars ability to research facts is not your view, but you have made it appear that it was. I have not made any claim to  clairvoyance or ESP, nor do I think I have assumed anything you have not stated. If you have a habit of stating things that are not your view, you should expect to be misunderstood often.

Been there, done that, didn't like it, moved on, did it again, still didn't like it, took a nap, ate some lunch, watched a little TV, took a walk, came back, and ended up doing it again....:>)

Lisa,

"I am sorry if expressing disbelief of Biblical scholars ability to research facts is not your view, but you have made it appear that it was."

Only in your presumptive imagination. In reality-land, I questioned the use of the term 'fact', in this sentence you wrote;

" . . "  . . but does the fact that they were not all written by those that they are named for matter to the gospel?"

I do not believe that you or any other scholars actually know that to be a fact, but merely hold such as possible, likely, or whatever. That's it, that's all I've expressed.

um, Berf, help me out a little here, I got lost around that last corner...LOL

;-)

John,

If "presumptive views" was a poker game, Lisa's hold "king high." You're holding a "straight flush." You out presume her by miles, although, I'm sure you can keep at it.

Put up? Sounds funny from someone who hasn't, yet, put up anything but accusatrions. On the other hand, I, and most others here, have "put up." You convince no one from arguing. You convince by logic. So far, yours' lacks. Good news is it lacks, because it hasn't been tried yet.

As for you having a lord, is he you? I keep seeing you standing up for only one - you. Between vague accusations and your attitude, I'd recommend that very same advice to yourself. And not saying that in the guise of anyone else but me.

don't you think your classes is what is teaching you a lot of the "history" behind the scriptures?  Even those lessons are written and revised many times most likely by a man or woman or both.

I say:  I don't know much about the bible unless God and the Holy Ghost reveals something to me in the hour that it wants it spoke.  I might not remember that same thing I just spoke or wrote again in my entire life.  My experiences with this have been moment by moment.  It has not been something I can memorize and retain for my own use later.  The real Holy Ghost has a mind of its own.  It is separate from man, woman, God and Jesus, and the angels in heaven.  I feel it is the great teacher and spiritual guide, but again, it is not something that can be taught in school or college.

The history of religion and whatever researchers have found out about the days of our past and the days Jesus walked the earth is what people learn in school along with that school's particular traditions.  Don't you think?

I am planning to go to St. Mary's of the Woods and this is a Catholic based school.  I don't plan on taking on any of their particular Catholic traditions just as I let loose of every "Pentecostal" tradition that I cannot find real solid evidence through scripture reading and praying for guidance from the Holy Ghost are actually laws of God.

So my opinion of colleges and schools teaching is the same as the individual churches.  I basically sat in school at a Pentecostal church for about four straight years.  Some that was taught did come from the Holy Ghost, other things were their basic Pentecostal traditions.

Anyone who really wants to learn about God, salvation, what is right and wrong just needs to repent, receive the spirit of God, which is the Holy Ghost and the Great Teacher that will lead and guide a person into all the truths.  You won't find this in any college or school.  It is found in secret on bended knee.  Then the Father will reward you openly with his words as you ought to speak them, and in the time and the situation that they should be spoke.  The Holy Ghost is the Great Teacher.

Connie, was yopur first comment here on sex inspired by your Holy Ghost ?

Connie said, >>don't you think your classes is what is teaching you a lot of the "history" behind the scriptures?  Even those lessons are written and revised many times most likely by a man or woman or both.<<

How do you know about her textbooks? What are they? Who wrote them? And, seriously? When textbooks are revised, they're generally revised by the original writers, and only to update them. Never to change what they say. Rather a huge clue not to accept a teaching if even the writer changes his/her mind.

Connie said >>I say:  I don't know much about the bible unless God and the Holy Ghost reveals something to me in the hour that it wants it spoke.<<

It? Who's It? One hour? Who wants it spoke for a mere hour? Reveals them to you? Doesn't sound like you want to go for all God has to reveal to you. Honestly, God is a really, really, big God. He can, and has, withstood close scrutiny. He WANTS to be known. Ever notice his creation? God doesn't do subtle! He's got nothing against us diving into his book whole heartedly.

First, I never met any Christian who said "I only trust what God wants to reveal to me" who really believes that. They have a truckload of info in the head brought to them by listening to their minister/pastor/priest/bible study teacher, too, and forget that's where they get their info. Study the Bible. Use the Bible study aids God has given scholars the ability to write down, so we can use them years, and even centuries later.

Second, you keep talking about what others learn of God like it's some big sin to dig deeply into the book you seem to like to read. You also talk about it like you know what they say, while claiming you only get your knowledge by God revealing it to you. Don't guess, and call it knowledge. Feel free. Study for yourself. Even the Bible tells us to STUDY to show ourselves approved. God's method for revealing is generally one of two ways - to some, he gives the heart to study in minute detail, for decades, and then write what they learn, so the rest of us don't have to reinvent the wheel (the second way to learn. lol)

This is one thing I will not understand about some Christians - a vast God, who will always be beyond our complete scope, yet we have this fear of getting to know too well?! He's not falling apart through closer inspection. If he would, he would have already done so, and thus proved he's never been god. Why are so many revelling in ignorance? Not like we'll ever know it all, anyway. 

Very well said Lynn

Lisa...Have you gotten into studying in of Martin Marty's work yet?

My current class on the Gospels is using a book by Robert Stein. I don't believe i have run across that name yet.

And you call yourself a LUTHERAN!  (heeheeheeee)  Check out Martin Marty. I think you will like his writings. :-)

yea yea yeah...LOL

1 I am LUTHERAN

2 my school isn't

3 :-P

Martin Marty may have been called an American Lutheran scholar, but not all Lutheran dominations are the same....some do not study what he wrote.

Both the Missouri and Wisconsin synods are more conservative and do not go along with some of the teachings of the ELCA churches.

Yup, after checking...Martin Marty is ELCA....

That explains it, my church belongs to the Missouri Synod...whoever thought Evangelical would be the libral ones..>LOL

I was born into, baptized into, and confirmed into the Misery Synod. I only switched to the ELCA when I reached the age of reason.

Martin Marty, though now retired, is considered to be one of the most profound Theologians of our time, and he taught Theology and Law at the University of Chicago College of Divinity attended by ALL denominations of the Lutheran Church...even the nutjobs from the Wisconsin Synod. ;-)

When speaking of biblical scholars, it is important to acknowledge that they don't speak with one voice.  There are some things on which many of them agree, but even those who have spent virtually a lifetime studying the Bible do not all agree.  

That is true, especially on how certain words are translated. I am just talking about the more recently established data that has a consensus of agreement. I don't see how anyone can think that a Human can possibly understand all there is to know about an infinite being. God teaches us what he needs us to understand.

George Washington Carver realized, early on, that he could never understand everything about what God knows, so he asked God to just teach him about one little thing - the peanut. He spent the rest of his life studying the peanut, and never learned it all. lol

Good point, Lynn.  But unfortunately some don't acknowledge that they don't know it all and try to recreate everyone in their own image.

John,

I suggest most of us are guilty of that many, many times. lol

“All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds us “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book.

Then why were some left out if all are inspired by God? Some written by the apostles themselves, those closest to Jesus in his time on earth?

What Peter said was that his scripture was inspired by God, everybody else's of course was on shaky ground.

The majority of the New Testament books were written 30 to 100 years after the death of Jesus the Christ. No one knows who wrote them.

It is also a fact that before the Romans hijacked the Christian religion, no followers of Christ believed exactly the same thing. There were as many divisions in the religion as there are today.

Why were so many books left out?

It didn't serve the Roman Empire's agenda. Most of the beliefs attributed to Christianity today are derivative of the Pagan religions of the romans.

For example, the story of Jesus... was a story of the Pagan Faith attributed to Mithra.

We actually do know who wrote them...Paul and John both wrote a bunch of the books...

James was written by the brother of Jesus. Paul, formerly known as Saul wrote many of the books that are in the form of letters to various churches. The writings of the New Testament were written before the Roman Empire accepted the Christians. They were still highly persecuted when they were written. The Gospel of Luke, is attributed to a doctor named Luke who had become a disciple of one of the apostles. It is late and I don't remember exactly which at the moment. The writing is considerably more educated then some of the other Gospels. The accepted Gospels are ones that they could find that fit 3 criteria. One of those was avoiding the Hellinistic influences of some translators. 

It is debatable that Paul wrote the letters. It is more widely believed and accepted that a student of Paul's wrote the book of Ephesians.

Lisa,

Luke was one of Paul's Boyz! lol

Oh my Lisa - you are one brave woman to want to discuss religion:)

Heh! Rose that was my first thought also. Then I thought... You know it's kind of sad that this is true.

I have to say that what makes me sad is that Christians can't hold a discussion on beliefs, or even the history of the Bible, without somebody attacking somebody and calling them evil. We learn through discovery and discussion, as well as prayer. God created scholars as much as laymen.

I am way out of this one I am a Mormon and i beleive in  my religion and am not ashamed to say so

I have no problem with you believing in your religion. Do Mormons accept the Bible? I am asking because I want to learn and understand. I just wanted to see if anyone outside of a college classroom knows the history of the bible.

Hi Lisa

Who wrote the bible? Good question. You might want to read three books that are available if you haven't already.

The Bible Unearthed - Israel Finkel and Neil Asher Silberman.

Misqouting Jesus - Bart D. Ehrman

Who Wrote the Bible - Richard Elliot Friedman

I will have to check into those books Robert, thank you.

"Misquoting Jesus" is an eye opener, Lisa!

Amen to Spartan ...

I've enjoyed reading both your post as well as the comments, Lisa. I think your classes sound fascinating and I've often been tempted to take similar ones. What always deters me, however, is the fact that once I'm finished writing for various assignments, and tending to family responsibilities, I don't think I would have the presence of mind to study.

I do hope you'll write more about your studies here, as I think you could provide a great deal of insight for those of us who'd love to learn more about the Bible.

Thank you Kimberly. My goal in starting this discussion was not to attack or belittle ANYONE's beliefs, but to work together to find the greatest possible understanding of the history of the Bible. I am open to polite, logical discussion that many here have shown.

"find it curious that churches still keep laymen in ignorance as they did in the times of the Roman Catholic Church being the only Christian church."

Lisa- I find it even more curious that so many people are willing to sit in church and depend on someone else to give them this education. :)

That is always been an issue with me. If you depend on a minister to tell you what the bible says and means, then your soul is out of your hands. We grow up in church, where very few are taught to look, study, and find out. One of the first things I learned when starting my classes, is that you have to find out the source of information to determine if it is credible. Are the books selected the most credible witness to the life of Christ? It is a basic question, yet often only asked by those disillusioned with God or the church, so we need to ask our selves these questions if we hope to be able to answer those who warp the answers to draw others away from God. How can anybody put on "the whole armor of God" when they only know where the shin covers are?

Never forget that Martin Luther believed he was a good Catholic to his dying day.  Far too many people go to church to listen to someone else's point of view and they come away with a very distorted and egocentric view of faith because of that. You and I both know that a "true" church service is designed to do one thing. It is designed to bring you to the alter for Communion.  As one Pastor said to me, "the sermon is the LEAST important part of a church service".

My pastor is an avid reader of all things Martin Luther. I know what you are saying. !

Spartan said >>You and I both know that a "true" church service is designed to do one thing. It is designed to bring you to the alter for Communion. <<

Funny, I thought church was about God?!

Spartan said >>Never forget that Martin Luther believed he was a good Catholic to his dying day<<

He was a good Catholic to his dying day. Has taken the Catholic Church a few centuries to come to the same conclusion. lol

Great post Lisa. I was raised in the Methodist church, but after high school and until I reached about 43, my belief in God and anything having to to with religion was on the eclipse. At age 43 and until to this day I believe that the strong spiritual foundation helped pave the way to being a better person, and hopefully a person who can help to improve this world. I try not to pass judgement on those people that I do not agree with.

My question is: does a person have to believe in God for God to believe in him/her? I don't think so and I don't think it matters what religion a person belong to either. If God loves us unconditionally, why would it matter? Another question I have is, does the difference between right and wrong have to be taught according to the society in which we live, or is it an innate knowing?

I don't think that religion has to be complicated and I like the simplicity in which Jesus stated it: "Love God with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself."

Right and wrong questions can most often be handled with the Golden Rule ... IMnsHO.

Last time I checked Vincent, the scripture tells us:

For God so loved the WORLD.  That doesn't mean he only loves Christians, or even just a denomination.

I know that humans have stopped listening to their "inner voice" for lack of a better way to put it, and anyone raised where illegal and immoral was normal, would have trouble with somebody else's definition, even if that definition is assigned by society. I can only answer for me, and what I know and feel, and there are things I feel, that go against societal definitions. Because society has to have rules to function, they are created, but that doesn't mean they will get an outline for right and wrong perfect according to God's will, our understanding leaves too many gray areas. Only God knows what the absolutes are, if any.

I fully agree. My philosophy is based on 1 Corinthians 13

1. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10. but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

It is a little more detailed then what you quote, but it is the same in the very heart of it.

Vincent said >>If God loves us unconditionally, why would it matter?<<

Bad assumption - the love is conditional. "Unconditional" is a new concept.

God's love may be merely conditional to you, but GOD's Love is UNconditional to me ... I know this from actual experience. :-)

Lynn,

I would have to say it is more that God's love is unconditional, it is the forgiveness that has conditions. (genuine repentance, and acceptance) God loves all, and does not want that any should perish, but he is holy, and has shown that without genuine repentance, evil flourishes. Do you see what I am saying?

Jerry,

Of course you are free to choose your beliefs based on experience, but I can only assume that results in ever changing beliefs, since experiences are ever changing. I base my beliefs on the grand scheme of things, based on, not merely experience, but observation of others' experiences, what I know of the history of Mankind, and, without apologizes, what the Bible says, and how it relates to all the above. An unchanging God cannot change conditions based on any given person - you or me.

Lisa,

I disagree. His love is extremely conditional. That act on the cross was one HUGE proof. AND, he has never claimed to love "all." True, his love is not based on anything worthy within any of us, but there are many times he has shown he does not love all, and many times he had the writers write what he inspired them to write.

Too many skip around John 3:16 like that is the entire book. "For God so loved the world that..." The "For" implies it HAS to go with previous concepts. the "that" proves there is more to it. Go back to the beginning of the chapter (preferably the whole book) as well as keep reading after that verse. The whole chapter gives the fuller picture of God's conditions, and Man's reaction to those conditions (John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.) Sure God loves, but he loves whom he "wroughts." (verse 21) Without his "wroughting," we're still hiding in the darkness avoiding him at all cost.

Check out Romans 9 - the exact verses are 10-16, but I'm into complete context, so the whole chapter (book, really) should be read for the full picture. It out and out states that God chose to love Jacob and hate Esau, not based on anything they did. It goes on to imply that Esau isn't the only one God has chosen to hate.

Everyone claims the God of the Bible is nothing but love. One really crappy love, given that same God told the people he chose to completely annihilate entire nations, not to mention he, himself, wiped out thousands t once, and individuals right and left.

I disagree, he does love big time (absolutely no one deserves his favor, and yet he gives it to many anyway), but he also hates, and has a wrath no man can ever comprehend. (And, for the obvious questions that poses, keep reading Romans 9.)

What God wants, he gets. It is not up to us to come to God, because our sinful nature would never let us come to that conclusion, nor want it anyway. It is his will that draws us and keeps us. (John 6:35-40...but, well, you know - in context. lol)

Only God has needs and wants, gives rules, GOD does none of that, is satisfied for we his children to make up our own reality.

If God has needs, he is not God. He lacks.

As for making up our own reality, downright impossible to do, by the very definition of "reality." I can guarantee, if given my own ability of making my own reality, what I live in isn't even close to what I'd imagine. How you live would drastically change, too. (Rather a plus for not being able to create our own realities, don't you think? lol)

I think I'd blow you completely away if I went into my concept of what the Bible speaks about in regards to "God's Children."

Wow theres alot of very interesting comments here. I myself choose not to devote myself to any religion. They all have their positives and negatives.

You are right, they do.

Excellent post.  He is in all of us so the answers are right there.  He even kept it simple for us - to love and forgive.  People can adulterate the details of His word but can't touch the Holy Spirit in us all.  We have a direct connection and a conscience to guide us.

Thanks Stacey. It is something everybody should think about sometime.

Let join in with those who believe that the only rule we need to worry about is the golden rule. Doctrine, dogma, how many times we pray and whose celestial butt we kiss means nothing. Everyone in the world is connected to the same spirit. The divisions we see are created by man not by God. We are truly one and we should treat each other as such.

Lovely theory. Would be so cool if we did that. We don't. None of us. Ultimately, without God, our lives center around us. With God, we struggle between still letting life revolve around us and working, with his ability in us, to do his will. His will, ultimately goes back to the golden rule and the other rule - love him completely, too.

To Love Him is to love yourSelf ... and then all other selves because every self is a part of the One Whole that IS GOD ... the God of the Book is generally seen as something "different", too often anthropomorphised.

Jerry wrote, >>To Love Him is to love yourSelf ... and then all other selves because every self is a part of the One Whole that IS GOD ... the God of the Book is generally seen as something "different", too often anthropomorphised.<<

Whoa! You may well believe that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what the Bible says.

As for God being anthropomorphized (Can I get that long word into the dictionary? lol), tell that to Moses, who was dramatically affected by merely seeing God's "back." And, truthfully, we do that because God was known to show up looking like (and once being every inch) a man. God is not Man. Man is not God.

The Son is NOT the Father, he is our brother ...

Also your right to believe that. Also not Biblical.

BTW Lisa I grew up in the American Lutheran Church which through several mergers has become a part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. My older sister married a Missouri Synod man (Back in the 1940s). When they came to visit they would attend our church but they dared not tell there own pastor that they had. It was the first time I was aware of the conservative/liberal split in religious circles.

My mother went to a conference in the 1950s where both ALC and Missouri Synod people were present. The Missouri Synod people would not pray with the ALC folks. That really ticked my mother off.

I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, which probably is the most narrow in their viewpoint. Even though the church was progressive for a southern Baptist, it was still a very negative upbringing at hte time.

I am an  atheist, Lisa, but I was raised Catholic and studied mostly the New Testament when young.  I honor all religious texts that preach love and respect for all humanity.  Therefore, I find the New Testament a much healthier set of writings than the Old, overall.  But, I have also studied a bit (nowhere near your level) the history of the biblical collections and translations.  After being an organist and choir director in a variety of denominations for almost 30 years, I do find it humorous how some religious leaders spend a lot more time parsing words for meanings aligning with their particular biases, rather than gleaning the overall message of love from Jesus.  It is pure ego that destroys many religious missions - the need to be better, to be absolutely right, to attract the most followers and money.   It so turned me off over the years that I have come to the conclusion that it is not worth my time...not one minute.  I have pledged to try to live each day to its fullest, treat all with love and respect, and do the most good I can in the world while I am here.  Beyond that, I wish you well in your studies - you certainly seem to be a good person from what I've read of your comments here.

Thank you Sheryl, and you have shown more Christian charity and kindness in your writing then some of the ones who profess Christianity. It is a sad state that I have realized that when I am following Christ, i have been told I am not like most Christians.

Hugs and Blessings!

It is sad, Lisa.  I sometimes wonder when reading some of these people's writings on Gather if they would say what they say if they were standing in front of Jesus looking into his eyes.  I cannot even fathom that they would.

Blessings to you, too.  You are a beacon of light here....and there should be many more like you. :-)

Sheryl, sad to say, but far too many of them would not even recognize Jesus, they would more than likely call him the anti-Christ ... or at best a false prophet.

Sheryl,

I'm pretty sure I know what happens the day we all meet him face-to-face. Every single one of us will be lying, face down, on the ground, hoping he won't notice us. Not a single one of us will miss running through every single thought, word, or deed that we ever did, knowing full well, it was wrong, and there we are all in front of the only human, ever to live, who has done no wrong. You'll find me way in the back of the crowd. (embarassed smile)

Lynn - if you are truly a follower of Jesus, then you believe that we meet Jesus face-to-face every day, that god is in every stone, every tree, every part of this earth.   I personally do not believe that there is any 'after life'.  In fact, if there is, I'd rather not even know it.  I think Jesus' message was that if we actually lived the way he taught, we would achieve heaven right here on earth, during our lives.  If you want to get a real dose of that, read the Gospel of Thomas, one of the writings extracted from the original texts by the church (my theory is that it pointed out the fact that the divine was in all, including inanimate objects, and the religious leaders saw this kind of teaching as dangerous to their power and domination).

Sheryl has it figured out quit well ... describes GOD rather than the OT God.

Sheryl wrote >>Lynn - if you are truly a follower of Jesus, then you believe that we meet Jesus face-to-face every day, that god is in every stone, every tree, every part of this earth.<<

If someone believes in pantheism, they are then not "truly a follower of Jesus."

Sheryl writes >> If you want to get a real dose of that, read the Gospel of Thomas, one of the writings extracted from the original texts by the church (my theory is that it pointed out the fact that the divine was in all, including inanimate objects, and the religious leaders saw this kind of teaching as dangerous to their power and domination).<<

Might well be your theory, but the truth is The Gospel of Thomas was rejected as a choice for the Bible for a variety of reasons in the 4th century. Two of those reasons were obvious - new writing and didn't fit in with the rest of the writings in too many, important ways.

I know of the questionable writings. I know why they weren't accepted, since I have studied how the Bible was compiled. (Reference book given to Lisa in another one of my comments.) These writings have been around for, at least 1700 years, so they aren't much of a secret either. (I did get a kick out of The Gospel of Thomas showing up as a "news story" after all this time. If they want to go completely sensational, they should have gone with "The Gospel of Jesus," another ditty from that time period.)

I know about all these little extras. I do not have enough room in my head to remember which stuff I read is fiction and which is fact, especially when trying to learn "fact," so avoid reading the extras for the same reason I avoid reading The National Enquirer or The Star. If a huge committee of scholars back when they showed up decided they were all fakes, I figure they had more facts to back those decisions up then, than all of us in our entire lifetimes' studying on them now. Could be wrong, then again, got enough stuff to study about God to last passed this life time already.

You have put a lot of faith and trust in a small group of religious leaders back in the 4th century, Lynn.  I don't believe they are infallible, nor innocent of trying to retain power within the church leadership.  Seems they left out quite a few writings and changed quite a few meanings in order to align with their particular views. 

I'll stick to my own, as I believe that if there truely is a powerful creator, and he/she/it did create the world in their image, then they created everything as part of the entire complex.  STopping short of that actually negates much of what the Old and New Testaments teach.  To try to view the creation/universe in terms of 'man' or 'humanity' only is based on pure self-interest and ego, not on anything that makes sense.  And leads 'man' to habits of destruction, including self-destruction as we're seeing now with the decaying environment.

Yes, actually, I do have faith in them - BECAUSE I know the history behind their gathering itself, and because I know the parameters of their decisions. (They took minutes. Lots and lots of minutes - ancient version - and MSS of those are still available today, for those people willing to learn Latin that well. Had three years of Latin back in high school. Definitely not into reading it that well. lol) I hate to be repetative, but "The Books and The Parchments" by F.F. Bruce, although a dull read often, unless you're into Semantics, like I am, really lays out how the Bible came to be. (And to keep up my repetition - oh well lol - I honestly have kept saying all along, I do not trust lightly. Old boss, who taught me how to do bookkeeping, gave me advice that I took to heart in all aspects, "Trust everyone and then recheck the facts, again." lol)

Truthfully, those men at that council did NOT decide what went into the Bible. Thousands of dinky little churches around the Roman Empire, Asia Minor, and northern Africa, while getting seriously persecuted (100,000 murdered per day in Nero's reign) decided which books (OK, letters lol) were worth actually dying to keep hidden, and which were worth hiding poorly, to be found. (And they liked those books, too, so did hide them.) The ones hidden poorly got them killed, too, but the IMPORTANT stuff was kept safely hidden. The miracle came in that, despite hiding so well, each church wasn't communicating often, if at all, with any other church and yet, each church chose the exact same books - the ones in the Bible today. Believe in God or not (and sounds like your an agnostic, so believe in a god - could be wrong, just trying to check if I'm understanding you correctly) - surely you have to think that's one heck of a coincidence to choose the exact SAME books in secret. Am I wrong on that part? (I still give, you can think I'm wrong on the rest. Oh heck, you can think I'm wrong there, too. lol)

The rest - those ones that still stay in the background, even today? Weren't around during the great tribulation. Didn't show up for 100-200 years later.

And, in ways, I agree with you on Man (a lot easier to cap the M then to keep adding two single quotes lol) constantly trying to "fix" the Bible. The "hero" of my denomination (although the poor guy never wanted to start any other denomination, and surely would be mortified by what he would see today - Luther) wanted, and actually DID banned The Book of James. (Another one from the OT, but I forget which one or why.) Too radical. Too far apart from the rest. I'm guessing, "too much doing and not enough letting God do," but I have the same problem with James - just figured if those Originals chose it, gotta be in it, so part of what I must accept about this God I serve. You are right. There has been controversy since the choices were made. (Not recently, but probably because so many don't know we can still pick and choose. lol)

Oh, and as for the "infallibility" thingy (argument, but I don't want this to be the kind that ends up in shouting matches, so the original use of the word - "debate?!"), I tried to explain my beliefs on that to John, above. (Above this comment string, not that John is flying around clouds or anything. lol) Every single thing ever written is written by infallible people. Sure, much is, indeed fallacy, but obviously fallible Man can still write without error - "infallibly." If not, well, we wouldn't be on computers writing to each other. Again, "Trust everyone, and then recheck the facts, again." lol

Wow, interesting discussion.  Been there, it's all moot except the love.

I think the authors of the Bible have been attritubed to many different people and I'm not qualified to name any of them.  I can only speculate on a few.  I think Moses is given credit for the first 5 books of the old Testament.  Please note that I have said "I think", don't remember those lessons, too long ago.

I don't think it's necessarily that they keep things from us, Lisa.  I think it's more that people don't care enough to find out about things - for themselves or by asking the right questions in Bible study or Sunday school classes.  And today, with our kids not being able to sit still, I don't imagine much learning is taking place in Sunday school classes with volunteers, if they can't squeeze much teaching in at public schools with professional teachers.  :)

I'm not sure it really matters what we know with our minds about the Bible as much as we know with our hearts.  The closer one gets to God, the more one reads the Bible while growing closer to God, the more we understand the words.  And the more we understand the words, the more we can feel God's presence and we can feel what was going through the minds of those whom God used to write the words.

In my lifetime, I've been blessed with some awesome pastors and  teachers.  As a young child, in the Methodist church, I was blessed to have a teacher who refused to use the lessons of the 60s (which were basically coloring pages) and instead used the King James version of the Bible to teach.  I was confirmed in the United Methosidt church, and the pastor was an older man who many of the people my parents age disliked.  But he saw to it that we learned about the Disciples, about the Roman Catholic Church, about Luther, then about Wesley and the founders of the churches that combined to make up the UM church.  We studied the prayers, Scripture, and creeds, and had to be able to both put them in our own words and explain what the words meant.  He made us write our own psalms.  We had to memorize the names of each book of the Bible and be able to tell who was the supposed author and give a small summary of the book.  It was a lot of work, and once he was transferred, no other confirmation class had to work that hard.  :)

As an adult, I have chosen to learn on my own, plus I have taken classes through Moody Bible College.  When you position yourself in classes with all kinds of people from all kinds of denominations, it can be interesting.  In one class, we studied Isaiah.  Difficult reading and understanding that one.  After class, though, we all stuck around and talked about rapture, pre-trib, tribulation, post-trib,  and dispensationaliasm.  Now those were some great discussions.  Often the teachers hung out with us after class too so they could have some input into the discussions.

Marilyn,

I do not ask the following question to get into any kind of argument. I ask, because my denomination is the reason for Methodism to start. (Presbyterian.) With that, the only thing I know of your childhood religion was the brief time I spent in a Bible Study in a Methodist Church. (Didn't even go to Sunday service.)

As a child, were you also taught about "Calvinism"/"Reformed"/"Luther?" I simply do not know if these things are taught as juxtaposition against the Methodist church or simply not spoken about, and have always been curious. (Obviously, Methodism isn't brought up in my church, or I'd know the answer. The only reason I know about the differences within the two denominations is because of a single line in "The River Runs Through It," a movie with Brad Pitt. Had hubby explain the reference to me. lol)

Lynn, I would ask what you meant by "my denomination - Presbyterian - is the reason for Methodism to start."  From the history I've read of the Methodist church, Wesley was Anglican, and had no desire to start a new church when he and his friends met to study.  From everything I've read, Luther posted his complaints about the Roman Catholic church in the early 1500s and Calvin began the Presbyterian church in the mid to late 1500s, right?  But John and Charles Wesley and Whitfield were more like missionaries for the Anglican church/Church of England when they came to the U.S. in the 1700s.  Wasn't the Presbyterian Church more the church of Scotland?  Today's United Methodist Church is a combination of churches from the 1960s, including Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren - which both strarted in the 1700s.

As kids, no, we were not taught about Luther, Calvin, or even really about Wesley.  I think most United Methodists today know very little about any of them.

I've learned more about the history of the UM church since I became a certified lay speaker for the church.  One of the classes required for certification was the history of the church.  It's quite fascinating.

No, the Wesleys probably didn't want to start a new church any more than Calvin or Luther. They, did, however reject Calvin and Luther's concept of predestination. By doing so, like Calvin and Luther did without planning to, they created another rift. (Boy, wouldn't all four men be shocked by how many rifts since?!)

You might (probably lol) have more knowledge of church history post Reformation, than i do. Heck, I'm still in shock finding out the silly rift that caused my over all denomination to split just a few decades ago! (Dumbdumbdumbdumb lol) I'm missing the whole history between Geneva (a town Calvin created to be theisitic - and, of course, became very UNtheistic, like always) and Philadelphia, PA.

On the other hand, thanks for answering my question. Like I said, "always wondered."

Are you asking if the apostle Matthew wrote "The Gospel of Matthew?" Nope, he didn't but it was written by a Matthew. Did John write John's? Yup, but it was probably the last book he wrote. Luke? Sure did, although, obviously, given who he was, he wrote it by talking to many others. Mark? Don't remember the whole story of Mark, other than "not an apostle" and probably a slave - a scribe.

Church is keeping secrets? Really? Maybe the wrong churches? I don't know, never been a member of any of the churches you went to. I do know two things though - 1.) way too many books available to study for any church to keep secrets about the Bible AND 2.) I've had a college course on "The Bible." If you already feel you've only been told part of "the truth," you'll definitely want to do a lot of studying outside the classroom. Only later, did I find out the prof was keeping a few secrets of his own.

Truth is, we are close to 2000 years, after the fact, and living in a completely different culture. (If you want some kind of grasp of the culture during Jesus' life, I recommend Edersheim's book, "The Life and Times of Jesus Christ." He also has another book that covers the cultures around the Bible's writing  pre-Jesus showing up.) Even scholars, quite often, can only give educated guesses about what they think it means. I spend quite a bit of time checking different sources, finding out who I trust (and who I don't), so I don't have to do the whole learn-Aramaic-Greek-Ancient Hebrew thing, as well, as need to spend more life than I have left on this earth to figure out what life was like then to avoid needing to become a scholar myself.

With that, I take what many ascribe with a grain of salt, and trust others. It also helps to figure out the alterior motive for why people write what they write. No doubt everyone has a bias, but I'm not buying a theory based on that bias. I want the theory to be based on sound studying, and, even better, one that changes the scholar's mind through investigation.

Oh, and do I know the Bible? Not even close, and never good enough - even if I spent every waking hour of every day of my life from the time I got interested to the day I die. Just way too much we miss! I am hoping to get the inside scope in the next life though. ;)

I feel the same way often. Until I started taking college classes, I knew the stories in the bible, and what the scriptures meant to me, but I never knew the HISTORY of the Bible, nor how much they have been able to correlate between historical knowledge and the bible now.

And archeologists keep verifying more and more every day.

 Jerry Kays Jul 3, 2009, 2:56am EDT
Orthodox archaeologists verify orthodoxy ... peer review assures only that. Alternative archeology paints a whole other picture ... one far more spiritually true ... IMnsHO.

 Jerry Kays Jul 3, 2009, 3:03am EDT
PS ... for a starter read here:

http://www.onelight.com/hollow/giant/canyon.html

Historians said, "Edom never really existed," until archaeologists discovered Edom. (Same thing with other civilizations mentioned in the Bible.) Archaeologists unearth digs, usually not sure what civilization they've discovered. How then do only "Orthodox archaeologists" discover what they've been theorizing all along? They've got to be some extremely bright cookies, huh? Not like "unorthodox archaeologists" are dumb?!

BTW, saw the source of the article. Given that I do not believe in "Hollow Earth, Immortality, Teleportation, telepathy, VRIL energy, Giants, Hyper-spacial and Astral Travel," it really didn't convince me to change my mind.

What saddens me is that when I was a kid, we learned the Bible stories but never had any refereces about the times, about what they might have meant then and about what life applications they might have for the present.  And, even more sadly, people who gave up studying the Bible after childhood, who never had an adult Sunday school lesson or adult Bible study, have never grown beyond knowing the stories that they can repeat from memory.

Lynn P., The link I provided had absolutely nothing to do with your quaint listing of things you do not believe in, a typical case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater ... typical also of religious fundamental zealots who are so narrow minded as to reject anything they cannot claim to already have decided what fits their rigid view. I would bet that you never at all read the article itself which was printed in Nexus. You probably still think the major 3 pyramids were created just 4 o