The Bible is not the word of God people

I was just looking at another thread about evolution and how its only a theory, and while it was interesting, i saw one commenter post something along the lines of "this thread will devolve to the use of the "infallible" Bible..." or some such nonsense, which made me want to post a comment, but then i realized there were 223 comments on that thread, so i started this one.

For starters, yes I do believe in God, you could even call me a Christian if you want, but I know that the religion has been changed over many years, and I personally think that the Bible has been...modified to satisfy primarily the Roman Catholic church in its never ending war against all other religions (no offense to you Catholics out there, its not your fault), and therefor is not in its original unmolested state for us to look at. However, the Bible is not the word of God, it was written by men and is by no means infallible. Then again, neither is the theory of evolution, but that is for another thread.

Also, would someone please show me where in the Bible it says that the Earth is only a few thousand years old? If those of you who claim that it does base your claims off of Genesis and how it took God "7 days" to create the universe and the Earth and humans etc., who the hell said that God's "days" are the same length as ours? Please let me know the location of this information as well, because I would love to have a go at it.

I initially sat down to read the Bible in an attempt to debunk it, so to speak, but I only saw bits and pieces of theories that we have come to know and in some cases except as truth. Examples of said theories are the big bang, primordial soup, and even evolution if you wanted to look at Eve's taking of the fruit of "good & evil" as a step forward in Man's evolution into what we are today (which isn't much to be honest).

I highly recommend that those of you who think that it is a huge load of crap (which is perfectly fine by me, have at it) to read the Bible with and open mind, much as I did. You may be very surprised at the similarities between our theories and what the Bible had to offer two thousand years ago. I know I was.

I believe in a God of sorts, so I don't think I should be labeled an atheist, either.

I don't think the majority of the Bible is to be interpreted literally. Mythologies and ancient accounts of creation, for example, were ways the indigenous people explained their world. For example, we know that the Norse myths aren't to be interpreted entirely literally; there was no Ymir who was slain, there was no giant cow, etc, the stories were just the Scandinavians understanding their world. (There were giants, though. If they're in almost every mythos around the world, something's up!)

Genesis could be looked at like Middle Eastern Mythology (or one sect of it), and therefore is only a human attempt at interpreting the world around them.

As for the rest of the Bible, I think there were alien interventions (again, another thread) and whatnot mixed in with true bits of history and myths. Revelation, for example, is not to be interpreted literally, but there are a lot of interesting connections with it and the contemporary world.

Plus, if the Bible were to be rigidly followed and interpreted literally, we couldn't eat potatoes!
Who would want a potatoless diet?


[edit on 2-3-2009 by Lifthrasir]

My next point of study here is going to be how it was put together. The council of nicea s.p. and constantines input etc.

Well I do love a good religion debate.


See the problem with the Bible is that it's 3000 years old. Now, I don't know about you, but I have books that are 20 years old that have been revised, changed and edited to suit the needs of the current consumer.

Therefore, it is pretty plausible to say that yes the Bible has been changed on many occasions to suit the needs of the ruling elite in this case.

The other problem I have with this whole Bible fiasco is that people really must be crazy today. I mean truly, downright gone off the wagon, crazy.

I mean, some really believe they know what God is, and what he wants. This is completely ridiculous and these people should be thrown into pshychiatric facilities to be studied as far as i'm concerned.

We do not understand our world yet, we do not understand how life is created fully, we don't understand our souls or how mother nature creates all the wonderful and horrible things she does. We do not understand things in space and how they come to be, or really what everything out there is made of for that matter.

Is is for that reason that NOBODY on this planet, knows what God is, or can even contemplate the idea. It is far too complex and mind boggling for us to understand.

I preach the gospel of I don't know, and for good reason, cause I don't, and anybody who claims they do, is just plain wrong.

~Keeper

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I preach the gospel of I don't know, and for good reason, cause I don't, and anybody who claims they do, is just plain wrong.

And you know this?

Is this what's called militant agnosticism? "I don't know and you don't either." Just for clarity, I for sure don't know, and that includes, I can't be sure what someone else may or may not know.

I agree, it's not. IMO, the bible has become a replacement for it. And all the claims around it being that is done for marketing purposes. Every product on the market makes the same kind of claims. New and improved, the only one with [blah] active ingredients, etc. The only truth.

If it was the word of god, then who wrote the first one? Even if you believe it to be divinely inspired, that inspiration or source of the word had to come from something other than a book. So how in the world can anyone claim this to be the word of god? It's foolish IMO.

The lessons can be learned in other ways. Understanding is not universal to a certain set of words, to a certain idol, to a certain story. The certain things are merely variables used to express an understanding. Those who take the literal word do not actually know what it means. It's like the Nirvana song in bloom - he's the one, who likes all our pretty songs, and he likes to sing along, but he knows not what it means, knows not what it means.

You can tell someone that 1+1=2 all day long. That person can repeat 1+1=2 all day long, and some might think that person can add. But that person doesn't actually understand 1+1=2, they can't actually add. They only know to repeat what they are told. If the person can add, then they not only know 1+1=2, but that 1+2=3 and so forth. If you can add, then you understand the equation A+B=C, where there are many expressions of the same exact truth.

The bible is a 1+1=2. It is an expression of the truth. But it is not the word of god. The father gives in understanding and wisdom. He gives in terms of A+B=C. And there is a big difference from the person who is able to repeat 1+1=2 word for word, and the person who actually understand A+B=C. As Jesus would say - you tell it so well, now let me tell you what it means, now let me bring you understanding.

Important because when you understand the A+B=C rather than 1+1=2, then you can see all the things mentioned in the bible still apparent today. They are not called the same things(too fool those who can only see 1+1=2), but their actions and functions are still there. That is why Jesus says look at their fruits. Because when you look at their fruits, it tells what they really are. A rose by any other name still smells the same.

I believe the bible is divinely inspired, but it is not the actual word of god. It is inspired because 1+1=2 does show a truth, and if you can understand the 1+1=2 then you can perhaps add, and if you do one day get the truth and understand, then you will see the 1+1=2 that is true in the bible. But to claim 1+1=2 is the only truth is to deny people how to add, it is to deny them understanding and wisdom.

And it is those who can only see 1+1=2 that want a 1 world religion, or won't be happy until their religion is the only world religion. If you can actually understand 1+1=2, then you don't really have problems with other religions. They might express the same truth in a different manner, but it's still the same understanding and expression under it.

When I seen the zeitgeist movie this was all I seen. Same truth carried on among different cultures, just different expressions of it. 1 is 1+1=2, another maybe 2+2=4, but both are still true expressions of A+B=C. If you don't understand either of them, then you feel the other expression is completely false.

And I seem to be stuck in a world of people who can only see 1+1=2. Atheists can only see 1+1=2, and most Christians can only see 1+1=2. Neither has any real understanding.

As Einstein once said - Any fool can know, the point is to understand.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
I preach the gospel of I don't know, and for good reason, cause I don't, and anybody who claims they do, is just plain wrong.

~Keeper

You were good until the claim of anyone saying they know being wrong. At that moment, you deviated from "don't know", to suddenly being able to speak that you knew for a fact what others know. In doing this, we deny of others anything we lack ourselves.

I once made the same mistake. Part of getting over it was to realize the above. Then you stick with - I just don't know, and I can't believe your claims either because anyone can just make them up. In which case you start to be a little more open minded to things. And it is agreeable IMO.

You seem to be on the same path I was a few years ago. Rejected Christianity. Went to atheism. Realized it was pretty arrogant for me to say no such thing exists because my tiny perspective doesn't include it. Went from atheism to just not knowing, and thought nobody else knew either(where you are). Then realized I was denying it in others, so just changed it to - I don't know. And then I started to seek and find out the truth, because I didn't know. And now I know, and I wouldn't have believed anyone until I found out for myself.

To say you don't know is great. One of the first steps to wisdom is honesty. Just gotta keep on walking and searching.

good thread. I am not a christian, however i am very interested in religion and looked at it in my spare time and been to catholic school (ironicly, the reason i am not christian,lol).

The creation story of seven days is ment to represent 7 periods, not days, as the OP mentioned, which is were quite a few people are going wrong there.
It can not be the word of god, and if it were to be, why is no one worshiping King James as his version seems to be alot more popular than gods,lol.

The origins of the old testiment texts are fasinating, the summerian creation story esspecialy, sounds absolutly mad when you first read it, but makes more sence also, and fits scarily well with everything.
The great flood, another story that props up globaly, and some with scientific explanations, its eye opening to see how advanced ancienct civilisations were with their science!

Somehow, science turned into story, story turned into legend, legend turned into myth, and then myth turned into mythology. How this happend is just deteriation of knowladge, no idea how (the information in these writing are just too huge to forget or loose) wonder if something happend??

At the end of it all, the bible is a collection of storys written by seperate people and write ups of myths and legends that have lost their original script over time but kept the plot line. It cannot be the word of god for simple reason being different people wrote it at different times, as well as so many writings being thrown out and not allowed in the bible. Who has the arogence to judge the legitamency of the word of god?

But the roots are very interesting none the less.

I was told there'd be no math.

Anyway, I'm always interested to see people use the term "The Bible". Of course (in my opinion) unless you can read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, what you're reading is a translation. And I think we can all agree that sometimes things can get lost in translation, no?

Something as simple as a comma can cause an almost absurd schism between denominations. Something as simple as the difference between, "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise". As opposed to "Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Two completely different meanings there, and entire religious philosophies hinge on which way you see it. Interestingly, there is no comma in Koine Greek, so it was added arbitrarily. People fight passionately over these kinds of points. I kid you not. And any one of a dozen newer versions of the Bible virtually all place that comma where it is in the King James version. Arbitrarily.

This was an oral exchange. Jesus and the thief weren't passing notes with punctuation on them. And Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic. Based upon an oral tradition handed down to the point that the Bible was translated into Latin and then Old English to be what we now know as the King James Bible. Other versions followed.

But this is only one example for a situation that can cause at best, ambiguity in meaning and ceaseless arguments about what I believe to be minor, if not irrelevant, points which do nothing more than obfuscate the real message of the New Testament.

Not that I know.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


those who say they kow exactly what he wants are trying to pinpoint it sir. I humbly recommend it as the same, cause you will do "God" more service by being precise, just like he did for us, with math and all those easy formulas n such

reply to post by gibbs1189


I totally agree with you that the bible was modified to meet the need of the time and to some extent shape the belief of people. I still can’t understand How the Church can claim to preach the teaching of God when there coming into power and existence has been based on corruption and murder through crusades.

Take the Cathars for example; they were a catholic sec that was flourishing in the 12th and 13th century. Then they were exterminated by order of the pope of that time. Their belief were different from the bile even though they were a catholic sec. Some example bellow (from Wikipedia):

They did not believe in one all-encompassing god, but in two, both equal and comparable in status. They held that the physical world was evil and created by Rex Mundi (translated from Latin as "king of the world"), who encompassed all that was corporeal, chaotic and powerful; the second god, the one whom they worshipped, was entirely disincarnate: a being or principle of pure spirit and completely unsullied by the taint of matter. He was the god of love, order and peace.

This placed them at odds with the Catholic Church in regarding material creation, on behalf of which Jesus had supposedly died, as intrinsically evil and implying that God, whose word had created the world in the beginning, was a usurper. Furthermore, as the Cathars saw matter as intrinsically evil, they denied that Jesus could become incarnate and still be the son of God

and as you the cathars believed the bible was modifies:

Cathars, in general, formed an anti-sacerdotal party in opposition to the Catholic Church, protesting what they perceived to be the moral, spiritual and political corruption of the Church. They claimed an Apostolic succession from the founders of Christianity, and saw Rome as having betrayed and corrupted the original purity of the message,

Other Example

The God found in the Old Testament had nothing to do with the God of Love known to Cathars. The Old Testament God had created the world as a prison, and demanded from the "prisoners" fearful obedience and worship. This false god was in reality — claimed the Cathari — a blind usurper who under the most false pretexts, tormented and murdered those whom he called, all too possessively, "his children". The false god was, by the Cathari, called Rex Mundi, or The King of the World. This exegesis upon the Old Testament was not unique to the Cathars: it echoes views found in earlier Gnostic movements and foreshadows later critical voices

If you want to know more read the wiki article Catharism

[edit on 3-3-2009 by rattan1]

reply to post by gibbs1189


When it comes to "god" I don't believe in him, He is nothing but a story that people wrote about in a book. Now what makes him so different from the Loch Ness Monster? Both are Legends. On ATS everyone is always talking about proof, So my question is where is the proof? The Bible? No, Because anyone can create a religion these days.

Without the Bible which defines God, you would have no God. It is codified excerps of communications between God and Man. The Bible is divinely inspired so that many people can gain information according to their ability to understand what was said and why it was so. Jesus used parables that simple farmers could understand while those who did not till the soil nor plant the seed did not understand.

Very good OP Gibbs, this is an intriguing topic for sure.

Badmedia I love the 1+1=2 analogy. That speaks truths about life that many people don't get. There is a difference between just knowing and truly understanding.

I would agree that the bible is divinely inspired but not the complete and total infallible word of God. I was raised in an LCMS Lutheran church, confirmed, and attended a lutheran high school, and one thing that the lutheran church emphasized greatly was that the bible was the infallible word of God and should be taken completely literally. Lutherans base all of their doctrine heavily on scripture. I have had classes on apologetics and the writing of the bible, watched movies about it, lots of stuff. Honestly i believed it and didn't really think twice about it for a long time. I completely rejected the theory of evolution, believed the world was 6000 years old, etc.

Even in high school though, i began to question some of the things i was being taught. I had a baptist friend at my school who would get into arguments with my bible teacher, and he would make more sense than my teacher would. After high school is when my faith went through some major changes. Once i found this site and started reading up on many of the things here i began to look at the bible with a more skeptical and open mind.

The bible is an amazing book, and it is filled with truths. Some of them are easy to understand and some of them are more subtle though. I feel that it is a book inspired by God but still written by man; a tool, but not infallible, literal, absolute truth.

If the bible was the infallible word of God, then which one? What translation? There are so many out there, and different translations can easily be interpreted in different ways. Different translations can be used to fit different agendas. Also, who decided which books should and shouldn't be put in the bible? I'm pretty sure that was man and not God.

Overall i believe the bible is a great spiritual tool, but it must be read in the right way. It was written over 2000 years ago. It was written for a people in a completely different time and state of mind than today. Does that mean we should throw it out? Hell No! But we should keep that in mind when reading it. Look at it from the perspective of the people it was written for and by. One of my biggest issues is the idea that the without the bible, you cant know the word of God. I believe that the true Word of God is something that is written on the hearts of everyone, and those who truly seek it can understand for themselves. The bible is an aid in that search for true wisdom, but the true wisdom and word of God is found in the heart. I have no doubt that the many of the authors of the bible had the true word of God in their hearts when writing, but i don't think it all gets 100 percent through in translation.

Thats my dos pesos at least.

Originally posted by debris765nju
Without the Bible which defines God, you would have no God. It is codified excerps of communications between God and Man. The Bible is divinely inspired so that many people can gain information according to their ability to understand what was said and why it was so. Jesus used parables that simple farmers could understand while those who did not till the soil nor plant the seed did not understand.

May I remind you that the concept of God existed well before the bible was written. The bible is codifies only to encompass broader meanings, that is, if you like they are a little bit like the quatrains of Nostradamus which can have any meaning depending on your imagination.

Thanks for the replies, I tried to post earlier on my iPod but it didnt work out too well so I had to wait until i got home to post again. I read all of your replies and I think you all have good and valid points and I agree with most of them. Im very happy to see that others believe the same things I do, I thought I was the only one who saw these kinds of things, especially since my long time best friend is an avid Christian and a firm believer in the Bible. Its always frustrating when someone brings up religion around him and he tries as hard as he can to defend every single word the Bible has to offer, he even thinks the world is only a few thousand years old...*sigh*

I don't hold it against him though, hes a good guy and all, just a bit stubborn/closed minded. I do agree to the fact that the Bible, and most religions in general, provide excellent life lessons and morals, and people who do have some type of faith are typically happier than those who don't.

I didn't catch the name of the poster, but someone mentioned people trying to explain life when the Bible was written, I agree to that as well, that is something I have been telling myself for years. And the similarities between alien stories we hear today and the mentioning of God floating above the water of Earth, and the Bible even refers to God as "we" at one point in Genesis, possibly referring to some type of alien culture? Not to mention Moses going in to a large "cloud" on the top of Mt. Sinai.

Again, thanks for the replies. I look forward to reading plenty more. Keep them coming!

interesting thread.

it's also interesting that no one (unless I missed it?) has mentioned the books of the Bible that the council of Nicaea decided didn't belong or were, perhaps, too controversial or revealing for the general public (peasants) to understand or even be exposed to. my thought is that they believe the masses would be more easily kept under control if the things taught in these banished books were not generally known.

Enoch in particular comes to mind, as it is one that is referred to in current translations of the Bible (see Jude 1:14-15) The Book of Enoch was considered scripture by early Christians, yet it was removed. If the word of God was incorruptible, how could this be?

I am a Christian, but I don't follow any particular religion, sect, or go to any so-called church. I believe religions and churches are constructs and may follow seeds of truth, but none is the whole tree, so to speak. I believe the modern Bible has been heavily modified, and few understand that the roots of the Bible predate the first actual Bible, or collection of writings that became the Bible.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I am actively seeking understanding. So, to come to the title of this thread, I believe that there are words of God in the Bible, those seeds of truth, and I believe in Christ and prophecy (though not verbatim from the current Bible), I believe a lot of mankind's thoughts, prejudices, and words have tainted the Bible, and no one has the whole truth. It's good to search through legends and myths that supposedly predate the writings of the Bible, because there are more seeds of truth there as well. I'm particularly intrigued by the writings of Enoch, his experiences, and stories of the Watchers, of the angels and fallen angels.

Anyone who relies wholly on the Bible for truth is being brainwashed.

gibbs1189,

If God could create Adam and Eve as mature adults couldn't He also create the universe in a mature state? Nothing is impossible with God.

As for the validity and preservation of the Bible, ancient scrolls have been found that verify the accuracy of the modern Bible. The book we have today is just as God wanted.

Originally posted by gibbs1189
...my long time best friend is an avid Christian and a firm believer in the Bible. Its always frustrating when someone brings up religion around him and he tries as hard as he can to defend every single word the Bible has to offer, he even thinks the world is only a few thousand years old...*sigh*

That's part of why I maintain that the Bible, and in particular how parts of it are interpreted, have been modified or misconstrued. As for the idea that the Bible couldn't be modified and the book we have today is as God means it to be, in Revelation 22, the Bible itself implies it can be changed (yes it's talking in particular about the book of Revelation, but you can extrapolate that this will apply to the rest of the Bible as well):

Rev 20
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this Book.

Originally posted by gibbs1189
And the similarities between alien stories we hear today and the mentioning of God floating above the water of Earth, and the Bible even refers to God as "we" at one point in Genesis, possibly referring to some type of alien culture? Not to mention Moses going in to a large "cloud" on the top of Mt. Sinai.

Not to mention Ezekial's wheel. And the word God as it was translated from the Hebrew word "~yhla" or 'elohiym - which we pronounce Elohim - is actually a plural. So when God says, "Let us make man in our image," the word translate as God actually has plurality, i.e. more than one. You can find this by using the Hebrew lexicon.

I believe there's a link to aliens and angels/demons and even God. Things aren't so clear cut, that's for sure.

Good thread.

and afterthought...

if you research the Book of Enoch, you can read about how the angels took Enoch on what appears to be a journey through space... seriously.

You find the text of Enoch online. Here's one copy you can read.

Very interesting was XVII-XXXVI. Enoch's Journeys through the Earth and Sheol. In one part he wrote:

"And I saw a flaming fire. And beyond these mountains Is a region the end of the great earth: there the heavens were completed. And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards
12
the height and towards the depth. And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no
13
birds, but it was a waste and horrible place. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains,
14
and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and
15
earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven."

I find these descriptions amazing. Think of the "Pillars of Creation" (image google this if you haven't seen them). Think of black holes.

And this is a Book, translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that the Council of Nicaea thought didn't belong in the Bible.

So I refute the idea that the Bible today is the complete unadulterated word of God. And I don't believe that makes me any less a Christian, it just makes me a thinking questioning Christian - and I believe that's what God and Christ would want me to be.