Who Really Wrote the Bible?

[Emperah]

As to who wrote the bible, well nuff of it was copied and plagiarized from stories from kmt (Egypt).
Nuff of the stories already appeared in the Book of coming forth by day and by night and also the Metuneter.

As to the new testament all a dat was written by the Roman Piso family

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_piso01.htm

[blugiant]

If u believe it then who wrote does not matter...if u don't then who wrote it is irrelevant....

Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters



Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."

And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul.

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul.

It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus, Interrupted'. His latest book, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are', is now available from HarperOne.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

[SKYJUICE221]

I guess every nation wrote there own version of bible. One version say Jesus is black and another say his white. Another version say the original Israelites people are black. It's too much confusion.
A verse in the old testament say God created evil which is the devil, but God know all things beforehand then why God place evil among his precious creation into the garden of Eden?

[franksterr]

I guess every nation wrote there own version of bible. One version say Jesus is black and another say his white. Another version say the original Israelites people are black. It's too much confusion.

Skin color is only important to those who live within a racist society.....just remember Jesus is primarily a Spiritual Being having a Human experience
Take for instance.... in India Buddha is represented as Indian and in China he is represented as Chinese.

A verse in the old testament say God created evil which is the devil, but God know all things beforehand then why God place evil among his precious creation into the garden of Eden?

What is Evil?
Can there be Good without Evil?

God and the Devil represent Universal Law (principle/energy).
You will label your experience of this Law, one or the other depending on your actions, beliefs (mindset) and expectations.....two sides of the same coin.

[kia027]

http://guru6.com/blog1/2014/09/26/did-william-shakespeare-write-psalms-46-king-james-version/

[blugiant]

http://guru6.com/blog1/2014/09/26/di...james-version/

kia wat yuh kno bout dat homo francis bacon ann da king james bible?

[blugiant]

I guess every nation wrote there own version of bible. One version say Jesus is black and another say his white. Another version say the original Israelites people are black. It's too much confusion.
A verse in the old testament say God created evil which is the devil, but God know all things beforehand then why God place evil among his precious creation into the garden of Eden?

nat troo no oyinbo wrote da bible?

oyinbo plagarized

[SKYJUICE221]

http://guru6.com/blog1/2014/09/26/di...james-version/

This is the kind of thing that causes more confusion.
This must be some Vince code bs, and if so Christopher Columbus must have contributed his version as well. I guess we are so far from the truth.

[Reggae plus]

Folks from all corners of the English speaking world have heard this MANY times...perhaps there are expressions in other languages which say it to?

"The Lord helps those who help themselves."

Even as a little boy I understood from listening that there were things in the bible which just didn't add up. The common sense of a child is highly underrated. As I grew older and learned to read I noticed the glaring omissions. The bible was written by the uneducated and un/ill informed. If they couldn't get fact right how could they possibly do any better when it came to fiction?

So then...as the bible seems to have been 'contributed' to by an ongoing series of forgeries and misrepresentations based more on the issue of the moment in which it was added atop the 'pile' rather than on truth or 'the word' of any of the key characters included in the 'story' of what earthly good is it? Why not hold the first real 'book burning' that ever actually deserved to be attended and fueled by books?

Despite the FACT that the bible has been used as a heavy hand in order to control the hearts and minds of the majority...and despite the FACT that certain gigantic and wealthy corporations have lined their pockets and their secret and highly illegal banking institutions from the get-go [usually on the backs and from the blood, sweat amd tears of the people they profess to represent]...there is a tinge of a good side to the holey book ['cause it sure is full of holes].

The bible has provided a foundation from which people could choose how they would live and lead their lives. It had an influence in terms of keeping people on the old straight and narrow path. Rather than chaos and every man [woman] for him [her] self we lived in societies where there was a degree of harmony as long as you fit inside the blueprint of what that particular society deemed acceptable. [proper...right] Problem was/is that blueprint was controlled by those who served only their own best interests.

As members of specific societies began to question the boundaries and blueprints as set forward by the church and community leaders [who usually worked together arm in arm] the church would decide which way the wind was blowing and how it would affect the bottom line and either agreed [and marched] with the parishners or they issued edicts from 'on high'. As 'things' changed the various factions of churchgoers experienced confusion, disagreed and either came to blows with one another or parted ways and company. Thus new 'companies were 'born' with the dazed and confused showing up weekly with more money. "Money for nothing...and the chicks for free".

The 'reLIEgions' who bend the least seem to make the most 'coinage'. Their 'faithful' are perfectly trained seals who even go so far as to die and leave everything [or at least significant amounts] to 'the church'. And these 'churches' pay no taxes? [not even for their laundering businesses]

So the question is where do people go in order to maintain a grasp on a chance at living in an ordered society? How do people learn the difference between right and wrong....respect for others...the commandments of survival? The church has pissed away the right to be considered credible. Their congregations are shrinking. Their buildings are closing and either being sold or abandoned. Fewer are subscribing to the "man in the sky" [let alone virgins giving birth] 'take' on how it all works.

Well...as I said at the top...the 'lord' helps those who help themselves. We'll have to figure it out for ourselves. You'll KNOW it's bogus if you have to PAY. It might be time to liberate our collective monies away from those churches who have stolen from us and our ancestors, who have lied to us from before our own personal 'immaculate' conceptions occurred, who funded and backed the slave trade, who have historically killed in the name of "god"...which must be an ancient translation for the concept of money...who have attempted to control humanity, not for humanity's sake but for their own bottom line and self-serving interests, who have allowed vast numbers of their own employees and representatives to molest our children with impunity for centuries, who don't give a 'hoot' about any of us...but, in fact, only about our money. If that is really only what it's all about...then yes let us find a way to take that away from them. It can be put to better use.

Who really wrote the bible? Let's find 'em. Line 'em up and put them on trial. They did so much more harm than good...and all in the name of...of...money. Bunch of frauds.

[SKYJUICE221]

Folks from all corners of the English speaking world have heard this MANY times...perhaps there are expressions in other languages which say it to?

"The Lord helps those who help themselves."

Even as a little boy I understood from listening that there were things in the bible which just didn't add up. The common sense of a child is highly underrated. As I grew older and learned to read I noticed the glaring omissions. The bible was written by the uneducated and un/ill informed. If they couldn't get fact right how could they possibly do any better when it came to fiction?

So then...as the bible seems to have been 'contributed' to by an ongoing series of forgeries and misrepresentations based more on the issue of the moment in which it was added atop the 'pile' rather than on truth or 'the word' of any of the key characters included in the 'story' of what earthly good is it? Why not hold the first real 'book burning' that ever actually deserved to be attended and fueled by books?

Despite the FACT that the bible has been used as a heavy hand in order to control the hearts and minds of the majority...and despite the FACT that certain gigantic and wealthy corporations have lined their pockets and their secret and highly illegal banking institutions from the get-go [usually on the backs and from the blood, sweat amd tears of the people they profess to represent]...there is a tinge of a good side to the holey book ['cause it sure is full of holes].

The bible has provided a foundation from which people could choose how they would live and lead their lives. It had an influence in terms of keeping people on the old straight and narrow path. Rather than chaos and every man [woman] for him [her] self we lived in societies where there was a degree of harmony as long as you fit inside the blueprint of what that particular society deemed acceptable. [proper...right] Problem was/is that blueprint was controlled by those who served only their own best interests.

As members of specific societies began to question the boundaries and blueprints as set forward by the church and community leaders [who usually worked together arm in arm] the church would decide which way the wind was blowing and how it would affect the bottom line and either agreed [and marched] with the parishners or they issued edicts from 'on high'. As 'things' changed the various factions of churchgoers experienced confusion, disagreed and either came to blows with one another or parted ways and company. Thus new 'companies were 'born' with the dazed and confused showing up weekly with more money. "Money for nothing...and the chicks for free".

The 'reLIEgions' who bend the least seem to make the most 'coinage'. Their 'faithful' are perfectly trained seals who even go so far as to die and leave everything [or at least significant amounts] to 'the church'. And these 'churches' pay no taxes? [not even for their laundering businesses]

So the question is where do people go in order to maintain a grasp on a chance at living in an ordered society? How do people learn the difference between right and wrong....respect for others...the commandments of survival? The church has pissed away the right to be considered credible. Their congregations are shrinking. Their buildings are closing and either being sold or abandoned. Fewer are subscribing to the "man in the sky" [let alone virgins giving birth] 'take' on how it all works.

Well...as I said at the top...the 'lord' helps those who help themselves. We'll have to figure it out for ourselves. You'll KNOW it's bogus if you have to PAY. It might be time to liberate our collective monies away from those churches who have stolen from us and our ancestors, who have lied to us from before our own personal 'immaculate' conceptions occurred, who funded and backed the slave trade, who have historically killed in the name of "god"...which must be an ancient translation for the concept of money...who have attempted to control humanity, not for humanity's sake but for their own bottom line and self-serving interests, who have allowed vast numbers of their own employees and representatives to molest our children with impunity for centuries, who don't give a 'hoot' about any of us...but, in fact, only about our money. If that is really only what it's all about...then yes let us find a way to take that away from them. It can be put to better use.

Who really wrote the bible? Let's find 'em. Line 'em up and put them on trial. They did so much more harm than good...and all in the name of...of...money. Bunch of frauds.

I agreed

[purejam]

Humans wrote the bible, so why does it matter who these individuals were?

What seems more relevant is why so many believe what was conceived, written, rewritten, translated, and rewritten by humans? Why not think for one's self?

[kia027]

It’s time our secrets about the Bible came out. It’s time for Christians to know what their pastors won’t tell them.
1) The Apostles of Jesus Seem to Have Known Nothing about a Virgin Birth
The earliest mention of the birth of Jesus to be written is not the nativity stories in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but verses in Paul’s letter to the Romans. He wrote it after having met with Peter and others who had known in person not only Jesus but also his mother and brothers. Despite learning from them everything they could tell him about Jesus, Paul shows no sign of having heard of a virgin birth. Instead, he wrote that Jesus “was descended from David according to the flesh” and was declared to be the Son of God not through any special birth that Paul mentions but by his resurrection (Romans 1:3-4).
The nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, suggesting that Jesus had a virgin birth in Bethlehem (the birthplace of David), were composed later and even his own apostles showed no indication of knowing anything about it.
2) Jesus Said He Wanted to Offer Nothing to Gentiles
The fact that Christianity has become a religion largely of Gentiles who literally worship Jesus is a huge irony, because in his ministry, Jesus said he intended to offer Gentiles nothing.
Matthew 10:5 shows Jesus giving his disciples firm instructions to “go nowhere among the Gentiles.” It’s true that Chapter 8 of Matthew and Chapter 7 of Luke show Jesus healing the servant of a Roman soldier. However, this happened only after the soldier said he was unworthy of Jesus’ attention.
It’s also possible that Jesus assumed the servant was a Jew, because, as shown in Matthew 15:21-28, when a woman who was indisputably a Gentile asked for healing for her daughter, Jesus initially ignored her. She was so persistent with her pleas that his apostles wanted to silence her. But they didn’t ask Jesus to do that by helping her. Instead, knowing his attitude toward Gentiles, they urged him to send her away. When she finally knelt before Jesus, making it impossible to continue to ignore her, he told her he was sent “only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He then made clear that he considered her as a Gentile to be no better than a dog, adding that it wasn’t fair for dogs to receive food intended for children. Only when she pointed out that even dogs eat crumbs from their masters’ table did Jesus praise her for her faith and give her the help she wanted.
Further evidence that Jesus had a harsh attitude toward Gentiles comes from the fact that, after his death, resistance from his disciples caused Paul problems in his Gentile conversion efforts (see Galatians 2:11-14). Christianity eventually became a religion of Gentiles not because of any personal outreach to them by Jesus during his lifetime, but because of the work of Paul and the fact that most Jews, whom Jesus was really reaching out to, rejected it.
3) Jesus Tells Everyone Not to Think of Him as God in the First Three Gospels
The Gospel of John shows Jesus saying he is divine — again and again. But nowhere in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, widely acknowledged to have been written before John and thus closer to the events they describe, does Jesus claim to be a deity.
In fact, all of those first three gospels show Jesus scoldingly saying that he should never be thought of as God. Mark 10:18 depicts Jesus as saying, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” Obviously, he took offense at the mere thought that he might be considered to have the same righteousness as God. He is shown making the same point in Luke 18:19 and Matthew 19:17.
4) The Resurrection Appearances in the Gospels Have Irreconcilable Differences
The gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances of Jesus differ substantially, including where the risen Jesus is said to have appeared to his apostles. The gospels of Matthew and Mark place the appearances solely in Galilee. However, Luke, as well as the book of Acts, has Jesus appearing only in and around Jerusalem.
To add to the confusion, the Gospel of John shows Jesus appearing in both Galilee and Jerusalem. The actual appearance of a resurrected Jesus would have been so stunning that it raises the question of why there was not even one record of such an event that made a deep enough impression to be passed down in all the gospels.
5) Jesus Was Against Public Prayer
Those who argue for public prayer in such diverse settings as government meetings and football games don’t seem to know the Bible.
If they did, they would realize that Jesus was very much against it. In Matthew 6:1, he warns against practicing piety before others, saying that those who do will “have no reward from your Father in heaven.” In Matthew 6:6, as a preface to the Lord’s Prayer, he says that to pray one should go into a room, close the door, and pray in secret. In fact, the King James Version of the Bible translates that as going into a closet to pray.
Perhaps even more significant is that in Matthew 6:5 Jesus harshly criticizes those who pray out loud in synagogues, the local worship settings of his day. Based on that, it seems possible, jolting as it may be, that he may have also disapproved of public prayer in churches, much less government meetings.
6) Some Books of the Bible Are Forgeries
My seminary professors mentioned that some books of the Bible, notably some letters attributed to Paul, were probably written by people who lied about who they were to gain Paul’s authority for their own ideas. But they never put it that bluntly. They couldn’t even bring themselves to use the word “forgeries.” Instead, they used “pseudepigrapha,” a fancy word meaning wrongly attributed authorship that tells the truth while in its pompousness also disguises it.
Especially suspect are the so-called pastoral epistles, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. Because these made it into the Bible under Paul’s name, some find reasons to insist that they must be authentic. However, there is wide agreement among many Bible scholars that they differ so much from Paul’s vocabulary, style, and teachings that they could not be by him.
All of this raises the question of how much authority one wishes to give the writings of those who were not truthful even about who they were. For instance, in contrast to the respect that Paul showed toward women, the author of 1 Timothy felt very differently. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 he says they need to be silent and submissive, and will be saved only “through childbearing.” A similar point that women need to be silent in church appears in an authentic letter of Paul as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. However, those verses so thoroughly break the flow of the passage in which they appear, and are so contrary to other things Paul writes, that they seem like they’re a later insertion by another person wanting to claim the authority of Paul for his own repressive attitude toward women.
And yet those verses in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, apparently by people pretending to be someone they were not, are used even today to justify limiting the leadership roles of women in some churches.
7) Parts of the Bible Were Intentionally Written to Disagree with Other Parts of the Bible
Not only does the Bible have many contradictions, some of them are clearly intentional.
An Old Testament example is found in Psalm 51. That psalm was written after Babylonia destroyed Jerusalem (and its Temple that had been built by Solomon) and led the city’s inhabitants off to exile. Since the Temple was no longer available for sacrifice, the author of Psalm 51 offers comfort in Verses 16 and 17 by saying God does not even desire sacrifice but only a contrite heart.
But then, in a clearly intentional contradiction, someone who disagreed with that came along and added, immediately afterward, Verses 18 and 19 saying that God would be delighted by sacrifices that would follow a rebuilding of Jerusalem.
In the New Testament, we see an example in what the gospels say about the message of John the Baptist. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all depict John the Baptist as saying he was offering a baptism for the forgiveness of sin through repentance alone. But, writing later, the author of the Gospel of John didn’t like that at all. He wanted to say that forgiveness comes only through sacrifice, the blood sacrifice of Jesus himself. So, in contradiction to the other gospels, he says that the message of John the Baptist was to proclaim Jesus as a pending sacrificial Lamb of God.
Contradictions such those in Psalm 51 and what the gospels say about John the Baptist, as well as others that can be found in both the Old and New Testaments, show that much of the Bible is an interplay of human agendas which often conflicted with one another.
8) Apostles Who Had Been Taught by Jesus Himself Insisted that Paul Was Wrong about the Gospel
The Apostle Paul was a man under attack for his beliefs. In Galatians 1:6-9 he complains about those who thought that his gospel was wrong and were causing people to turn away from what he had taught them. Not wanting to give voice to the opposition, he doesn’t mention the issues in dispute. But he was not one to even consider that he may have been at fault, saying in that same Galatians passage that even any “angel from heaven” who dared disagree with him should be damned.
As for the identity of Paul’s opponents, in 2 Corinthians 11:13 he calls them “false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” But who were they? In 2 Corinthians 11:5 he sarcastically calls them “super-apostles.” In that time, “super-apostles” could have meant only one thing: the original apostles.
This means that apostles who had known, walked with, and been taught by Jesus himself during his lifetime thought Paul was wrong about at least some of what he was teaching.
This leads to a question: Since Paul’s teachings became a basis of today’s Christian faith, would Jesus have approved of the religion that is today proclaimed in his name?


Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...#ixzz3FVIs0cot

[lonewolf]

nat troo no oyinbo wrote da bible?

oyinbo plagarized

DWL I knew it wouldn't take long for you to get to the meat of all your topics...OYINBO.
Me thinks it is impossible for you to be involved in a thread where you don't use the word OYINBO, or you steer topic into the direction of the conversation of OYINBO.

[blugiant]

DWL I knew it wouldn't take long for you to get to the meat of all your topics...OYINBO.
Me thinks it is impossible for you to be involved in a thread where you don't use the word OYINBO, or you steer topic into the direction of the conversation of OYINBO.

so yuh cyaan dispute wat mii sed

[jah_yout]

Humans wrote the bible, so why does it matter who these individuals were?

What seems more relevant is why so many believe what was conceived, written, rewritten, translated, and rewritten by humans? Why not think for one's self?

indeed---
but the bible is not responsible for ones who don't think for themselves;
people tend to either think the bible is some magical power-book that fell from the heavens,
or they tend to dismiss it completely as a destructive work of fiction....
truth is it is neither---it is whatever one uses it for & far more nuanced than either of those extreme views;
people also tend to view it as one book written in chronological order by neatly identifiable authors but it is not...there are books that are not included in certain versions & different translations;
most people have not actually studied "the bible" nor do they know enough historical & contextual information to get into serious discussions about that collection of books in popular versions like the king james translation