Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Be honest: when you read the bible what makes you think it is of divine origin? [Spirituality & Religion]

There was a time in my life where i really wanted to believe and i tried hard to have faith and asked with all my heart that god reveal himself to me. But predictably he did not. And the more i read, the more it became obvious to me that the bible was the work of men.
So base and petty and violent. This was not the work of an enlightened being.

So what makes you feel that the bible is of divine origin?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman

God must have been on a smoke break when he inspired 1 John
Actually, 1 John is pseudepigraphical

Some textual variants in 1 John:

1 John 3:1

MT/TR: Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
CT: Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! And we are. Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

1 John 4:3

MT/TR: and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
CT: and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

1 John 5:13

MT/TR: These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
CT: These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.

Textual variants in the Gospel of John Chapter 1:

John 1:15:
TEXT: "cried out, saying, 'This was [he] of whom I said, The One who comes after me'"
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 Sb A B3 C3 D* {Db} K L {W(supp) X} Delta Theta Pi Psi f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect lat {earlier vg} later vg syr cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: A

NOTES: "cried out, saying (this was the one who said), 'The One who comes after me'"
EVIDENCE: Sa B* C*
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn

OTHER: "cried out, 'This was the One who comes after me, who'"
EVIDENCE: S*

COMMENTS: The evidence listed in braces reads "I said to plyou." The words "to plyou" are a natural addition, the kind copyists often made. Apparently some copyists changed "This was [he] of whom I said" because there is no record of John's having previously said this.

John 1:18:
TEXT: "the only unique God, who is in the bosom"
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 S B C* L 33 syr(p) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn RSVn NASV NIV NEBn TEV
RANK: B

NOTES: "the only unique Son, who is in the bosom"
EVIDENCE: A C3 K X {W(supp)} Delta Theta Pi Psi f1 f13 28 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect {most lat} most vg syr(c,h,pal)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASVn NIVn NEB

NOTES: "the only unique One, who is in the bosom"
EVIDENCE: one vulgate manuscript
TRANSLATIONS: NEBn

OTHER: "the only unique Son, God, who is in the bosom"
EVIDENCE: cop(south)?

COMMENTS: The evidence in braces contains an abbreviation of "only unique" and precedes it with "except." Although it is possible that "Son" was replaced by "God" by an early Alexandrian copyist (the difference is only one of one letter in abbreviated form), it is more likely that "God" was here replaced by "Son" to make this verse read like John 3:16, 18; and I John 4:9. The omission of both "God" and "Son" by one manuscript would seem to be a mistake of the eye.

John 1:28:
TEXT: "These things happened in Bethany on the other side"
EVIDENCE: p59vid p66 p75 S* A B C* L W(supp) X Delta Theta Psi* 28 565 700 892* 1010 1241 some Byz Lect lat vg syr(p,h) most syr(pal) cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: C

NOTES: "These things happened in Bethabarah on the other side"
EVIDENCE: C2 K Pi Psic 083 0113 f1 f13 33 some Byz syr(c,s) one syr(pal) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn

NOTES: "These things happened in Betharabah on the other side"
EVIDENCE: Sb 892variant
TRANSLATIONS: ASVn

COMMENTS: The location of "Bethany on the other side of the Jordan" is unknown; therefore commentators such as Origen and John Chrysostom favored "Bethabarah" to avoid confusion with the Bethany near Jerusalem. The location of Bethabarah is also unknown. "Betharabah" is a misspelling of "Bethabarah."

John 1:34:
TEXT: "testified that this is the Son of God."
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 Sc A B C K L P W(supp) X Delta Theta Pi Psi 083 f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect most lat vg syr(p,h) one syr(pal) ("only unique Son") cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEBn TEV
RANK: B

NOTES: "testified that this is the Chosen One of God."
EVIDENCE: p5vid S* three lat syr(c,s)
TRANSLATIONS: NEB

OTHER: "testified that this is the chosen Son of God."
EVIDENCE: two lat most syr(pal) cop(south)

COMMENTS: Although it is possible that "Chosen One" was changed by copyists to the more familiar "Son," the word "Son" is found in all but two Greek manuscripts from several different kinds of ancient text.

John 1:41:
TEXT: "He first found* [his] own brother Simon"
EVIDENCE: p66 p75 Sc A B X Theta Pi Psi 083 f1 f13 892 most lat vg syr(p,h) syr(pal)? cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV
RANK: B

NOTES: "The first one found* [his] own brother Simon"
EVIDENCE: S* K L W(supp) Delta 28 565 700 1010 1241 Byz Lect syr(pal)?
TRANSLATIONS: none

NOTES: "In the morning he found* [his] own brother Simon""
EVIDENCE: four lat
TRANSLATIONS: NEBn

COMMENTS: There is only one letter difference between the text and first reading in the notes; there is only three letters difference between the text and the second reading in the notes. The reading in the text is supported by early manuscripts from several types of ancient text.

1-25 of 48

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@CookieLuvsBunny [quote]Actually, 1 John is pseudepigraphical[/quote]

So?

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@GodSpeed63 The letter was written to counter docetism and was penned under the name of John the Evangelist to give it more credence, but it is highly unlikely that John wrote it

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@CookieLuvsBunny [quote]The letter was written to counter docetism and was penned under the name of John the Evangelist to give it more credence, but it is highly unlikely that John wrote it[/quote]

Why do you say that?

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Proof? @CookieLuvsBunny

Speedyman · 70-79, M

You seem to be obsessed with textual points that make no difference and also outdated scholarship. .It can be seen from the external (historical) evidence 1 John was being quoted without question as to its authenticity or authority well before the end of the second century in both the West and the East. It also appears that the author was accepted to be John the Apostle, who was understood to be the author of the Fourth Gospel as well. So those car nearer the event than us accepted its apostolic authority which was accepted without question by the church until 19th century scepticism from the German school . As most sane people would now rejecr this lunatic movement which also denied just about every tenet of Christianity, it can be seen that the only doubt about the authorship of 1 John came from scepticism. Your problem is that you're gullible enough to believe the sceptics rather than the people who are closer to the events that we were

@CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman You are just pulling stuff out of your butt and typing it. And may I add, you're typing it poorly.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

So when somebody tells you the facts, because it doesn't fit in with your incorrect little theories, then they are pulling stuff out of there butt? The problem is you don't want the truth. When someone corrects you you don't like it You prefer to live in your world of delusion@CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman
When someone just makes crap up with absolutely zilch evidence backing it up, if I'm feeling nice, I tell them they are pulling stuff out of their butt. I search for truth not warmed-over mythology.

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman

Wilder, A., [i]Introduction to The First, Second and Third Epistles of John[/i]

[quote] C. H. Dodd have maintained that the epistle and the gospel were written by different authors.[2] There are at least two principal arguments for this view. The first is that the epistle often uses a demonstrative pronoun at the beginning of a sentence, then a particle or conjunction, followed by an explanation or definition of the demonstrative at the end of the sentence, a stylistic technique which is not used in the gospel.[6] The second is that the author of the epistle "uses the conditional sentence in a variety of rhetorical figures which are unknown to the gospel".[13]
Purpose[/quote]

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Of course what Dodd didn't realise was that you cannot use these particular arguments on their own to determine authorship . Added to which the use of an amanuensis has to be taken into account. John Stott refutes Dodd's argument and comes to the conclusion consistent with the early church tradition that the three letters were actually written by the apostle John. From reading the meat becomes absolutely as plain as a pikestaff@CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Once again you present no argument. As I say you have no idea what you're talking about I need to actually get some facts before you start just start repeating stuff off the Internet . Try thinking for a change rather than writing silly things @CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman I present cited sources and you just insult everyone with your mindless, inane blather. You are tiresome

Speedyman · 70-79, M

Not half as tiresome as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. You obviously don't . @CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman You have never, ever in any thread on any post cited one word of legitimate evidence to back anything you have ever said. Ever. You have diarrhea of the keyboard

Speedyman · 70-79, M

you haven't made a single reason document in favour of anything you said@CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman That isn't even a sentence

Speedyman · 70-79, M

It is actually just badly punctuated being written on electronic keys. But it doesn't alter the fact that you are escaping from reason @CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman
I have provided voluminous documentation on this thread. You have never provided the first document for anything you've said.

[quote]you haven't made a single reason document in favour of anything you said@CookieLuvsBunny
[/quote]

That is not a sentence in the English language.

Speedyman · 70-79, M

You have not provided it you have just copied it off some Internet site. It just demonstrates you of whoever you copied it from have a very peculiar view of what we think about biblical inspiration. As I have told you we can arrive at the new Testament which is estimated to be 99% pure. The problem is with people like you you just don't want facts - you want your own little theories. You will find that there is far more corroborative evidence for the textual purity of the new Testament than any other ancient document. All the points above can be cleared up by textual criticism but in any case the vast majority of points which are not textually clear in the new Testament do not affect one iota of what we believe . They are not serious points at all apart from to the small minded@CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman
I had an undergraduate professor that, when a student spouted nonsense like you always do, would stamp their paper accordingly:

Speedyman · 70-79, M

As that professors mind was full of bullshit then I don't think his comment was very meaningful. In fact when stupid people like that tell me I'm talking bullshit I take it as a compliment. In any case the man is highly unprofessional writing something like that and the students report and if I was the principal I'd have sacked him for being an idiot. But apparently your professors are all idiots according the stuff they teach you@CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman
Consider yourself complimented

Speedyman · 70-79, M

There is a saying in the old Testament that goes , 'Hey, stupid! How long do you want to remain stupid? ' written with people like you in mind@CookieLuvsBunny

CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F

@Speedyman
Both you and the Old Testament:

1-25 of 48