Reincarnation: What do you think of this documentary?

[John317]

Quote:

John317: The Bible was "collated" over several centuries, and the proces was not even finished during Constantine's lifetime. He had nothing to do with the process. This claim may be rooted in the fact that Constantine requested several copies of the existing Bible for new churches in Constantinople.

Quote:

cardw: And this is exactly why I don't consider the Bible to be true. It had too long to be altered and adapted to whoever was in power. And when you combine that with Plato's views of knowledge you have a complete formula for myth building.

It had too long to be altered but it wasn't. There's no manuscript evidence that either the Old or the New Testaments were changed in any significant ways.

You still haven't shown any direct (or even indirect) influence of Plato on the Bible, whether Old or New Testaments. What you've given is a theory, an explanation, but that is not hard evidence.

The book of Colossians is opposed to early gnosticism.

Please show me in your own words the influence of Plato on a book such as Colossians or Romans, for instance.

Or on the book of Acts-- perhaps the preaching recorded in Acts, such as Paul's sermon at Athens.

[cardw]

Quote:

cardw:

The problem with giving you the evidence is that you will simply re-interpret and discount any evidence I give you no matter how strong. If you want to understand how the Greek philosophers influenced how the Bible was formed you have to understand the debate between revelation and empirical evidence....

It seems to me you are describing how you respond to the evidence I present.

I've studed the topics we're discussing for 30+ years on my own and at both public and private univeristies.

Quote:

cardw: When the book of John states that Jesus and the Logos or the Word are one in the same he is talking to those who have studied Plato. Or in your terms, belief is logic and evidence.

I've studdied Plato and actually read him often, and I also read and translate the book of John. But Plato and the apostle John aren't writing about the same thing.

I wasn't saying they were. This is not a cut and dry thing. Notice I put Logos with a capital L. This is a creative use of Plato's logos adapted to "prove" Christianity to the Greeks. This is much like Paul identifying the "unknown" god as Jesus to the Athenians. John basically transfers the respect of his hellenistic audience for logos to a god Logos or Jesus.

I am describing a syncretic evolution, not people lying or trying to deceive. I'll repeat myself again and state that Socrates and Plato's interpretation of Socrates tends to not put value in the empirical method of knowledge. It basically claims that divine revelation is the source of knowledge. And so when all these gospels were being created it was from the belief that this knowledge was coming to the writer through Divine revelation, not observation and testing or even historical accuracy.

In application this is what you have been doing for your proof.

In reality there is no way to determine whether either of us is right in any empirical way. It is basically a debate on what is the most likely.

From your perspective you find it plausible that a manuscript can miraculously still be true after moving through centuries of copying and interpreting. And it miraculously was true in the first place even though it was written in a world steeped in superstition and a belief in magic and disease was caused by devil possession.

For my part it would seem that if I wanted to communicate my message I wouldn't let it get stuck in an ancient document. I would provide contemporary evidence and communication that presented a bit more proof than slight statistical chance. At least the writer of John was being creative in trying to reconcile a hellenistic view of the world with what he thought was the truth about god.

The Bible is not easily shown to be true. In my mind it is not possible to make sense out of a lot of the nonsense present in it's iron age and 1st century reasoning. Creative, but not literally true in any modern sense.

[John317]

Quote:

cardw: I know of no human organization that does not exaggerate its goodness and everyone else's badness.

But that's just it: the NT doesn't exaggerate the goodness of Christians. It shows their warts and all their defects. St. Paul is shown to be a murderer. Peter betrays Christ. James is responsible for getting Paul arrested. The same with the OT. King David is shown to be a murderer and responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelites. The OT shows the Jews to do all kinds of evil things, worse things than their neighbors do.

So I am not sure where you're getting the idea that the NT shows it was written by the Catholic Church because it exaggerates the goodness of the church. As I said, both the OT and the NT actually provide great evidence that the Catholic Church is false.

The letter of Christ to the church of Loadicea in Rev. 3 also points out the great faults of the Seventh-day Adventist church. If the SDA church had done what God called the church to do, there would have been no World Wars and we wouldn't be in this world still. That hardly shows that Christians are writing things to exaggerate their goodness.

[John317]

I've enjoyed our exchanges, Richard, and I'll get back to it probably tomorrow. Meantime I have to be away from the computer for a while.

[cardw]

Quote:

cardw: I know of no human organization that does not exaggerate its goodness and everyone else's badness.

But that's just it: the NT doesn't exaggerate the goodness of Christians. It shows their warts and all their defects. St. Paul is shown to be a murderer. Peter betrays Christ. James is responsible for getting Paul arrested. The same with the OT. King David is shown to be a murderer and responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Israelites. The OT shows the Jews to do all kinds of evil things, worse things than their neighbors do.

[John317]

Quote:

cardw: My intent was to communicate that the orthodox branch of Christian believers not only eventually formed the Catholic church, it decided what writings would be included among the many books being made up to include in the NT. You can read Bart Ehrman's books on the specific passages that appear to be interpolated to make the bible fit the orthodox view. There is enough evidence of tampering to get the idea.

Now you're getting into an area that I'm particularly interested in-- textual studies and NT manuscripts.

Could you give several examples that Ehrman gives? Do you know what the manuscript evidence is in support of what he says about the passages?

What's the title of his book, Misquoting Jesus?

His agnosticism doesn't recommend his writings on the NT very highly. He's not even a believer. That's like a Christian writing about Marx and atheism.

[John317]

Quote:

cardw:

...The problem with most, not all, Christian communities that I have had contact with is they don't know how to love each other without judgment and they don't know how to be supportive. And it is often because of a dogmatic attachment to some Bible text telling someone that their righteousness is as filthy rags.

You have to remember that there are millions and millions of people you've never met. I might believe you except for my personal experience with many wonderful Christians over a period of about 50 years. What you say makes me wonder about your family life-- whether you grew up thinking they were a bunch of hypocrites or whether you witnessed firsthand the love of Christ.

I know what Christ means in the life because I've seen it-- and I saw it for years, and I still see it in the lives of people I know today. I see it in my own life and in the life of my children and my wife and my sisters. Maybe you have no idea what that means.

[John317]

Quote:

cardw: I think this hatred of self by the early leadership became the hatred of humanity.

That is why I embrace a positive regard toward people. That is why I am humanistic in my approach because I believe that everyone has great potential if given a loving and supportive community. And this is not just a theory because I have seen in work over and over again. This works whether you are in a Christian community or not. Christianity offers no advantage that I can detect.

The problem with most, not all, Christian communities that I have had contact with is they don't know how to love each other without judgment and they don't know how to be supportive. And it is often because of a dogmatic attachment to some Bible text telling someone that their righteousness is as filthy rags. And you don't have to look very far to find some long passage outlining the terrible sinfulness of some person or the other or the group. That is the result of the bible's "honest" assessment of people in the Bible.

I get the feeling from what you say that you fundamentally only read one kind of literature about Christianity and the Bible. Do you read both sides of an issue?

What the Bible says about our righteousness being as filthy rags doesn't mean people don't do good things or that that they aren't good from the human viewpoint. It's referring to God's point of view, and God is holy and He knows the human heart and the thoughts.

You surely aren't saying that people are good and that their thoughts and intentions are always good, are you? It is one thing to have some good in us and to do good sometimes for certain reasons, but it is totally different to be good all the time and to always have loving, unselfish intentions and pure thoughts.

God's standards are not man's standards. You're comparing imperfect man with God who is perfect. God made man (humankind) perfect, and one day people will be in the same condition that God made us in. But God can't help us if we insist that there's nothing wrong with us. It's like a doctor who can't help a patient if the patient won't accept the doctor's diagnosis of illness. If he won't accept the fact that he's been poisoned or bitten by the snake, he won't accept the antidote. That can only mean one thing.

[cardw]

I know what Christ means in the life because I've seen it-- and I saw it for years, and I still see it in the lives of people I know today. I see it in my own life and in the life of my children and my wife and my sisters. Maybe you have no idea what that means.

I'm not disputing your life, but I see these same things in people who don't claim to know Christ. And if this was as far as the claims go I would have no problem with Christianity. It becomes a problem when Christians claim that their way is the only true way when there is no evidence of that.

[cardw]

I get the feeling from what you say that you fundamentally only read one kind of literature about Christianity and the Bible. Do you read both sides of an issue?

[cardw]

Quote:

cardw: My intent was to communicate that the orthodox branch of Christian believers not only eventually formed the Catholic church, it decided what writings would be included among the many books being made up to include in the NT. You can read Bart Ehrman's books on the specific passages that appear to be interpolated to make the bible fit the orthodox view. There is enough evidence of tampering to get the idea.

Now you're getting into an area that I'm particularly interested in-- textual studies and NT manuscripts.

Could you give several examples that Ehrman gives? Do you know what the manuscript evidence is in support of what he says about the passages?

What's the title of his book, Misquoting Jesus?

His agnosticism doesn't recommend his writings on the NT very highly. He's not even a believer. That's like a Christian writing about Marx and atheism.

It's apparent that you haven't read Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman graduated from the Moody Bible institute with the goal of proving that the Bible was authentic. It was from his study of the Greek and Hebrew texts after he became able to read the texts directly in their language that he became convinced it was a man made document. He is very informed on the beliefs of Christians and was once a believer.

You are looking for a single silver bullet. It doesn't work like that. Christianity is a syncretic progression, not a work of fables. It is myth based, but that is not a deliberate form of deception but an interpretation based on certain, often primitive, assumptions.

When I look at the methods of how the early fathers determined what was true and how these play out in the texts it becomes quite clear that the Bible is not based on the modern concepts of truth based on historical and logical accuracy. It also indicates that it is not a divine book, but is typical of what primitive men might put together.

[karl]

When I look at the methods of how the early fathers determined what was true and how these play out in the texts it becomes quite clear that the Bible is not based on the modern concepts of truth based on historical and logical accuracy. It also indicates that it is not a divine book, but is typical of what primitive men might put together.

Give us a "good" example of a divine book.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

Could you give several examples that Ehrman gives? Do you know what the manuscript evidence is in support of what he says about the passages?

What's the title of his book, Misquoting Jesus?

His agnosticism doesn't recommend his writings on the NT very highly. He's not even a believer. That's like a Christian writing about Marx and atheism.

Quote:

cardw: It's apparent that you haven't read Bart Ehrman.

You are right that I haven't read anything he's written. I've seen his books advertized in book clubs and at the book stores, but they appeared to me to be for popular consumption, rather than scholarly publications, and I usually avoid such books, because they're not often reliable.

Based, though, on what you've claimed for them-- that they contain the truth about the NT texts-- I have changed my mind and now plan to get his two books and read them carefully. After I finish studying them, we could talk about them if you'd like.

Is it true that Ehrman is agnostic?

Quote:

cardw: Bart Ehrman graduated from the Moody Bible institute with the goal of proving that the Bible was authentic. It was from his study of the Greek and Hebrew texts after he became able to read the texts directly in their language that he became convinced it was a man made document.

Based on your reading of him, can you briefly summarize what Ehrman discovered about the texts which convinced him the Bible is a man-made document?

Did he find that the Bible has poor manuscript support?

Did he discover that the ancient manuscripts showed evidence that we can't rely on them? If so, please give specific examples of why we can't rely on the ancient biblical manuscript.

Is it a coincidence that you agree with Bart Ehrman instead of agreeing with Christian scholars who have as much knowledge if not more than Bart Ehrman?

What I mean is that there are thousands of excellent Bible scholars who disagree with Bart Ehrman's conclusions, yet you decided to agree with Bart Ehrman rather than with the majority of Bible scholars. Why is that?

You probably realize that most Bible scholars don't become agnostics as a result of their studies. The fact that Bart Ehrman did become an agnostic could give you the wrong idea that the more knowledge one has of the text, the more likely it is for one to disbelieve in the Bible as an inspired document. But of course that would be false, since the vast majority of Bible scholars don't become agnostic.

It seems to me what you are doing is being selective in the Bible scholars you trust. Perhaps you rely on him because he says what you already believed. Is that possible?

Have you studied a book by David Trobisch, titled, The First Edition of the New Testament? It is published by Oxford University Press. It gives evidence that contradicts Bart Ehrman's conclusions about the Bible texts (assuming that your description of Ehrman's findings are accurate).

There's also a very important work called, The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament, by Philip Wesley Comfort. He wrote another book titled, Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament.

Quote:

cardw: He is very informed on the beliefs of Christians and was once a believer.

He may be "informed," but intellectual belief alone does not make a Christian. I would read his books anyway, because I don't only read books by Christians, but in my opinion, the fact that he is is opposed to Christian beliefs makes him suspect in my eyes, in terms of his conclusions. Why? Because, as I said, he threw over his belief in Christ.

There have been cases of people doing just the opposite of what Ehrman did: that is to say, many scholars become confirmed in the varacity and trust-worthiness of the Bible as a result of their expertise in the languages and the manuscript evidence.

These things show that the reason for belief or non-belief in Christ are not merely a matter of knowledge and intelligence. This ought not to come as any surprise to us. The will and the "heart" also plays an important part in determining whether an individual believes or disbelieves in God and in Christ. If this wasn't true, we could expect that everyone who knows the same facts would agree as to the significance of the facts.

I think a good illustration of commitment to Christ is a family relationship, or love between a parent and a child, or between siblings. This love and belief or trust is not merely because of facts or information. It's similar to the Christian's love for Christ. Jesus said our belief in Him has to do with hearing His voice. Another part of the Gospel says we didn't choose Christ but God chose us. Still another verse tells us that if we "choose to do the will of God," we will know whether Christ's teaching is true or not.

Quote:

cardw: You are looking for a single silver bullet. It doesn't work like that. Christianity is a syncretic progression, not a work of fables. It is myth based, but that is not a deliberate form of deception but an interpretation based on certain, often primitive, assumptions.

OK, so you're saying you don't believe the writers of the NT or the OT were dishonest or writing things they knew to be untrue. Am I right in understanding you in this? In other words, are you saying you think it's entirely likely that when the writers recorded that Jesus said certain things, they actually believed what they were writing about Christ even though it was false? You seem to be saying those people didn't know the difference between the truth and fiction. My reading of the Bible tells me that the writers were very intelligent, probably more intelligent than you or me. Most of them were without much formal education. Would we be able to write a book like Luke or Matthew or John? In fact, has anyone been able to do it other than the writers of those books? If so, tell me who.

I have the set called Great Books of the Western World, and it's essential for anyone who wants to understand those books to have a good grasp of the Bible. Why? Because of the pervasive and profound influence of the Bible on Western civilization. In one way or the other, the "conversation" in the Western World is always related to what is found in the Bible-- from the writings of Augustine to Freud. It is found in people as different as Kepler and Nietzsche. In my studies of literature, I found that a good knowledge of the Bible is the best foundation for an understanding and appreciation of the world's great poetry and prose. This is particularly true of the truly great writers, such as Leo Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Melville, Hawthorne, Spenser, T.S. Eliot, etc.

Can you explain this impact of the Bible if its origins are as you believe-- merely a book put together without design or purpose by simple people who had no idea of the difference between truth and error, or who made up fictions which they deemed to be true?

I almost forget to mention the amazing archeological evidence supporting the historical truth of the Bible. I don't know of a single instance where archeological facts unquestionably disprove a clear teaching of the Bible. All the evidence shows just the opposite, that archeology continues to find support for the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. There was a time (before 1847) when the world doubted the existence of Ninevah, but today no one doubts it. It used to be a large city in Iraq, north of Baghdad. People cast doubt on the Bible because there was no proof of Belshazzar's existence. Again, who doubts his existence today, since the discovery of the the Nabonidus Cylinder. Its greatest significance is that it proves the existence of Belshezzar, who is mentioned in the Book of Daniel.

The cylinder states:

"As for me, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life long of days, and as for Belshazzar, the eldest son -my offspring- instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit any cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plenitude."

The list of archeological evidence supporting the Bible goes on and on.

Quote:

cardw: When I look at the methods of how the early fathers determined what was true and how these play out in the texts it becomes quite clear that the Bible is not based on the modern concepts of truth based on historical and logical accuracy.

Can you give a couple of specific examples from the Bible? Can you give one example from the OT and one from the NT?

Quote:

cardw: It also indicates that it is not a divine book, but is typical of what primitive men might put together.

What are you comparing it to? Do you know what a divine book would look like?

How do you account for the Bible's ability to change lives? How do you account for the fact that billions of people acknowledge that it tells the truth about humanity and human experience? What about is ability to inspire so much in art, music, poetry, law, govenrment, ethics, etc.?

And finally, how do you account for the fact that a person can read it for a lifetime and still continue to learn from it and find new, valuable lessons within its pages?

[Musicman1228]

I have read a number of Bart Ehrman's books and they were all written with competence and logical thought progression. And just as with Robert Eisenman (James, the Brother of Jesus) while I admire the scholarship I disagree with the conclusions. That is not to say that reading what they have said has not affected my view of the Bible and Christian scholarship in general, because it has, to this extent; I now realize that the Old Testament is a compendium of historic and prophetic literature that has stood the test of time and truth such that it is evident to me that God had a hand both in it's preparation and preservation. The New Testament is much the same, except that human beings had a much larger role in putting it together than they did vis a vis the Old Testament.

Whereas God in the Old Testament took a direct role in the procurement and establishment of the documents that eventually make it up, in the New Testament God was relegated by human beings to the role of quiet observer. Rather than a compendium made up of direct eyewitness accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ the New Testament was put together as a means of keeping a crumbling Roman Empire together; the various documents which make up the majority of the New Testament being in this category. God shows His hand in the New Testament by preserving the words of His Son in eyewitness accounts of Matthew, Peter (Mark) and John. The rest of the New Testament was put together to accomplish Constantine's goal of keeping his empire together by bringing Jewish, Pagan, and Christian writers together to show that unity could be achieved as a function of the Roman ideal.

The reason God did not take a more direct hand in what was included in the Canon is that in order for His bondservants at the end of time to be able to test the apostles and the prophets as to their authority and veracity He had to include the lies that these false teachers espoused in the Canon, thereby making it possible for His Bondservants to see these lies by comparing them with what Jesus taught.

Where Bart Ehrman throws the baby out with the bath water, I merely throw out the bath water and keep the baby safe. The Bible contains both truth and lies. Those that believe that God preserved the entire Bible as a testament only to truth do not understand how God must work in order to give Satan enough rope with which to hang himself.

[Guest]

The Bible contains both truth and lies. Those that believe that God preserved the entire Bible as a testament only to truth do not understand how God must work in order to give Satan enough rope with which to hang himself.

Anybody who believes that believes a lie. Satan hung himself at the crucifixion of Christ.

[cardw]

Is it true that Ehrman is agnostic?

Yes he is.

I have found a lecture that Bart Ehrman did at Stanford University about 2 years ago followed by a question and answer session. This way you can get a personal view of his presentation as well as him answering questions that you have expressed.

I have the complete lecture in a single video as well as it broken out into 10 10 minute presentations in case you want to watch it in sections.

Bart Erhman Lecture and Q & A at Stanford Full Length

Bart Erhman Lecture Part 1

Bart Erhman Lecture Part 2

Bart Erhman Lecture Part 3

Bart Erhman Lecture Part 4

Bart Erhman Lecture Part 5

Bart Erhman Lecture Part 6

Bart Erhman Lecture Part 7

Bart Ehrman lecture Part 8

Bart Ehrman Lecture Part 9

Bart Erhman Lecture Part 10

[John317]

Thanks, cardw. I'll watch some of these and get back with you about them.

He's saying a lot of things that are true, of course, but he's also giving some false impressions and stating some things that are not true. For instance, he said that Mark 1: 2 is actually a quote from the books of Moses, but it is really a quote from Malachi. I'm going to listen to this part of the lecture again in order to make sure I'm right about this. I'll delete it if I'm mistaken.

He also misstating the problem with John 7: 53 to 8: 11, the part having to do with the woman caught in adultery. He said those verses aren't included in texts until the 10th century, but that's not true. It is included in codex D, which is a 6th century text. Augustine and Jerome also quote it as part of the Bible, and they were born in 354 and 347, respectively. Bart even called it "a beautiful story," but even if we edit it completely out of the text, the story of Jesus isn't changed.

So far, then, the biggest "problems" are verses that if you took out of the Bible wouldn't change the essential message of the Bible at all.

Did you notice he concedes that most of the "changes" in the text are completely unimportant? That's what I've been telling you.

So far, he hasn't said anything I find shocking or that's new, except that he gives the impression that these things mean the NT is unreliable. He hasn't shown this to be the case on the basis of the evidence he's referred to up to this point in his lecture. But I'll keep listening.

I've noticed his attitude is different from other professors of the NT. He seems very jocular, almost disrespectful towards his text. I thought he kind of ridiculed the students who think the Bible is the inspired word of God. I think that's telling. If he doesn't think it is, he would be better off simply showing the evidence, rather than laughing about people who believe it's God's word. This is not a big thing but it does go to his attitude about his subject.

Oh, one more thing. He does say that the Bible is clearly the most important and most influential book in the world, at least in the West. That's hard to imagine if it's nothing but a lot of lies or untruths.

[LifeHiscost]

Satan hung himself at the crucifixion of Christ.

And that's a fact. Those who don't believe the Word have only lies to believe if they believe anything.

"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."2 Thessalonians 2:9-13 NKJV

"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

John 14:6 NKJV

Blessings!

[Cosmin M.]

I could easily pretend I never went to Barra, or simply found the entire history of a family online, study it, then teach it to my child and show them pictures and tell them a bunch of nonsense that they lived there a long time ago and what not. Or, Satan could easily plant "boxes" of false information in a child really easily.

[TWNolan]

[TWNolan]

It is simply amazing how you come up with these ideas. The whole video is discounted because the people are Scottish? Talk about superstitious!!

HEY!! i am part Scott, and i discounted the video and not for some racist reasons.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

It is simply amazing how you come up with these ideas. The whole video is discounted because the people are Scottish? Talk about superstitious!!

HEY!! i am part Scott, and i discounted the video and not for some racist reasons.

[cardw]

He's saying a lot of things that are true, of course, but he's also giving some false impressions and stating some things that are not true. For instance, he said that Mark 1: 2 is actually a quote from the books of Moses, but it is really a quote from Malachi. I'm going to listen to this part of the lecture again in order to make sure I'm right about this. I'll delete it if I'm mistaken.

[cardw]

I think the following example really indicates that John was written from a Greek perspective and John the apostle is unlikely to be the author. It also has some implications around the stories being made up from existing wisdom myths.

In John 3 we have Nicodemus coming to Jesus in the night in which Jesus says the following in verse 3...

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

In Greek this sets up a play on words. The word again in Greek can mean two things. It can mean again as in going back through the womb and be literally born again or it can mean above or in English born from above.

To use this aspect of the Greek word the writer of John has Nicodemus making the mistake of thinking Jesus meant born again from the womb. Nicodemus says...

"How can a man be born when he is old? Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

This allows Jesus to impart a wisdom or metaphorical meaning by correcting Nicodemus. Jesus then says in the King James...

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In the NIV you will see a note at the bottom that tells us that "of water and of the Spirit" can be translated as above.

Now this is a very clever story that works in Greek. The fact is Jesus didn't speak Greek, but spoke Aramaic. The word in Aramaic doesn't have the same double meaning. This would indicate that this event never happened because Jesus couldn't have had this conversation in Aramaic.

This story involves a significant understanding of being born again and because of the ignorance of the writer of John we have this inconsistency.

Now it may be argued that this doesn't change the overall message of Jesus, but this isn't the point. The point is that the Bible contains the same typical mythical elements that many other wisdom writings do. The difference is that because most Western cultures have been dominated by a Biblical world view, most Christians don't question talking snakes, raising from the dead, and other rather fantastic claims when they are in the Bible.

No matter what the message, it is quite evident that the Bible is a human creation.

[LifeHiscost]

No matter what the message, it is quite evident that the Bible is a human creation.

Forty authors, over a period of 1500 years, wrote in 66 books the history of the past, the present, and the future, that has given as it's greatest reason for existence, the revelation of the Creator's love for His creation so that they might find hope in a blissful eternity of existence beyond our wildest imagination. And this ordered, only to have the greater part of that thinking? part of His creation, turn upon Him with vehemence to discredit the greatest gift in all eternity, His own life in place of the price exacted as a result of opposition (sin)to the only perfect plan for universal harmony.

And we are asked to believe the opposition, even though his/her/their advice rests on hope without foundation, beyond "I think it might be this other way".

"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”" Matthew 11:29-30 NKJV

"...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."2 Peter 1:21 NKJV

Regards!