Board index ‹ Bible

[Flushed]

Why would the entire wisdom and information we get for the person said to be our creator is just something that has parables mixed with truth that are also written by men who claim to have the word of God?

And that something has also been prone to mistranslations over the years, why is that the only thing we got from God?

Because the original followers of Jesus were Jewish, they could easily made it sound like he fulfilled the Tanakh's prophecies about what the messiah would do.

And the gospel writters could shape their narrative to fit their belief that Jesus was the Messiah because of both their access to the old testament and their motivation of doing so.

Which also makes me wonder about how do we ensure the Bible was by God or the very least have proof that indicates it's inspired by him.

[jimwalton]

There are a lot of misunderstandings and mistruths here, which I could assume is fed by significant bias, but let's talk about it. Glad to converse.

> Why would the entire wisdom and information we get for the person said to be our creator

The Bible is not all the information we get. We also get information about God from nature and through the Holy Spirit. It's simply not true that most of what we get is mixed with parables.

> is just something that has parables mixed with truth

The parables, though Jesus told many, are a small fraction of what we get from God. Even Jesus taught many things that were not in parabolic form; He also spoke plainly, prophetically, analogically, metaphorically, and through His actions and subsequent teachings. It's simply not true that it's "just something that has parables mixed with truth."

And what is untrue about the parables? It's sort of an odd statement you've made.

> that are also written by men

Things written by men are not automatically untrue. Otherwise never believe the press or any textbook you've ever used. "Written by men" is no guarantee of unreliability.

> who claim to have the word of God?

And what if the claim is true? Suppose they did have the word of God? Do you have a mechanism for determining what is and what is not the word of God?

> And that something has also been prone to mistranslations over the years

We have more more biblical manuscripts (by the thousands more) than any other ancient text. If any ancient document has accuracy in translation, it is the biblical texts.

> Because the original followers of Jesus were Jewish, they could easily made it sound like he fulfilled the Tanakh's prophecies about what the messiah would do.

Of course this is always possible, but you'd have to provide some evidence to support the claim that this is what was happening.

> And the gospel writters could shape their narrative to fit their belief that Jesus was the Messiah because of both their access to the old testament and their motivation of doing so.

Again, the burden of proof is on you. But you must remember that the Gospel writers had no particular motivation for labelling Jesus as the Messiah until the evidence in front of their eyes became ultimately convincing.

> Which also makes me wonder about how do we ensure the Bible was by God or the very least have proof that indicates it's inspired by him.

There are many reasons to affirm that the Bible was by God. The reasons you have given against this conclusion have been less than conclusive. So let's talk some more.