Who were the authors of the Bible? Were they really the original Prophets and Desciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

My intention is not malicious, Christians are, in general, good and decent people, and the stronger their convictions the more decent they are. This is attested to in the noble Quran:



“...and nearest among them (men) in love to the believers will you find those who say ‘we are Christians’: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. And when they listen to the revelation received by the messenger (Muhammad), you will see their eyes overflowing with tears for they recognize the truth: They pray: ‘Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses.’” (Quran 5:82-83)

hockeyoilers:
Who were the authors of the Bible? Were they really the original Prophets and Desciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

Before I start talking....


Mister there are so many authorities in xtian and biblical theological academics from ages.


Get know lege and it will profit you.

godfirstawe:




Before I start talking....


Mister there are so many authorities in xtian and biblical theological academics from ages.


Get know lege and it will profit you.

I am attempting to seek knowledge

hockeyoilers:
Who were the authors of the Bible? Were they really the original Prophets and Desciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

you guys will never learn to mend ur religion and leave christianity apeace.
If such is said abt mohamed it will spark violent and u expect chistian to keep quit will u write trash about them.
Bro leave christians alone except u want to convert.there are churches everywere u can meet a pastor to help u on that area.
If not i leave you with the holy spirit whom u deem fit to mock

2kris:
you guys will never learn to mend ur religion and leave christianity apeace.
If such is said abt mohamed it will spark violent and u expect chistian to keep quit will u write trash about them.
Bro leave christians alone except u want to convert.there are churches everywere u can meet a pastor to help u on that area.
If not i leave you with the holy spirit whom u deem fit to mock

I respect your opinion and how you may feel.

hockeyoilers:
Who were the authors of the Bible? Were they really the original Prophets and Desciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

I thought none can change his Words.

And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad) of the Book (the Qur'an) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him. S. 18:27

hockeyoilers:


I respect your opinion and how you may feel.

https://www.nairaland.com/2535883/allegedly-corrupted-scripture-questions-muslims
Quran 16:44
[We sent them] with clear proofs and
WRITTEN ordinances. And We revealed to
you the message that you may make
clear to the people what was sent down
to them and that they might give
thought.
I'm sure the muslims know the quran
was not revealed in writing. Therefore
the 'writings' above refers to the earlier
Scriptures. The written proved their
MUST be copies going on circulation.
okay!!!
I challenge ALL muslims to answer the
following questions, if properly
answered, you will discovered soo many
lies has been told against God word:
1. At what point did the people corrupted
the Torah and Injeel, was it BEFORE
islam, during Muhammad's time of
AFTER him?
2. If it was before islam, why would Allah
refer Muhammad to something that is
non-existent to make confirmation?
3. If it was after Muhamad had died, how
was he able to receive the revelation that
the Scripture (Torah and Injeel) has been
corrupted?
4. The quran confirms that the Scripture
was a clear proof in writings. This means
there were copies in circulation. How
possible all copies vanished without
anyone having a copy anywhere? You
should by now discover a lie is told.
5. Why would God be so weak as to allow
man throw away His words before He
would vow to protect the subsequent
revelations? Did He learn from
experience?
6. Why will God ask muhammed to make
confirmation of the corrupted scripture
(injeel and torah) ?

English Revised Version (1885)
American Standard Version (1901)

The first full-scale frontal attack on the Word of God came with the publication of the ERV in 1885, and its counterpart, the ASV in 1901. Only a few voices of protest were raised. Most staunch defenders of the faith of that day were apparently unaware that the ASV differed from the KJV in over 36,000 places or that the Greek text underlying the translation of the ASV (the Westcott-Hort Text) differed from the Textus Receptus (underlying the KJV) in over 5,700 instances. Possibly it was because the Fundamentalists then were too busy combating the modernists' infiltration of seminaries and churches; or, perhaps it was due to the fact that the ASV never really found great acceptance publicly. It was not until the publication of the Revised Standard Version in 1946 and 1952 that many Fundamentalists became aware of how effectively a new Bible version or translation could be used to pervert the truth.

Revised Standard Version (1946, 1952)

Some of God's people woke up with a start when the Revised Standard Version was published in 1952. This version, supposedly a revision of the ASV of 1901, eliminated the word virgin in the prophecy of Christ's birth in Isaiah 7:14. It was also copyrighted by the apostate National Council of Churches. Protests were heard far and wide! Sadly, many failed to recognize that some of the same changes they found so objectionable in the RSV were also true of the ASV. The furor over the RSV gradually died down. But this was the version which paved the way for future perversions of the Scriptures. It had conditioned people to accept changes in the Bible- changes dictated by modern scholarship. At least the RSV left the word virgin in the New Testament references to the birth of Christ. It remained for the Good News Bible to remove it in both the Old and New Testaments.

Good News For Modern Man (1966)
Good News Bible (1976)

When the first edition of Good News For Modern Man (The New Testament in Today's English) was published in 1966, the word virgin appeared in all the texts in Matthew and Luke referring to the birth of Christ. But, when the 2nd and 3rd editions were published and then the entire Good News Bible was published in 1976, the word virgin had mysteriously disappeared from Luke 1:27 while remaining in Luke 1:34 and Matthew 1:23. Of course, the latter two verses have no meaning at all if the word virgin is removed or replaced. Also, the blood of Christ, a most important and precious word and theme, was lacking in many key New Testament references. It was replaced by "death" or "costly sacrifice," both good words in their own place but not what the Holy Spirit gave in the original text. The heretical views of the main translator, Dr. Robert Bratcher, help to explain the many places in which the Deity of Christ is played down or omitted. The Good News Bible is one of the worst versions, yet it has been distributed by the millions, largely due to endorsements by Billy Graham, Bill Bright and other evangelical leaders.

The Living Bible (1967, 1971)

This is neither a translation nor a version - it is a paraphrase. The Living Bible, praised by Billy Graham and other New Evangelical leaders, has reached a publication figure of 37 million copies and has made its author, Ken Taylor, a wealthy man. It is very readable, but at the expense of truth in so many places. Taylor admits that the principle he worked from was not a "word-for-word" translation but rather a "thought-for-thought" paraphrase which he called, "dynamic equivalence." Taylor said he worked for the most part from the ASV of 1901, a corrupt translation to begin with. The Living Bible decimates the Scriptures, almost completely eliminating important and precious words and truths as grace (see John 1:17; Acts 4:33, 15:11, 20:24; Romans 3:24; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 2:8-9; Jude 4) and repentance (see Matthew 9:13 and Acts 17:30). "Honor" is substituted for "begotten" in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5. Significant changes are made regarding such matters as creation in Genesis 1:1-2 and a prophecy of Christ in Zechariah 13:6. The meaning of Romans 8:28 is changed completely. Vulgar language is used in John 9:34, 11:39 and 2 Kings 18:27. The language of 1 Samuel 20:30 in early editions of TLB shocked many but it has now been softened. The author has left the door open for further suggestions, corrections and clarifications. Who knows what future editions may contain?

New American Standard Version (1960, 1971)

The NASV was to be the Bible for conservatives, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. The foreword states that the NASV "has been produced with the conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew and Greek were inspired of God." The basic problem with this translation, however, is revealed in this statement: "This translation follows the principles used in the American Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical Honesty." Who gave the ASV such a title? In the Principles of Revision, it is stated: "In revising the ASV consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament was followed." This gets right to the heart of the major problem with the modern Bible versions - most are patterned after the corrupted Westcott-Hort Greek Text rather than the Textus Receptus. The word virgin does appear in Isaiah 7:14, but a footnote says, "or, young woman"- no doubt a sop to the liberals. Verses like Matthew 18:11 and Matthew 23:14 appear in brackets with a footnote saying, "most ancient manuscripts omit this verse" or, "this verse is not found in earliest manuscripts." A corrupted Greek text thus becomes the basis for raising questions about the entire verse In other instances as in Luke 24:40, the number of the verse appears followed by "see marginal note" which explains that "some ancient Mss. add verse 40." One wonders if the NASV translators were determined to list everything anyone ever added or left out of a manuscript until one discovers that some parts of verses are left out with no explanation whatsoever as in Colossians 1:14 and 1 Timothy 6:5. It is sad to see so many conservatives pushing this version and criticizing the KJV.

New International Version ( 1973, 1978)

Like the NASV, the NIV was produced by those who are said to "hold a high view of Scripture." Sponsored by the New York Bible Society, they admitted the NIV translators represent a "broad spectrum in evangelical Christianity" and the list of names confirms the broadness of the spectrum. Instead of being a revision of a previous version, the preface says, "It is a completely new translation made by many scholars working directly from the Greek." The Greek text used is an "eclectic one." that is, the translators mixed different texts supposedly in "accord with sound principles of textual criticism." However, they did not state what those principles were - and much of the previous undermining of the Scripture has been done on the supposed basis of "sound principles of textual criticism." Examining the text, you find that the NIV leaves out many of the same verses and portions that the ASV and the NASV also omit. An added problem, however, stems from the fact that where an entire verse is omitted, even the verse number is missing and only a small letter refers to a footnote of explanation. A careful study of this version confirms what one Christian leader said several years ago, "For every verse or word clarified in these new translations, two new problems are created." We agree with his statement. In a critique of the New International Version, one Fundamentalist scholar correctly objected that "words were dropped out; words were added; and key words were sometimes changed." Yet, the same objection must also be raised concerning the New American Standard Version which this same Fundamentalist scholar defends and recommends. This objection - the deletion or addition of words-also applies to all the other modern versions. We still insist on using and recommending only the Authorized Version.

New King James Version (1979,1982)

The NKJV translators claim to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" and "improved the purity and beauty" of the original KJV. We disagree that the "purity and beauty" have been improved. Although the NKJV uses the underlying Textus Receptus Greek text, the translators repeatedly use marginal notations to reference the Modem Critical Text upon which all of the modem versions are based. The NKJV advocate opens a door that lends credibility to a perverted underlying text used by all the other versions. Furthermore, changes in the text are made which simply are not warranted. The NKJV primarily uses the 1967/ 1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica and draws from sources which result in a Hebrew text that is different from the Jacob ben Chayyim text underlying the KJV Old Testament. As a result the NKJV preface rightly stated, "significant variations are recorded in footnotes." We believe the potential for most textual problems and variants between the KJV and NKJV will be found in the Old Testament.

New Revised Standard Version ( l990)

The NRSV is the latest product of ecumenical scholarship and will soon replace the RSV, thus helping to fill the financial coffers of the apostate National Council of Churches which holds the copyrights on both the RSV and NRSV. Translated by liberal Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars, and eliminating so-called sexist language, the NRSV with the Apocrypha, has already received the Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church and may well become the ecumenical Bible of the future.

With all this adding and taking away how can we trust a Bible . So many versions

2kris:
you guys will never learn to mend ur religion and leave christianity apeace.
If such is said abt mohamed it will spark violent and u expect chistian to keep quit will u write trash about them.
Bro leave christians alone except u want to convert.there are churches everywere u can meet a pastor to help u on that area.
If not i leave you with the holy spirit whom u deem fit to mock

He is only showing u what was written in ur Bible,are u afraid of ur religion or what?no one stop u from doing d same about Qur'an or veidah,we must scrutinize ur bible

reallest:


He is only showing u what was written in ur Bible,are u afraid of ur religion or what?no one stop u from doing d same about Qur'an or veidah,we must scrutinize ur bible

i presume u are a muslim?any way (me to na amebo bcuz i cheaked ur profil pix)from ur write up i can gladly say.
I saw a beautiful lady in love with christianity.sweery u are welcome.

2kris:
i presume u are a muslim?any way (me to na amebo bcuz i cheaked ur profil pix)from ur write up i can gladly say.
I saw a beautiful lady in love with christianity.sweery u are welcome.

Am not a Muslim,I love Christians just like I love every human being BTW Christianity hell NO

reallest:


Am not a Muslim,I love Christians just like I love every human being BTW Christianity hell NO

u are nt a krysrian or a muslim.which one u be?
Atheist?

2kris:
you guys will never learn to mend ur religion and leave christianity apeace.
If such is said abt mohamed it will spark violent and u expect chistian to keep quit will u write trash about them.
Bro leave christians alone except u want to convert.there are churches everywere u can meet a pastor to help u on that area.
If not i leave you with the holy spirit whom u deem fit to mock

I'm more interested in what your holy spirit will do to him.

hockeyoilers:
With all this adding and taking away how can we trust a Bible . So many versions

Where was allaah when the adding and taking away took place?

Why is allaah lying to us that his words cannot be changed ?

[Quran 10:64] Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.

Allaah said he triumphs supremely over men that they cannot change his word.

''There is no changing the Words of allah'' can also be interpreted to mean ''changing his words did not happen. That means your allegations are spurious.

2kris:
u are nt a krysrian or a muslim.which one u be?
Atheist

Fixed

truthman2012:


Where was allaah when the adding and taking away took place?

Why is allaah lying to us that his words cannot be changed ?

[Quran 10:64] Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph.

Allaah said he triumphs supremely over men that they cannot change his word.

''There is no changing the Words of allah'' can also be interpreted to mean ''changing his words did not happen. That means your allegations are spurious.

Is this an admission from you confirming Bible corruption ?

reallest:


Fixed

maybe u want to tell me on a private chat?

hockeyoilers:
Who were the authors of the Bible? Were they really the original Prophets and Desciples?

So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.

Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read

"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"

Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.

"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"

Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.

my brother, stop reading bible just for the sole reason to finf fault and critizise...

Read the bible with the mindset of what you are going to benefit...

From the way you souned, it shows you only know the letters, just like when jesus to to one his disciples, the letter killeth but the word gives life...

You only know how to qoute the bible psychologically, you don't know that all scriptures where written by the inspiration of the HolyGhost ba??....mathew the tax collector wrote based on what the HolySpirit told him...you do not advice God on how, when and where to give you message.

So, stop coming here to write abt what psycology taught you in school and follow the scriptures as it is written...

Happy sunday.

Right here Jesus pbuh says he is going to fulfill

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but rather to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until Heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of the pen; will by any means disappear from the Law until all things are accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever keeps the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
[Matthew 5:17-19]


Jesus pbuh is now fulfilling Baptism ( too remove sin ? ) Baptism though fulfilled is practiced today , but the law is not

Matthew 3:13-15 we read,

Then Jesus arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?” But Jesus answering said to him, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he permitted Him. (NASB) Matt. 3:13-15

The key phrase in this passage says that Jesus pbuh wanted to be baptized in order to "fulfill all righteousness." The Greek word for "fulfill" is PLEROO which means "to fulfill" or "to complete."

I don't speak about what I don't understand.

2kris:
maybe u want to tell me on a private chat?

Haven't I told u? Am an ATHEIST

reallest:



Haven't I told u? Am an ATHEIST

maybe u we need to meet on a more private chat.so that u trow more light on ur atheist while i share my christianity with you

reallest:



Haven't I told u? Am an ATHEIST

maybe u we need to meet on a more private chat.so that u trow more light on ur atheist while i share my christianity with you .what do u think?

2kris:
maybe u we need to meet on a more private chat.so that u trow more light on ur atheist while i share my christianity with you

Let's do it public jare

reallest:



Let's do it public jare

what we may talk abt may nt be for public consumption