Question:
Why does the Bible misinform us about who wrote it?
Glenn
2013-03-08 04:04:21 UTC
There are books in the Bible (N.T) that the authors are wrong, unknown, or forged.

It is believed that 1st and 2nd Peter were written by 2 different people because of the style they are written in. Also some books were left out of the Bible because they were considered too controversial or just didn't "tie" in with the other stories.

The 1st four books we have no clue who wrote them and the stories have major differences between them about what really happened. I've heard different excuses but if we can't get the facts straight , how reliable is that information? All we know is they were stories handed down from decades from people who were probably like something out of Beverly Hillbillies. Most of them could barely read or write and just passed the story along to those who could.

No original copies exist of the N.T Bible.

If the Bible is supposed to be about truth then why is it that there is some untruthfulness when it comes to who actually wrote it?

How can we trust this book as God's word if we can't trust it to tell us who the authors really were?

You may say it doesn't matter who wrote it, but I tell you it very much does. Especially if the book is leading us to believe it was written by so and so and we find out that it really wasn't.

That's called dishonesty and forgery.
Seventeen answers:
anonymous
2013-03-08 04:19:07 UTC
The actual authors were not important, and they knew it. Their message was being inspired by God. It is God who is important, not the human author He used. The human authors are only important to those who reject the inspiration of God for the Bible.



"It is believed" does not lead to "the authors are wrong, unknown, or forged". This is supposition from people living long after the fact. There has never been any reason to question that the first four books of the New Testament were written by Matthew (Levi), John Mark, Luke (the physician), and John (brother of James and son of Zebedee). The dishonesty comes when someone states that these authorship are in question.



Saying that "some books were left out of the Bible because they were considered too controversial or just didn't 'tie' in with the other stories" is a favored argument of those who want everything ever written to be the word of God. I could write a book claiming that you were executed when you were 6 years old. That does not make it true. It just means that someone wrote it. Truth is important to people who believe in the Bible. We do not tolerate falsehood. We do not allow people to lie about what God has inspired.



That's called dishonesty and forgery... .
nameless
2013-03-08 12:11:18 UTC
That's called dishonesty and forgery.



~~~ Perhaps you might find my response to a previous question (re; the historicity of Jesus) relevant;



Evidence of a historical Jesus?



~~~ I have seen no evidence whatsoever, other than the book itself, of any support to a historicity claim for Jesus.

No credible first hand independent eyewitnesses have been found outside the bible (despite heresay that uncritical minds simply accept, like Josephus, et al)!



On the other hand, I suggest that there need be no such debate as we have the 'words' that 'he' spoke.

It is not the teacher but the teaching! There is no detriment to attributing the words to him. The words of the Cat in the Hat can as easily be attributed to the Cat without attributing historicity of personage.



No one really cares what you believe or not, but yourself...

We all care how you act!

If the words in the book lead you to Enlightenment or even Virtuous behavior; Compassionate, Loving, Empathic, Humble, Grateful, Charitable... then the actual historicity of the alleged author becomes irrelevant!

The entire book can be seen as a 'mandala', the entire thing can be seen as metaphor...



I have never seen any credible evidence of Jesus' historicity, but then, I don't 'need' to, because I have no 'beliefs' to validate to myself.

If something, somehow, actually does turn up, I don't see how it would make any difference... 'believers' will remain all pridefully self-righteous in having 'believed' all along, and there would be 'few' new believers due to that discovery because his 'historicity' has been pretty commonly accepted by most uncritical thinkers, anyway, by most people...



Clueless people sit around and argue over metaphor!



That's called foolish!
?
2013-03-08 12:37:44 UTC
Where are you getting this misinformation?! The Bible is the most copied and studied collection of books in the world, which is why the original copies don't exist. I.e., they were worn to shreds by the scribes who copied them. Certain liberals who want to discredit the Bible have dreamed up notions about "stylistic" differences between books or even within books; these notions have no historical basis and have been rejected by serious Bible scholars. As far as the Apocrypha goes, they were never considered to be inspired--even by the early Catholics; they are a collection of historical writings written between the OT and NT, so there was no deletion of inspired writing when Protestants later excluded these. Several forged and pretend "scriptures" have been produced, but the consensus to reject these has been overwhelming. We're not talking about an anthology of fiction; the Bible is God's word. The rules for the copyists were rigorous, and only the earliest authenticated manuscripts were accepted. In the best translations, teams of the most learned linguists and theologians cooperated in the interpretation of Scripture from numerous Hebrew and Greek sources.
?
2013-03-08 12:09:28 UTC
thats the big mystery, who wrote it? i do follow and believe a lot of things in the bible but what if somethings were just made up by the people who couldn't read or write well? i think there were specific people god or jesus trusted in to write the bible. like scribes from anicent egypt, i think they were responsibles for enlisting rules for the new found religion, on the other hand some old drunks could've just pulled bull out of them selves and started writing on paper.
philosophyangel
2013-03-08 12:21:15 UTC
You need to go get educated, as someone has aready remarked. The NT is not "forged" or whatever. The earliest writings, which were supposedly the sayings of Jesus, were just that sayings,--small bits of things, some of which are further elaborated on in the Gospels. They were written in Aramaic or Coptic. The Gospels were written in Greek by Greek intellectuals. Christianity was a movement that was varied and long in the making. The Gospels reflect 4 different variants (among dozens) of doctrine of various groups. They were written by groups of people from different lineages (not by "Mark" or "John" etc.) and the 4 Gospels were chosen out of a body of other early Christian and quasi-Christian writing in about the 4th century.
?
2013-03-08 12:30:55 UTC
It is God’s own spirit, his active force, that he has ‘breathed’ on faithful men, causing them to compile and write the Sacred Scriptures. This process is known as inspiration. The prophets and other faithful servants of Jehovah who became subject to inspiration had their minds borne along by means of this active force. This means that they received messages, including pictures of purpose, from God and that these became firmly fixed in the circuits of their minds. “For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.”—2 Pet. 1:21; John 20:21, 22.
FreeThinker
2013-03-08 12:06:46 UTC
Protestants even removed some books from the Catholic bible yet Christians in general will claim their book is never altered.
Lockjaw
2013-03-08 12:08:58 UTC
Even if the Bible is "God's word", it is an imperfect text, because it is variably written, read, and interpreted by humans. Humans are imperfect beings.
l
2013-03-08 12:38:18 UTC
Eusebius wrote (4th c.) that the reason the 4 gospels have their names is because of "Tradition."
Alinerator
2013-03-08 12:08:12 UTC
Look guy the bible is a mythological book about that, mythology. What do you want for nothing, give me a brake.
?
2013-03-08 12:13:40 UTC
It hasn't got anything to do with truth it's a political propaganda tool. Always has been.
Chaos Lord Aleph
2013-03-08 13:01:52 UTC
Definitely, if it claims to be the word of God.
Lashings
2013-03-08 12:10:50 UTC
That sounds rational.



"If you'd could have rational arguments with religious people there'd be no religious people" - House
anonymous
2013-03-08 12:18:07 UTC
Inspired by two, Spirit of Truth, spirit of deception. You were informed.
anonymous
2013-03-08 12:23:03 UTC
You are *greatly* exaggerating the situation (except *perhaps* with regard to the epistles attributed to Peter).
?
2013-03-08 12:24:22 UTC
Peter’s writership is established by the opening words. Moreover, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer. The authenticity of First Peter is as well attested as any of the inspired letters. Eusebius tells us that the elders of the church made free use of the letter; there was no question as to its authenticity in his time (c. 260-342 C.E.). Ignatius, Hermas, and Barnabas, of the early second century, all make references to it. First Peter is completely in harmony with the rest of the inspired Scriptures and sets out a powerful message for the Jewish and non-Jewish Christians residing as “temporary residents scattered about in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia”—regions of Asia Minor.—1 Pet. 1:1.



The 2nd letter of Peter itself erases any doubts that may have arisen as to writership. The writer says he is “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 1:1) He refers to this as “the second letter I am writing you.” (3:1) He speaks of himself as an eyewitness to the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, a privilege that Peter shared with James and John, and he writes of this with all the feeling of an eyewitness. (1:16-21) He mentions that Jesus had foretold his death.—2 Pet. 1:14; John 21:18, 19.



However, some critics have pointed to the difference in style of the two letters as a reason for discounting the second letter as the work of Peter. But this should pose no real problem, for the subject and the purpose in writing were different. In addition, Peter wrote his first letter “through Silvanus, a faithful brother,” and if Silvanus were given some latitude in formulating the sentences, this could account for the difference of style in the two letters, since Silvanus apparently did not have a part in writing the second letter. (1 Pet. 5:12)



Jehovah God is the Author of the Bible, but he inspired Moses to write the book of Genesis. From where did Moses get the information he recorded in Genesis? Some could have been received directly by divine revelation and some, under the direction of holy spirit, through oral transmission. It is also possible that Moses possessed written documents preserved by his forefathers as precious, valuable records of the origins of mankind. There is no question as to who wrote Genesis. “The book of the law of Moses” and similar references to the first five books of the Bible, of which Genesis is one, are to be found often from the time of Moses’ successor, Joshua, onward. In fact, there are some 200 references to Moses in 27 of the later Bible books. Moses’ writership has never been questioned by the Jews. The Christian Greek Scriptures make frequent mention of Moses as the writer of “the law,” the crowning testimony being that of Jesus Christ. Moses wrote at Jehovah’s direct command and under His inspiration.—Ex. 17:14; 34:27; Josh. 8:31; Dan. 9:13; Luke 24:27, 44.



Moses is the writer of Exodus, as is indicated by its being the second volume of the Pentateuch. The book itself registers three instances of Moses’ making a written record at the direction of Jehovah. (17:14; 24:4; 34:27) According to Bible scholars Westcott and Hort, Jesus and the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quote or refer to Exodus more than 100 times, as when Jesus said: “Moses gave you the Law, did he not?” Exodus was written in the wilderness of Sinai, in the year 1512 B.C.E., a year after the sons of Israel had left Egypt. It covers a period of 145 years, from the death of Joseph in 1657 B.C.E. to the erection of the tabernacle of Jehovah’s worship in 1512 B.C.E.—John 7:19; Ex. 1:6; 40:17.



There is no question but that Moses wrote Leviticus. The conclusion, or colophon, states: “These are the commandments that Jehovah gave Moses.” (27:34) A similar statement is found at Leviticus 26:46. The evidence previously noted that proves that Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus also supports his writership of Leviticus, as the Pentateuch evidently was originally one scroll. Moreover, Leviticus is joined to the preceding books by the conjunction “and.” The strongest testimony of all is that Jesus Christ and other inspired servants of Jehovah frequently quote or refer to the laws and principles in Leviticus and attribute them to Moses.—Lev. 23:34, 40-43—Neh. 8:14, 15; Lev. 14:1-32—Matt. 8:2-4; Lev. 12:2—Luke 2:22; Lev. 12:3—John 7:22; Lev. 18:5—Rom. 10:5.



Numbers was evidently part of the original fivefold volume that included the books from Genesis to Deuteronomy. Its first verse opens with the conjunction “and,” tying it in with what went before. Thus, it must have been written by Moses, the writer of the preceding records. This is also clear from the statement in the book that “Moses kept recording,” and by the colophon, “These are the commandments and the judicial decisions that Jehovah commanded by means of Moses.”—Num. 33:2; 36:13.
JAMES K
2013-03-08 12:08:38 UTC
If ever you get educated, you will learn. Until then, you do not know enough to be jibber-jabbering your nonsense.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...