"If" The Bible Was Man-Made What Would It Look Like?

[Craig Paxton]

It is inspired because it contains inspired teachings. Muhammad, as stated by the Church itself, was an inspired teacher who was raised up by God for a specific purpose in bringing His children closer to Him. This does not mean the Qur'an (the correct spelling) is "inspired scripture." But what truth it does contain may be seen as such, and God will judge His children who believe in the Qur'an according to the words written in it.

And how exactly does the Koran get God's children closer to becoming LDS and thus closer to the LDS God? And if the Koran (my preferred spelling) is god inspired and not manmade then the LDS God is a God on confusion and sends mixed signals to His children. I think it makes much more sense for us to just accept that both books are manmade and are merely man doing his/her best to commune with his need for a god.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

Seeing any similarities? which was manmade and which actually happened?

[KevinG]

I'd give you a rep point for that one but all it would do is increase your lead.

I will never catch up as it is!

Its a contest? Oh fetch! I need to post more silly jokes for cheap points.

[Bikeemikey]

And how exactly does the Koran get God's children closer to becoming LDS and thus closer to the LDS God? And if the Koran (my preferred spelling) is god inspired and not manmade then the LDS God is a God on confusion and sends mixed signals to His children. I think it makes much more sense for us to just accept that both books are manmade and are merely man doing his/her best to commune with his need for a god.

God can inspire and reveal to people truth and teachings that have nothing to do with the LDS church.

In fact, once one becomes a member of the lds church god continues to reveals things to you that have nothing to do with the lds church.

The bible & book of Mormon are both scriptures that existed when no one had even thought of the lds church.

The lds church is the result of scripture, the scripture and the church are distinct. prophets in book of Mormon times didn't write scripture because one day there woukd be an lds church (however much we may want to think they did). Scripture is recorded inspiration/revelation.

There is no conflict for any church recognizing multiple scriptural records from different communities.

Furthermore, if we look back at the authors of scripture most of them have been outside the structure of "organized religion". In fact it is Mormon common for scripture writers to form chruches.

[KevinG]

No being into Bibliolatry or BookofMormonolatry I don't have a problem with inspired but fallible humans trying to represent spiritual and sometimes miraculous events beyond our language and comprehension in a record to teach and guide us in the way God wants us to go. I don't have a problem with other records of other peoples claiming to be inspired.

I do have a problem with those who use these records to justify hatred, oppression and unrighteous dominion- but I have faith God will put them in their place eternally for abusing the records He commissioned.

In the end I read the Scriptures and sacred records of others to glean understanding of God's will and come closer to Him so I can receive deeper understanding of His truth.

What would the Bible look like if it were purely the imaginings of men? It would probably be more internally consistent in its narrative, less prone to multiple witnesses and perspectives.

[wenglund]

Were the Bible not revelatory or inspired of God, but solely of man, I suspect it would look a lot like Paxton's posts on this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Its a contest? Oh fetch! I need to post more silly jokes for cheap points.

Considering how you just started posting again a month or two ago, I think you are like to be the One in a couple of more months. I only hope you remember us little ones when you get there, who helped you along the way where you were a nobody with points less than 100.....

[Calm]

I remember being taught that personal journals of our own spiritual experiences would be our own scriptures and would become the scriptures of our children and their children. If the Qur'an is inspired, even in part (which I have no problem believing having read it...in English though) then it seems to be it can be viewed as much as scripture as most, if not all of LDS journals writing about their encounters with the Spirit with their own both inspired and limited understanding.

[Freedom]

Ummm...talking donkeys and snakes, universal floods, zombies and man traversing the sea via Fish come to mind...and if you could remind me again of those real cities and civilizations that left evidence of their existence that would be helpful as I am unaware of any

Ummm, events described using a lost language with long forgotten figures of speech, miraculous events that you dismiss simply because you cannot yet explain them, the discovery of vast ruins in Central America that display a level of civilization that was unknown during the time of Joseph Smith.

[Tacenda]

No being into Bibliolatry or BookofMormonolatry I don't have a problem with inspired but fallible humans trying to represent spiritual and sometimes miraculous events beyond our language and comprehension in a record to teach and guide us in the way God wants us to go. I don't have a problem with other records of other peoples claiming to be inspired.

I do have a problem with those who use these records to justify hatred, oppression and unrighteous dominion- but I have faith God will put them in their place eternally for abusing the records He commissioned.

In the end I read the Scriptures and sacred records of others to glean understanding of God's will and come closer to Him so I can receive deeper understanding of His truth.

What would the Bible look like if it were purely the imaginings of men? It would probably be more internally consistent in its narrative, less prone to multiple witnesses and perspectives.

[Craig Paxton]

Were the Bible not revelatory or inspired of God, but solely of man, I suspect it would look a lot like Paxton's posts on this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ahhh... Wade what would this board do without your slyly condescending, quick witted, everlasting gobstoppers.

Thanks, -Craig Paxton-

[Craig Paxton]

Ummm, events described using a lost language with long forgotten figures of speech, miraculous events that you dismiss simply because you cannot yet explain them, the discovery of vast ruins in Central America that display a level of civilization that was unknown during the time of Joseph Smith.

Ahhh...so that means that you can't remind me of those real cities and civilizations that left evidence of their existence...Ummm ok. But that's ok...my expectation of proof is far too higha hurdle for you to meet. I'll accept nothing less than some vase stamped with "Made in Zarahemla" on the bottom...and you'll accept any Mayan artifact...so we're at an impasse

Edited June 28, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Verum]

So there's a lot of bashing of the OP, but I think the question is interesting that no one has really answered.

In all seriousness, if the Bible, or Book of Mormon, were man-made. What would it look like? What evidences would one look for to be able to tell if it was man-made?

[wenglund]

Ahhh... Wade what would this board do without your slyly condescending, quick witted, everlasting gobstoppers.

It would be left, to some degree, to suffer flagrant board violations like those found in you response to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

So there's a lot of bashing of the OP, but I think the question is interesting that no one has really answered.

In all seriousness, if the Bible, or Book of Mormon, were man-made. What would it look like? What evidences would one look for to be able to tell if it was man-made?

The better question to me, and one that isn't hypothetical in nature, is how do you tell the difference between a book of God and a book of man?

The answer to me is obvious: if there is some question whether a given book is of God or not, then go to the source, and ask God if it is or not.

This makes sense since, at best, man can only tell of himself about the things of man and this world. He cannot, of his own devises, discern the things of God and heaven. As such, when men are left with their own devises, they can and will likely but only determine that a given book is of man, even though it may be of God. To discern the things of God, then, necessitates rightly appealing to God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Flyonthewall]

The Bible IS man-made, just like Noah's Ark was man-made, like the breastplate of Aaron, the Ark of the Covenanat, the Temple of Solomon, etc. etc.

The Bible was written by inspired, but fallible men, so it would look exactly like it does. Same with the BoM.

Now if the question were: What would the Bible look like if it were not inspired?...then there are many books out there already that can be used as an example...pick one.

[KevinG]

So there's a lot of bashing of the OP, but I think the question is interesting that no one has really answered.

In all seriousness, if the Bible, or Book of Mormon, were man-made. What would it look like? What evidences would one look for to be able to tell if it was man-made?

Pleather bindings.

[Mudcat]

I’m guessing that it would be full of myths, fables and untrue stories. It would weave actual historical events and combine them with myth. It would have claimed histories of individuals who never existed in reality. It would be heavily influence by the myths and stories of surrounding civilizations. Since man made books can’t predict the future with any accuracy, it would be full of false predictions and failed prophecies. It would be full of miraculous stories of miracles, angels and other godly creatures that don’t exist in the real world and can’t be duplicated under controlled circumstances. In other words it would look pretty much like it does right now…

While the Bible, unlike the Book of Mormon, has been shown to included stories about real cities and civilizations that actually left behind evidence that they existed, it is full of fabricated untrue myths and fables…and has every mark of being a man made book written by men to look like it came from a god.

Hi Craig,

Emphasis mine on your statement, that you are "guessing". I certainly appreciate the notion that your sort of shooting from the hip on this. Except for this bit at the end of the first paragraph (also emphasized) when you say, " In other words it would look pretty much like it does right now…"

What I gather from that paragraph is that you guess that Bible would look like it does now if it were man made. That seems to be what you are saying. You certainly affirm that in the following statement.

The whole concept you introduce is rather broad banded. Sort of like asking a question like.. what's wrong with footbal?.. or the stock market?.. energy policy in the US?... modern philosophy? or something like that. No real place to hang to your hat and chat about something in particular.

I am not LDS, but as a non-LDS Christian it's my thought that the Bible is God's word.

In hopes of narrowing the scope, so we can discuss something, I would ask this...

The Sermon on the Mount is Christ's most lengthy speech. If God were to deliver the Sermon on the Mount, rather than the son of a Jewish carpenter from Nazareth what do you think God would have said differently?

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited June 29, 2012 by Mudcat

[Kerry A. Shirts]

So there's a lot of bashing of the OP, but I think the question is interesting that no one has really answered.

In all seriousness, if the Bible, or Book of Mormon, were man-made. What would it look like? What evidences would one look for to be able to tell if it was man-made?

This has been more than amply demonstrated by John W. Loftus in his books "The End of Christianity," and "The Christian Delusion." He demonstrates with great force that they would look like just what we have right now, because they are man made.......his focus is on the Bible however. Interesting reads without question.

[CASteinman]

Pleather bindings.

More Rhinestones.

[Freedom]

Ahhh...so that means that you can't remind me of those real cities and civilizations that left evidence of their existence...Ummm ok. But that's ok...my expectation of proof is far too higha hurdle for you to meet. I'll accept nothing less than some vase stamped with "Made in Zarahemla" on the bottom...and you'll accept any Mayan artifact...so we're at an impasse

Well then, I refuse to accept that the Olmecs existed unless you can find a jar that has Olmec stamped on the bottom of it. Oh wait, they didn't call themselves Olmecs. I will tell you what, you find out what the Olmecs called themselves, and I will find a 'made in Zerahemla' stamp. Lets make it even easier. You find me a 'made in Mayan' stamp. To support your hypothesis even greater, you go to Israel and find a uniquely Israelite pot that has 'made by a member of the tribe of Joseph'.

[Craig Paxton]

Well then, I refuse to accept that the Olmecs existed unless you can find a jar that has Olmec stamped on the bottom of it. Oh wait, they didn't call themselves Olmecs. I will tell you what, you find out what the Olmecs called themselves, and I will find a 'made in Zerahemla' stamp. Lets make it even easier. You find me a 'made in Mayan' stamp. To support your hypothesis even greater, you go to Israel and find a uniquely Israelite pot that has 'made by a member of the tribe of Joseph'.

I was only demonstrating the huge gap between our positions....while you see evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations scattered everywhere throughout the Americas...I see nothing to support this premise. Where once the church held Mayan and yes Olmec cities as evidence of BoM cities...there has been nothing to support or confirm this premise. It would have been nice if Nephi...had merely stamped his signature on the bottom of the pot shards and in the corner stones of all of the Solomon temples discovered in the Americas...but alias...he wasn't that insightful.

Where you see a flourishing rain forest of evidence…I see a hot dry desert void of anything to support your beliefs. I guess we just see things differently.

.

[thesometimesaint]

Craig Paxton:

It is doubtful Nephi called himself Nephi. Just as Jesus did not call himself Jesus but rather Yeshua

[Craig Paxton]

Hi Craig,

Emphasis mine on your statement, that you are "guessing". I certainly appreciate the notion that your sort of shooting from the hip on this. Except for this bit at the end of the first paragraph (also emphasized) when you say, " In other words it would look pretty much like it does right now…"

What I gather from that paragraph is that you guess that Bible would look like it does now if it were man made. That seems to be what you are saying. You certainly affirm that in the following statement.

The whole concept you introduce is rather broad banded. Sort of like asking a question like.. what's wrong with footbal?.. or the stock market?.. energy policy in the US?... modern philosophy? or something like that. No real place to hang to your hat and chat about something in particular.

I am not LDS, but as a non-LDS Christian it's my thought that the Bible is God's word.

In hopes of narrowing the scope, so we can discuss something, I would ask this...

The Sermon on the Mount is Christ's most lengthy speech. If God were to deliver the Sermon on the Mount, rather than the son of a Jewish carpenter from Nazareth what do you think God would have said differently?

Regards,

Mudcat

Every single word written in the Bible originated first in the mind of some human being. Whether that person imagined voices in their head or merely created them from his/her own thoughts, it was a mortal being that put quill to parchment. The need to assign the source of the words in the Bible to some god figure undermines the talents of the original human who crated those words….irrespective of where they believed those words originated from….they did in fact being within the confines of their own minds.

Interesting that the religious scripture of non-Judeo-Christian ancient civilizations are plainly seen for what they clearly are…the works of man. Why would this be? Could it be that because we do not believe in their gods due to our Judeo-Christian blinders that we discount the non-Judeo-Christian writers and assign their very human work to mere fictional ranting of delusional men who also claimed inspiration from voices they heard in their heads as well?

How is it that we can all see the very human origins in ancient pagan writings yet fail to see them in our own Judeo-Christian writings?

Edited June 29, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

Craig Paxton:

It is doubtful Nephi called himself Nephi. Just as Jesus did not call himself Jesus but rather Yeshua

Yeah I tend to agree with you here....fictional charactors generally don't call themselves anything...