Where Did the Bible come from?

Ha! What a riot! Talk about not being objective. What I always think is so interesting is that all these guys are trying to disprove that Jesus Christ Existed 2000 years ago. Why would they care? (think about it)Does anyone care if Homer existed? (who wrote the Illiad and Odyssey)http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/article2624.htmlNot really. No serious scholar cares either way. In fact we may never know if Homer really existed. BUT no one really cares if he existed or not.But hey, people hate Jesus so much they are willing to do ANYTHING to disprove His existence. I mean why are these guys interested in DISPROVING a historical figure's existence? Why not just say that "He could or could NOT have existed -- we really don't know!". Seems to me that would have been the more objective answer.Anyway, This link is what I have to say about those two youtube videos.[url="http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html]http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html[/url]That is an excellent site btw. If you are interested in Christian apologetics -- do hang around there for a while.

Agree with you Radd there are false prophets everywhere frankly they not worth my time to watch their videos or listen to their uneducated ideas

Your falling into the same trap I did once. Look to the Bible for the answers they are there if you pray and look hard enough. Take it from me you will not find your answers in mans word its G-d you have to ask only he alone can satisfy your need to know. We can give you general ideas but we cannot speak for G-d. Trust him and you will find the light at the end of the tunnel...

First of all be aware of what Kriss said:
there are false prophets everywhere frankly they not worth my time to watch their videos or listen to their uneducated ideas
Secondly investigate more the links Radd gave you:
That is an excellent site btw. If you are interested in Christian apologetics -- do hang around there for a while.
That what I was warning you about no one interprets G-ds word the same some even add to and take away. My opinion and just my opinion is this. There are 66 Books in the Bible, each book written by a different author, each author took down G-ds word as they heard it, or saw it in a vision or dream. Google "The Bible" there are 1000s of sites that give history of it I am in no position to give you dates and such that is beyond my scope at this point. I am afraid that is all I can offer you at this point sorry. One word of warning do some research on False Prophets that Kriss referred to it will serve you well believe me. Hope you find what your searching for and may G-d bless.

I dont know what you are looking for Where did the word Bible come from? The word Bible comes from the Greek word "Biblos," which is translated "book." The original manuscripts of the Bible were kept in the synagogues. Those who had custody of the manuscripts first used the Greek word to describe the collection, which later became known as "the Book." The Bible is comprised of 66 books with two major divisions: the Old Testament (39 books) and the New Testament (27 books). The Old Testament has four major divisions: (1) the Law - 5 books; (2) History - 12 books; (3) Poetry - 5 books; and, (4) Prophecy - 17 books. Similarly, the New Testament has four major divisions: (1) the Gospels - 4 books; (2) the Acts of the Apostles - 1 book; (3) the Epistles - 21 books; and, (4) the Revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ - 1 book. The Bible is far more than a compilation of books; it is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). It is read and understood to be God's instructions and revelations to the individual members of Christ's church and to the Body of Christ, as a whole. The Bible not only instructs Christians on how to relate to one another and those outside the church, but reveals how we are to relate to our Heavenly Father. More important, it paints a clear portrait of God's love for us and how He longs to relate to us. Clearly, since the beginning of time we have spurned His love. . .yet He continues to reach out to us. An individual can only relate to God the Father by believing and confessing that He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for the sins of all mankind. The result of believing that Jesus Christ died to save you from your sins and confessing your belief publicly is known as "salvation." So where did the word "Bible" come from? It came from the heart of God, the author of our lives, who has written the definitive book on us all. You might check here:http://www.christianityboard.com/genesis-v...sion-t6531.html

(marco305;45516)
hmm thanks....still i feel i need more of a answer then just that ....How will i be able to talk some one about god if i dont know how even the bible was put together. Its a question i get alot from non believers. I dont want to sound like i have a blind faith with no explanations to back up and justify that the bible is the word of god.
Ok, I looked at your second youtube video, and I think I understand whats going on now.These guys really burn me up. Because, they start off saying stuff like "Now go out there and check this for yourself etc. etc.." Then at the end of the video they start laughing at Christians (like "The devil did it" --- those dumb Christians). Yea whatever!Anyway, First of all, check out this site.[url="http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html]http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html[/url]Its been a while since I checked ou tektonics.org. Their apologetics is very cut and dry, and its not really in my area of interest. However, they do answer your question.And secondarily --- I HAD NO IDEA THAT Abraham Lincoln was a mythical hero. Yep yep yep, he didn't ACTUALLY exist -- he is a heroic myth. Just check out this article!!!!http://www.tektonics.org/af/abemyth.htmlOH YEA, and one last thing that makes me mad!Did you see any sources from:ChristianAnswers.nettektonics.orgcarm.org (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry)ORfrom Wheaton CollegeLiberty UniversityBaylor Collegeor any other Christian College!NO, these sources mentioned in the video are anti-Christian sources. Talk about objectivity!

(marco305;45526)
thanks but still thats not what im asking...Im not talking about the history of the word bible or what motivated people to write the bible....im talking about specificly how the different chapters were put together....and who.why the 40 yr gap after jesus death before mathews came out? Why were other religions before christianity so similar?why didnt paul know jesus already came to earth as a man?etcoh well...im just gonna keep searching till i find a explanation
read the beginning of each book here it gives you a general run downhttp://www.christianityboard.com/guide-new...ment-t6373.htmlNow here's the the thing there are many writings from long long before the Bible Many found among the dead sea scrolls that were copies of books from even before the flood like the book of Enoch but when they put the bible together they used only those books that they could prove had not been tampered with or that did not contain mistakes or were complete. I believe they were given the gift of Wisdom while they did this. You can find many writing that did not get into scriptures in the Apocrypha part of this requires some faith if you believe God created the earth and man a book isn't very hard to master.God says first was the Word it was from the beginning he wrote it in the stars in the hearts of men they passed it by word of mouth and written on leaves,bark, skin,stone until paper became available the Word of God has always been.

Hi marco305,
why the 40 yr gap after jesus death before mathews came out?
Some say that a 30 year gap for Matthew is more accurate... Acts was written before Paul's death (notice the way it ends; Paul is on house arrest and we don't find out what happens to him); Paul died in A.D. 62, and we know that Acts was the second of a two-part series, with Luke being the first, so Luke would have to be dated earlier than that; Luke incorporates things from Mark, so Mark was written even earlier than Luke. If you allow a year between each one, you get Mark written in A.D 60 or the late 50s. Therefore, if Matthew's Gospel is first, it would have been a couple years before Mark's gospel. I don't know why there would be a gap, but I do know that regardless of when they were written, the Gospels were all written within the lifetimes of the disciples so if anything false was written, they could verify it, yet we never hear them say that anything was contradictory unless it was. If you compare the thirty year gap with some other historical works, this is really not a problem (Alexander the Great's writings were not referred to until years after he was dead and only portions of his writings were preserved. Why don't we question his writings?). Also, the early church did set down in writing what they believed. A number of portions of Paul's letters were actually early church creeds that can be dated to earlier than when he wrote (He was converted around A.D. 32 and anywhere from A.D. 32- 35 he received these creeds. That means that there is only a 2-5 year gap, as opposed to 40 years -- Jesus died A.D. 30.) Which brings me to the next point...
why didnt paul know jesus already came to earth as a man?
Paul was raised under Gamaliel, a Pharisee and a teacher of the law (Acts 5:34; 22:3). The Pharisees and Sadducees did not want anyone talking about Jesus (see Acts 5:40), so it is likely that they never taught Paul about Jesus, because they did not believe in Jesus as their Messiah. (Why would they teach about someone they didn't believe in? If they did, they wouldn't have said anything nice about Him.) You will notice in Acts 22:3 that Paul says that he was zealous for God. The Law of Moses was important to the Jews; they taught it in their schools. I think that the Pharisees and Sadducees were zealous against Christ; it is evident throughout Acts that they kept commanding the apostles not to speak in Jesus name, and they denied being guilty of killing Him. So naturally, they would have refused to recognize that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies in the Old Testament pertaining to the Messiah, and probably wouldn't teach it. Even so, Paul would have heard about Jesus, because the apostles did not cease from telling the Council about Jesus. (Acts 4:10-12; Acts 7:52) Another thing is that the Sadducees, of which the high priest and his assistants were members, did not believe in the resurrection, so when the apostles came preaching that Jesus died and was resurrected, naturally they wouldn't hear of it. To sum up, Paul did hear that Jesus came to earth; he just didn't understand it (until his conversion) because of the way he was brought up. I hope this helps.
Why were other religions before christianity so similar?
Although skeptics reject this idea, other religions borrowed from Christianity, adding paganism to it -- it wasn't the other way around. Pagan, mythical stories do not "evolve" into pure, simple stories; it actually happens the other way around -- the pure, true, original story is turned into a pagan, mythical story. Other religions before Christianity were NOT similar to Christianity. Christianity is unique -- it is monotheism, whereas the other religions were polytheism or some other kind of "ism." No other religion believes in a God that forgives us, not on our own merit of good works, but by His grace and mercy; these other religions actually believe that your good works will get you favor with the god. No other religion believes in the "once and for all" sacrifice that we believe in as took place through Jesus Christ; those religions that involve sacrifice expect that it be done continually to appease the gods, etc. We have a unique "religion" (and that is not even the right word for it). So no, no other religion before or after Christianity is similar, unless they copied things from Christianity.
im talking about specificly how the different chapters were put together....and who.
I'll get back to you on that. For now, I need to sign off...May God bless you.

The whole Jesus-Myth theory doesn't really hold much ground anymore in scholarship. It was at its hight with Earl Doherty and G. A. Wells. I'd have to say that most modern historians believe that there was a historical Jesus.I think that the Jesus-Myth theory simply looks at the very embellished nature of the Gospels without even thinking about the embarrassments which were recorded in the Jesus cult. For instance, why would Mark write that Jesus was a carpenter or tekton in Mark 6:3? Matthew and Luke both tried to distance Jesus from this profession, Matthew stating that Jesus' father was a tekton and Luke omiting the word entirely, (cf. Matt. 13:55-56 & Lk 4:22 & Jn 6:40). That's embarrassment number 1 which Mark stated and which Matthew, Luke and John had to cover up. There are more, by the way; The crucifixion, the baptism, Jesus not knowing the time and date of the "end", etc. The fact is that a tekton was a very bad profession in the first century. It wasn't as if Jesus was getting $2k a week as a chippy; what sort of work can one get in an agrarian society in which all forms of real work are done farming? If Jesus was a carpenter, chances were that he was simply a hired labourer who did any sort of work he could, think of the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16).Allan.

The question of where the Bible comes from though, is another matter. It really depends which parts of the Bible we are talking about. Many of the books are basically anonymous, again, it really depends which parts you're talking about.Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Gospels, are anonymous works by early Christians. I tend to hold with the 4-source hypothesis for the Synoptics:Q was the first Gospel (I'm a little skeptical about dividing Q into Q1 and Q2 as Kloppenborg does), then Mark (who used other sources Secret Mark, there appears to be a common source behind the miracles of Mark and of John, that's what Achtemeier proposes), Matthew used Q and Mark in order to write his Gospel he also used his own original sources "M", Luke used Q and Mark to write his Gospel as well as his own sources "L", he uses his own sources more than Matthew uses his own. So we have as sources for the Synoptics, Q, Mark, M and L. Q basically exists in the form of the common sayings between Matthew and Luke, it is a hypothetical document, yet it's existence is accepted by basically 90% of Biblicla scholarship.Allan.

(marco305;45526)
thanks but still thats not what im asking...Im not talking about the history of the word bible or what motivated people to write the bible....im talking about specificly how the different chapters were put together....and who.why the 40 yr gap after jesus death before mathews came out? Why were other religions before christianity so similar?why didnt paul know jesus already came to earth as a man?etcoh well...im just gonna keep searching till i find a explanation
You do realize that the 40 year gap you speak of is mere speculation. It is possible, even though we have no definitive proof, that the books of the Bible could have been written during Christ life or not long after His death. It is believed by some that the books of the Bible were written and shared with all the Churches as they were written. Disciples of the Apostles could have easily written their words and copied them numerous times and shared them with the other Churches. We do not have definitive proof of this, but we also do not have definitive proof against it. What must also be realized is that there were plenty of witnesses alive 40 years later to confirm or deny what was written. Look at John, he is believed to have died between 90 and 110 AD, and he was also believed to have been either Christs age or younger. Now think, how many other witnesses could have still been around at the same time as John or even later. What if John was a teenager? How many children who followed Christ could have remembered His works and His life for the rest of their lives. My mothers parents died when I was less than ten years old, and I can still hear their voices and tell you lot about what I remember of them and that was over 30 years ago. The world wants to set dates they cannot truly know and put limits on what they dont know. My father died about 7 years ago, but he could tell you in intimate detail what he did in vietnam till the day he died. We must also remember that the people of the first century were not as illiterate as many socalled scholars would like you to think, many times people fained illiteracy to keep from being persicuted. Remember also that Paul was a Pharasee, Mathew was a tax collector, and Peter owned his own fishing boat, these guys were not stupid by any measure and the possibilities were endless especialy if you throw in the leading of the Holy Spirit. Now dont take my word for all of this, check many sources and you will be surprised what the Holy Spirit will show you.

A few of those sources are... 1) The Case For Christ - it is an excellent place to start; it is very brief on the topics it covers, but it is very easy to understand. I highly recommend it.2) The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Vol. 1 and 2) - this is a thick book, but it has a wealth of information in it.
im talking about specificly how the different chapters were put together....and who.
There were no chapters originally -- Greek has no punctuation, and the first forms of punctuation were added by Ezra (A.D. 70? Can't remember the date...). Each book was actually one, continuous record of history (Many of the NT books were actually letters). If you don't believe me, check out your Bible. You will notice that between the end of a chapter and the beginning of the next, there is no break in thought. (As a matter of fact, many chapters begin with "Therefore." What is it "there for"?) I found this on a few websites: "The Bible was divided into chapters by Stephen Langton about A.D. 1228. The Old Testament was divided into verses by R. Nathan in A.D. 1448 and the New Testament by Robert Stephanus in A.D. 1551. The entire Bible divided into chapters and verses first appeared in the Geneva Bible of 1560." "After the completion of the Masoretic textual work and the collection of the notes having reference to it, no essential change was made in the text; consequently this period is the time of the faithful preservation, multiplication, and circulation of the Masoretic text. An essential innovation was the introduction of the now customary division into chapters, which was invented by Stephen Langton at the beginning of the thirteenth century, and applied to the Vulgate. Isaac ben Nathan adopted it for his Hebrew concordance (1437-38, published 1523), on which occasion the verses of the chapters were also numbered. The chapter division was first applied to the Hebrew in the second edition of Bomberg's Bible, 1521; the numbering of verses was first adopted for the Sabionetta Pentateuch, 1557, and that of the whole Bible in Athias's edition of 1661." How they where able to decide were to place the verse divisions and end one chapter and begin the next is not clear. However, even before that, there were certain forms of division to the OT; it was divided into The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings (Psalms).

man i am shocked again. these xtreme atheists just wont give up.first off, no evidence in this video that shows jesus isn't real. this dude is constructing a wild range of theories based on no evidence at all, and using disputed argments disscusing when then the gospels were written that have been going on for centuries. no one knows exactly when they were written. that's all pure speculation and educated guesses by historians. however, it's very like they were written before 70 A.D. i'll explain later2ndly, i laughed at the start how he was trying to descredit our christians in their faith. yes, not all christians know how the bible was formed, but that doesn't mean in anyway it wasn't formed or that jesus wasn't a real person. he tried to give off the impression using their argument, as it was to count that since that they don't how they bible was formed, they don't know if jesus was a real person or not. that's a weak argument in my opinion. that's just like saying since i don't know who my my great, great, great, great, great grandmother is, then i don't know if she really existed or not. by this, you can really see his true intentions.then he mentions the gospel of mark. now concerning mark's gospel when it was written is a disuputed matter. this guy tries to say because it mentions the descruction of the temple that it must of been written after the year 70 A.D., but that's not what it says in the gospel. jesus was actually prophecizing the descruticon of the 2nd temple, he wasn't saying it was destoryed, he was saying it was going to be destoryed. but yet, the narrator of the video gives off the impression that it was destoryed, then concludes because of that, it must of been written after the year 70 A.D., then he goes on to say that that all other gospels were written after mark, and that there was a 30-40 year gap, and something happend in that gap. did you see what he did? that's side-swipe tactic. forcing the audience to make decisions by stating his opinions are facts. none of the gospels mention the destruction of the temple or jeruselem, this is why it's believed to be written before 70 A.D., which i agree.i'm just wondering if he read the gospel of mark at all. if he did, he surely would seen that jesus was prophecizing of its destruction, not saying it is was destoryed. that barely counts as proofhis words... "so it must of been written later than that, much later than that" LOLhe then uses a movie as a evidence to show paul was only trying to spread the word in vengence. in vengence? lolhe then goes on say that since because paul never saw mary, jesus, bethlehem, before he was a christian, that it's suppose to give creedence that paul most of been a fictional character. that's just like saying since i've never seen the country of france, therefore i can't exists LOL on the contarry, paul never grew up in israel, it's actaually believed he grew up in rome, because he himself said he was roman citizen. he said this when he was being held prisonor & being persucuted by the romans by spreading the word of christ. so it's possible he could of came to israel much later. even if did grew up in israel, that shouldn't descredit his claims at all. there were alot of people in israel that never saw jesus, bethlehem, mary.notice the scripture he uses in hebrews 8:4, he tries to say by this scripture that if jesus lived on earth, he would not have been a priest. what he's actually saying is the scripture is saying jesus was never on earth . that's not what the writer of hebrews was saying. the author of hebrews was saying, if jesus was back on earth, there would be no need for anymore priests, since jesus is the priest of priests. the narrator of this video clearly can't read at all.it's funny how he keeps saying... "once you assemble the facts", when clearly he's using no facts at all. all speculation on disputed arguments.he then uses comments by other proffesors to conclude the main gospels are a fraud. yes, there are other gospels, but they were thrown out on good intentions. these are the gnostic gospels. there were written to contridict the main gospels of matt, mark, luke & john. those gnostic gospels were never considered cannon by our church leaders. this is why they were thrown out.i've stopped at the first video, it's clearly to me this dude is just reaching on speculation and trying to say all his arguments are proof. it's obvious he's reaching in the sky for fairys. this is no proof at all.i'm just wondering if this is the same guy that was the narrator over the zeitigiest movie, which has cearly been debunked by the way. but it sounds like the same guy. he wont give up lol