Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkrisc | Hacker News Reader

> It is impossible for men to have written the bible.

That's quite the claim, since historical evidence sure seems to show every known biblical text was scribed by human hands.

> yet it's unified in the story

That's certainly open to interpretation, to say the least. Many of the story elements and arcs can be found in cultures that pre-date Christ.

> much of which was has already come to pass about nations or events

Over thousands of years one can find examples for any broad prophecy.

Once again we're left with nothing authoritative on the matter except the word of Man, that we're apparently expected to take on faith alone.

View on HN

> show every known biblical text was scribed by human hands

Yes, the bible itself claims this (2 Peter 1:21). I was referring to men coming up with the idea and colluding over a millennia.

> Many of the story elements and arcs can be found in cultures that pre-date Christ.

That is because everything in the New Testament (including Christ's life) was an extension of what had already be told for thousands of years earlier.

> Over thousands of years one can find examples for any broad prophecy.

These aren't broad prophecies. They are specific accounts of events such as the destruction method of Tarshish by a Greek commander (Alexander the great) or the name of a future Persian King who would command the rebuilding of the temple (Darius the Persian) or the return of Israel as a nation after Daniels 69 weeks had elapsed, etc...

The most extensive prophecies are focused on Jesus himself and what he would do and how he would die (Isaiah 53, etc..).

> I was referring to men coming up with the idea and colluding over a millennia.

How do you reconcile with the fact that there are hundreds of texts and stories that have selectively excluded by human hands to create what we today call the bible?

If my priest gives me a bible and tells me "This is the word of God", but admits that over the last 2000 years there have been several councils were certain texts and stories were added and removed, and that archaeologists have found previously unknown gospels not included in the bible, what am I supposed to think?

I am afraid the sheer volume of research on the topic of the canon of scripture is more than I'll ever be able to consume. There are hundreds of books and videos on the subject. If you are really curious then you should probably check them all out. icr.org, carm.org, gotquestions.org, etc...

I'll add that we have thousands of copies and fragments of the bible with nothing more than small changes in spelling. If anything was changed, we would know from the differences in the copies (unless every nation all colluded to have the same bible from day one). In fact, even the Jews would have to have been in on it even though they deny Jesus is their Messiah. (See the dead sea scrolls)

I only know of one "council" where they "decided" on what was in the bible. The Council of Nicea, where they affirmed what was already accepted as canon.

Is there any proof these prophecies were written before the events occurred? The simplest explanation is that they were written after the events then pointed to as prophecies to prove the texts are prophetic. That would align very well with what we know about the world and the deceit Man is perfectly capable of.

While many people collectively editing and revising a text over millennia is certainly impressive, there is nothing impossible about it nor is it on its own proof of anything supernatural.

Yes, that's a common explanation. https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/w...

That doesn't really answer anything. I'm not debating that Jesus existed. But using the Bible as evidence for the Bible doesn't hold water.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com