Note that the Quran is one book divided into many
chapters but all written by the same [illiterate] author. The Bible
consists of 66 books written not by the same authors in different
time and place. You are asking for the stars and moon again. You
want me to squeeze 66 formulae into one formula?
Nope. You made my point for me, by using the word "authors". My
point was simply that. Authors were men - "illiterate", genius,
madman or divine inspiration - they were men.
You said "And Jesus never said he was God either. The
original translation was Light." So arent you trying to suggest
Jesus wasnt God as claimed by the Christians?
Nope. I don't work that way. I am saying that he did not "say"
it, in the same way he did not say to build churches and objects in
his likeness of veneration...
Jesus indeed never said "I am God" literally. He used
other labels which were enough to implicate him in a blasphemy
charge.
Does being charged with blasphemy equate one to "God"? Someone
earlier said this whole thread was blasphemy...
I sniff a strawman. Who said the Bible is 100% the word
of God and utmost truth? Utmost truth for what?
I'm not familiar with the phrase. What is a strawman? But I
don't think I am trying to deceive you, if that's what it means. I
said "the idea" because that is the feeling that comes across from
the evangelists. Utmost truth for what - for everything.
Evangelists (I am using this term for the moment to describe
Christians in general [but could
be any religion] that evangelicise their beliefs, to the
point of pointing to the Bible as historical document, and as the
ultimate and end-all answer to ANY question asked about spiritual
topics, or those of depth. I am referring to answers that say "cuz
the bible sez so", when in fact it either does not say so, or it is
"translated that way" by their church, etc...
I may have missed the slip even though I'm a careful
person. But you could be mistaken also. Show me the
slip?
It was based on the fact that firstly this "cannonization" was
not the only handling of the content of the books. That the English
Bible we have today is very different from when the books were
written. That to base answers around a book(s), knowing that the
content has been skillfully editted, without
finding out more about it's history, different version throughout
history, etc etc etc, is ridiculous. But it is what the majority
do.
My whole point, again....Is based on the idea of willful
ignorance, my extreme distaste for it, and so most of my
points will usually come from that idea - the encouragement of
Christians to study more than just today's Bible, if they truly
wish to know their religion.
For those who wish to have a "meaningful relationship with God,"
then it is a different matter, and a personal spiritual journey.
Mixing the two "types" together without proper ammunition is
obviously not the way to go.
Yea .. I'm familiar with the Tanakh. I do have some
basic knowledge of Jewish theology and their scriptural
interpretation. I scanned the wiki. What's the majority in there
not in the Bible? Don't shock me. Written in Aramaic .. hmm so what
and what's the point here?
From the Tanakh, there are books of the 12 minor prophets not
found in the bible, and a few from the ketuvim as well. Aside from
that, we also have the Council of Nicea...
Written in Aramaic - what's the point? The point goes back to the
idea of different languages being translated. I personally have not
spent time doing a translation of the work, but I am quite sure
that we would find Light=God is not the only free-association
happening with words there.
You said "There were no Christians at the time of the
OT, and the OT that was around were also many different books, some
of which are definitely no longer included in the Bible. "
You were unclear about the Scripture to begin with. My point is if
you look at a modern Hebrew Bible, it has all the books in the
Christian OT.
Ok...I'm not going to check up on that, but I trust ya on that
one 
But like you threw at me....So what?
