Before you read any further, pick up your bible and read [EZEKIEL 23], and then tell me if that is the "word of God", regarding those "sinful sisters".

What is the word of god?

Is the bible the word of God, and if you say it is, i say to you did God write it and how do you know that. God did not write the bible, so how is it the word of God. God gave Moses the commandments, but the original forms of these were lost long ago. Moses did not write the books of the old testament, just as Jesus did not write the books of the new testament, in fact MatThew, Mark, Luke and John did not write them either. the bible was put together by scholars and there is nothing to say that God spoke to them, so how is this the "word of God", they did not meet God, so how do they know this is his word, and how do you know this is his word. even bible experts today do not say the bible is the "word of God", they say it is merely a library of books that can not be authenticated, which is why there have been many different bibles which include differing sets of books, chapters and verses. One example is the ascension of Jesus which also refers to eternal salvation [Mark 16:9-20] that was not included in early manuscripts and is therefore not regarded as authentic.

Bible experts study the bible and do not say it is the "Word of God", and even encyclopedias will tell you it is written by scholars long after the deaths of Moses and Jesus, and that the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by them which is why they are called "the gospelACCORDING to Mathew, Mark, etc" and not "the gospel BY Mathew, Mark, etc. Also note there is no "gospel by Jesus Christ", because he did not write one, if he did then that would have been the "word of God" as it would say what God told Jesus and wanted man to know.

If the bible does not say its the "word of God", experts do not say its the "word of God", it can clearly be proven not to be the "word of God", it was written by men who did not recieve a revelation from God... then how can itbe believed and promoted asthe "word of God".

Plagerism in the bible

To demonstrate the degree of plagiarism practised by the "inspired" Bible writers, I asked my audience during a symposium at the University of Cape Town conducted between myself and Professor Cumpsty the Head of the Department of Theology on the subject "Is the Bible God's Word?" to open their Bibles.

Some Christians are very fond of carrying their Bibles under their arms when religious discussions or debates take place. They seem to be utterly helpless without this book. At my suggestion a number of the audience began ruffling the pages. I asked them to open chapter 37 in the "Book of Isaiah." When the audience was ready, I asked them to compare my "Isaiah 37" with their "Isaiah 37" while I read, to see whether they were identical. I began, readingly slowly. Verses 1, 2, 4,10, 15, and so on, until the end of the chapter. I kept on asking after every verse if what I had been reading, was identical with the verses in their Bibles. Again and again they chorused — "Yeh!", "Yeh!". At the end of the chapter with the Bible still open in my hands at the place from which I had been reading, I made the Chairman to reveal to the audience that I was not reading from Isaiah 37 at all but from 2 KINGS 19! There was a terrible consternation in the audience! I had thus established 100% plagiarism in the "Holy Bible."

In other words, Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God.

Who is copying whom? Who is stealing from whom? The 32 renowned Bible scholars of the RSV say that the author of the Book of Kings is "UNKNOWN!" See later on for a reproduction from the RSV by "Collins'". These notes on the Bible were prepared and edited by the Right Rev. David J. Fant, Litt. D., General Secretary of the New York Bible Society. Naturally, if the Most Reverend gentlemen of Christiandom had an iota of belief about the Bible being the Word of God, they would have said so, but they honestly (shamefacedly?) confess: "Author — UNKNOWN!" They are prepared to pay lip service to Scriptures which could have been penned by any Tom, Dick or Harry and expect everyone to regard these as the Word of God — Heaven forbid!

Heaven help us.

I know I'm making a big mistake by replying to this, but as I said, heaven help me.

Chinkkie I don't know who are are but you've let loose a load a rubbish above.

Isaiah served Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezehiah. His writings are extensively interwoven with many other parts of the Bible. A century or more after Isaiah's time, Jerimiah wrote the record found in the books of Kings and it is interesting to observe that what is recorded at 2Kings 18:13 to 20:19 is essentially the same as that found in Isaiah chapters 26-39.

The word you are looking for in INTERRELATIONSHIPS.

That is what makes the Bible so outstanding, and it shows the harmony.

Not only do other prophets cover matters similiar to those considered by Isaiah but there are numerous specific references made to the writings of Isaiah themselves by othr Bible writers. Jesus himself and his apostles quoted from Isaiah to make clear the identification of the Messiah.

who are you trying to fool when the facts are so clear. here is a book with two chaptors which are in themselves seperate books by seperate authers that are over 200 pages apart but which have near identical text. if you submitted a essay, dissertation, thesis or book to be publish with similar comparisons to another persons work it would be thrown at you and you would get done for plagerism and maybe sued. alternatively if you handed in your own essay, dissertation, thesis or book with two identical sub-chapters you would be done for plagerism.

2kings 13-13:37 andIsaiah 36- 36:22 have near identical text.

2 kings 19- 20:3 and Isaiah 37- 38:3 have identical text.

The point is that the authors of these two books wrote then hundreds of years apart and were meant to have been inspired by god, however it is clear that one copied the other to fill up space.

Also if you actually check your bible you will see that it state that the book of isaiah wasonly named after Isaiah, it was not actually written by Isaiah and it is unknown who it was written by, as is with the book of kings. All that is known is that the bible was written and put together by scholars of one form or another, what is clear is that they copied each other in this instance.

Read the chapters and makeup your own mind;

INTERRELATIONSHIP or PLAGERISM?

Notice Precious Stone avoided my above point that explains the origins of the bibles bookk!!

i dont Post on the fourm a lot but ive seen a few of your postdude it seems like you are really going out of your way to attack the Christian faith.



Find another Hobby dude it's getting old.blkangry

Since you read it, it achieved the desired effect in at least one person, which was to be read and considered, the conclusion you make is of your own determination.

" A classic example of an incorrect Bible teaching can be seen in the account of the opposition that Christian theologians mounted against Galileo's proof of the Copernican doctrine of the double motion of the earth. In the sixteenth century, Copernicus set forth the idea that the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun, and in the following century Galileo's telescope provided strong evidence that Copernicus had been right. In opposing the Copernican doctrine and attempting to show that the earth remains stationary while the sun moves around it, the Catholic Church pointed to the tenth chapter of the book of Joshua. There we are told that Joshua, in order to have a longer period of daylight in which to carry out the Lord's command to slaughter the Amorites, told the sun to stand still -- and not the earth. Other passages demonstrating that the Bible writers thought that the earth remains stationary include Psalm 93:1 ("The world also is established, that it cannot be moved.")


Because of Galileo's advocacy of the Copernican doctrine, the Inquisition threatened him with torture, forced him to recant his support for that doctrine, and sentenced him to imprisonment. In addition, based upon the teachings of the Bible, for nearly two hundred years the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books condemned all writings, which affirmed the idea of the double motion of the earth. Moreover, for generations the major branches of the Protestant church -- Lutheran, Calvinist, and Anglican -- denounced the Copernican doctrine as being contrary to scripture.


The Bible also grossly errs in upholding the viewpoint that the earth is flat. In the sixth century, a Christian monk named Cosmas wrote a book entitled Topographia Christian in which he described the structure of the physical world. Cosmas based his conclusions on the teachings of the Bible and held that the earth is flat and surrounded by four seas. One of the reasons for Cosmas' belief in a flat earth was the statement at Revelation 1:7 that, when Christ returns, "every eye shall see him." Cosmas reasoned that if the earth were round instead of flat, people on the other side would not be able to see Christ's Second Coming. Further support for the idea of a flat earth is contained in the Bible verses which speak of the "Four Corners of the earth" (e.g., Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1) and the "ends of the earth" (e.g., Jeremiah 16:19; Acts 13:47). As a consequence of such Bible teachings, most of the early church fathers believed that the earth is flat. Also, the view of the world as set forth in Cosmas' book was for several centuries accepted as part of the orthodox Christian doctrine. In addition, when Christopher Columbus proposed, in the fifteenth century, the idea of sailing west from Spain to reach the East Indies, biblical support for the notion of the earth's flatness was a major source of opposition to his proposal.

The Bible also naively asserts that the earth rests upon pillars. The "pillars" of the earth are referred to in several verses in the Old Testament (I Samuel 2:8; Psalm 75:3; Job 9:6), but no explanation is given as to what the pillars themselves were thought to stand upon. Perhaps that issue was not even considered by the writers of the Bible, as logic obviously was not their strong point. In any event, such verses are a reflection of the belief of the ancient Hebrews that the earth sits upon pillars.


In addition, the Bible contradicts modern medical science by declaring that illnesses and other physical maladies result from supernatural agencies, such as the activity of demons, rather than from physical causes. In describing Jesus' healing miracles, the New Testament states that the following afflictions were produced by demons: blindness (Matthew 12:22), muteness (Matthew 9:32-33), lameness (Luke 13:11,16), epilepsy (Matthew 17:14-18) and insanity (Mark 5:1-13). As a result of such teachings, the early church leaders generally discouraged the view that illnesses are caused by natural processes and supported the idea of demonic agency as the primary cause of disease. For example, St. Augustine, whose views strongly influenced Western thought for over a thousand years, said in the fourth century: "All diseases of Christians are to be ascribed to these demons.... "

"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these." Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643


"It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland's 'Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury', is the following passage: 'Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam." in "History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge", Higgins p.318

"It is now generally agreed that 9-20 are not an original part of Mk. They are not found in the oldest MSS, and indeed were apparently not in the copies used by Mt. and Lk. A 10th-cent. Armenian MS ascribes the passage to Aristion, the presbyter mentioned by Papias (ap.Eus.HE III, xxxix, 15)."
"Indeed an Armenian translation of St. Mark has quite recently been discovered, in which the last twelve verses of St. Mark are ascribed to Ariston, who is otherwise known as one of the earliest of the Christian Fathers; and it is quite possible that this tradition is correct" Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, F. Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, pp. 7-8

"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...." in "It is Human, Yet Divine" by W Graham Scroggie, p. 17


"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors" Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p.633

There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..." in "The Call of the Minaret," Kenneth Cragg, p 277

"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written" Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117


"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference" in Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3

"... I want to encourage anything that's a statement against Christianity, because over the past 500 years Christian missionaries systematically destroyed virtually all of world's diverse cultures, making the world a much less interesting place.

No other religion -- Buddhism, Islam, Confucianism, Paganism -- did anywhere near the damage Christianity did. Bishop Landa burned almost all the one-of-a-kind Mayan codices -- an incalculable historical loss. There have been so many atrocities (like the Inquisition and the Salem witch trials) in the name of Christianity that -- it can't be too soon to be rid of that alien belief plague. In fact, aliens from Outer Space could hardly have devised a more crippling weapon against the people of planet Earth than the Christian religion."
[V. Vale, Re/Search #12: Modern Primitives]

@ Precious Stone

clp) clp) clp) clp)



Could have put it better myself niceone.gif





Precious Stone wrote:

chinkkie -- i like your syle and the way you've put your arguments across.

Unfortunately it's no good trying to convince these people that don't want to look into it more deeply. They don't consider the physical, psychological or philosophical aspects of their religion. Truth is irrelevant as they have god on their side (yeah right, whatever)

christianity is just a byword for ignorance and intolarance. I regard the bible as nothing more than a spiritual tabloid.

Gun in one hand and bible in the other(isn't that how they enslaved our people).