Who wrote the Bible?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Now you know why I'm a Babylonian pagan and not a Norse pagan.

Yeah, the Norse gods know why, too. That's why they mention Babylon so much in the Bible, just to discourage folks like you. *nod*

... and the reason why the Bible makes Nebuchadnezzar out to be some psychotic incompetent.

It all makes so much sense now.

[Zilam]

I believe the second option. God didn't write it himself and send it down. Rather, people who were influenced by the Holy Spirit wrote what they experienced and felt.

[Ceannairceach]

Yeah, the Norse gods know why, too. That's why they mention Babylon so much in the Bible, just to discourage folks like you. *nod*

... and the reason why the Bible makes Nebuchadnezzar out to be some psychotic incompetent.

It all makes so much sense now.

It all just adds up that only Loki Lie-Smith could have ever written such a book.

Quite obviously the only true course of action now is to hold a Blot.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

We can't particularly identify authors by name, but we can analyse the text to identify primarily how many authors there were and secondly which parts they wrote.

Perhaps, I don't agree the inconsistencies really take anything away from it as the basis of a religion (I'm deliberately speaking objectively) as it shows an account of a deities dealings with a group of humans over a rather large period of time. Sometimes it mentions what people believed at certain times, so the fact that the Israelites were polytheists for a long time does not take away anything. Especially if you use the bible in addition to tradition, reason and experience as the foundation of faith.

Even if you take into account the Book of Deuteronomy was created specifically by King Josiah's high priest to justify his pro-Yahweh reforms?

[Skenderos]

If I remember right, the exact composition that made up the bible during most of the middle ages, was created by the Romans, who decided what went in and what didn't. The first bible however, was written by the Greeks, before being translated into Hebrew. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Before the schism in 1054, the religious authorities decided which books would be accepted into the cannon. After the schism, the Catholics dropped some Old Testament books, and then even later, the Protestants dropped even more Old Testament books. The Eastern Orthodox church has the same amount of books as was decided on by the religious athourities. The Old Testament was orriginally written in Hebrew and Aramaic. It was then translated into Koine Greek (the Septuagint), and then all the other languages of the world. The New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek, although there's some evidence the Gospel of Mathew was orginally written in Aramaic. Then the bible was translated into Latin (the Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome) and then all the other languages.

[The Realm of God]

Yeah, the Norse gods know why, too. That's why they mention Babylon so much in the Bible, just to discourage folks like you. *nod*

... and the reason why the Bible makes Nebuchadnezzar out to be some psychotic incompetent.

It all makes so much sense now.

That and it was written during a time when he wasn't exactly popular among Jewish chroniclers, making people look like oaefs in documents isn't exactly a new thing.

[Ceannairceach]

... and the reason why the Bible makes Nebuchadnezzar out to be some psychotic incompetent.

It all makes so much sense now.

That and it was written during a time when he wasn't exactly popular among Jewish chroniclers, making people look like oaefs in documents isn't exactly a new thing.

What do Jewish scholars have to do with Loki?

[The Realm of God]

Perhaps, I don't agree the inconsistencies really take anything away from it as the basis of a religion (I'm deliberately speaking objectively) as it shows an account of a deities dealings with a group of humans over a rather large period of time. Sometimes it mentions what people believed at certain times, so the fact that the Israelites were polytheists for a long time does not take away anything. Especially if you use the bible in addition to tradition, reason and experience as the foundation of faith.

Even if you take into account the Book of Deuteronomy was created specifically by King Josiah's high priest to justify his pro-Yahweh reforms?

*Nods*

If you believe as a liturgical Christian (and Talmudic Judaism) does that God sometimes works through people unwittingly then yes it is of no consequence.

[Skenderos]

I believe the second option. God didn't write it himself and send it down. Rather, people who were influenced by the Holy Spirit wrote what they experienced and felt.

That is true, but sometomes, the didn't just feel the Holy Spirit, they had visions, such as the Apocalypse of St. John

[Nationalist State of Knox]

... and the reason why the Bible makes Nebuchadnezzar out to be some psychotic incompetent.

It all makes so much sense now.

It all just adds up that only Loki Lie-Smith could have ever written such a book.

Quite obviously the only true course of action now is to hold a Blot.

I was hoping to wait until Blótmónaþ, but drastic times, I guess.

[The Realm of God]

That and it was written during a time when he wasn't exactly popular among Jewish chroniclers, making people look like oaefs in documents isn't exactly a new thing.

What do Jewish scholars have to do with Loki?

Jewish Scholars probably wrote the Book of Daniel....

[Nationalist State of Knox]

... and the reason why the Bible makes Nebuchadnezzar out to be some psychotic incompetent.

It all makes so much sense now.

That and it was written during a time when he wasn't exactly popular among Jewish chroniclers, making people look like oaefs in documents isn't exactly a new thing.

But it certainly reveals a lot of bias behind the Bible's authors.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Even if you take into account the Book of Deuteronomy was created specifically by King Josiah's high priest to justify his pro-Yahweh reforms?

*Nods*

If you believe as a liturgical Christian (and Talmudic Judaism) does that God sometimes works through people unwittingly then yes it is of no consequence.

How odd.

What do Jewish scholars have to do with Loki?

Jewish Scholars probably wrote the Book of Daniel....

In around 200 AD, yes.

[The Realm of God]

That and it was written during a time when he wasn't exactly popular among Jewish chroniclers, making people look like oaefs in documents isn't exactly a new thing.

But it certainly reveals a lot of bias behind the Bible's authors.

Bias is not a bad thing, you just need to know what the bias is. It would present a problem if God told them to 'recite' verbatim but for all we know, he didn't so perhaps the authors left their bias in their work.

[Ceannairceach]

What do Jewish scholars have to do with Loki?

Jewish Scholars probably wrote the Book of Daniel....

No, that was Loki. All of the Bible was written by Loki. Haven't you been paying attention?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

But it certainly reveals a lot of bias behind the Bible's authors.

Bias is not a bad thing, you just need to know what the bias is. It would present a problem if God told them to 'recite' verbatim but for all we know, he didn't so perhaps the authors left their bias in their work.

The bias inherent in the scriptures, along with the other factors, help to expose much of the Bible as a work if convenient propaganda rather than a holy text.

[The Realm of God]

*Nods*

If you believe as a liturgical Christian (and Talmudic Judaism) does that God sometimes works through people unwittingly then yes it is of no consequence.

How odd.

Jewish Scholars probably wrote the Book of Daniel....

In around 200 AD, yes.

It's not odd, Origen did it in his exegesis of the Bible in the third century so interpreting the Bible like that isn't exactly new. The main problem with modern Christianity is a creeping fundamentalism that has popped up since the '60's.

I am discerning a call the Priesthood allow me to quote a book I've been asked to read.

'Whenever exponents of the Christian faith treat it (the Bible-parentheses mine) as something which we have to defend like a beleaguered fortress or a fragile structure they are making God to be smaller than he is. There is an idea that the greatness of the God of the Bible is protected by a kind of defensive literalism which insists on the historicity of the narratives and supposes that to waver on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the sojourn of Jonah in the whale is to make grievous concessions to modern secularism. But the God of the Bible is majestic enough not to require such protection, as he is able to use in his scriptures not only literal history but poetry, drama, myth and symbol also in conveying his truth to mankind."
-The Christian Priest Today-Michael Ramsey, Chapter 4, 25-26.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

How odd.


In around 200 AD, yes.

It's not odd, Origen did it in his exegesis of the Bible in the third century so interpreting the Bible like that isn't exactly new. The main problem with modern Christianity is a creeping fundamentalism that has popped up since the '60's.

I am discerning a call the Priesthood allow me to quote a book I've been asked to read.

'Whenever exponents of the Christian faith treat it (the Bible-parentheses mine) as something which we have to defend like a beleaguered fortress or a fragile structure they are making God to be smaller than he is. There is an idea that the greatness of the God of the Bible is protected by a kind of defensive literalism which insists on the historicity of the narratives and supposes that to waver on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the sojourn of Jonah in the whale is to make grievous concessions to modern secularism. But the God of the Bible is majestic enough not to require such protection, as he is able to use in his scriptures not only literal history but poetry, drama, myth and symbol also in conveying his truth to mankind."
-The Christian Priest Today-Michael Ramsey, Chapter 4, 25-26.

So, I take it you're not too fussed about Yahweh originally being the Mars of the Hebrew pantheon?

[Blakullar]

I wonder if the Bible was written as a joke?

"Haw haw haw, let's see if we can't fuck with the world's heads for millennia!"

[The Realm of God]

It's not odd, Origen did it in his exegesis of the Bible in the third century so interpreting the Bible like that isn't exactly new. The main problem with modern Christianity is a creeping fundamentalism that has popped up since the '60's.

I am discerning a call the Priesthood allow me to quote a book I've been asked to read.

'Whenever exponents of the Christian faith treat it (the Bible-parentheses mine) as something which we have to defend like a beleaguered fortress or a fragile structure they are making God to be smaller than he is. There is an idea that the greatness of the God of the Bible is protected by a kind of defensive literalism which insists on the historicity of the narratives and supposes that to waver on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch or the sojourn of Jonah in the whale is to make grievous concessions to modern secularism. But the God of the Bible is majestic enough not to require such protection, as he is able to use in his scriptures not only literal history but poetry, drama, myth and symbol also in conveying his truth to mankind."
-The Christian Priest Today-Michael Ramsey, Chapter 4, 25-26.

So, I take it you're not too fussed about Yahweh originally being the Mars of the Hebrew pantheon?

No not really, what people believed then doesn't really affect what people believe now for example the New Testament states (in no uncertain terms) that there is one God and doesn't new revelation from the son of that deity (assuming Christianity is correct) trump the beliefs of those who worshipped YHWH before?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

So, I take it you're not too fussed about Yahweh originally being the Mars of the Hebrew pantheon?

No not really, what people believed then doesn't really affect what people believe now for example the New Testament states (in no uncertain terms) that there is one God and doesn't new revelation from the son of that deity (assuming Christianity is correct) trump the beliefs of those who worshipped YHWH before?

Possibly, but the fact that it's plain to see how the Israelites manufactured Yahweh as the One True God due to their political motives calls into question the validity of the entire faith.

[The Realm of God]

No not really, what people believed then doesn't really affect what people believe now for example the New Testament states (in no uncertain terms) that there is one God and doesn't new revelation from the son of that deity (assuming Christianity is correct) trump the beliefs of those who worshipped YHWH before?

Possibly, but the fact that it's plain to see how the Israelites manufactured Yahweh as the One True God due to their political motives calls into question the validity of the entire faith.

Or God, allowed the Israelites to manufacture his cultus as 'One True God' without them exactly realising, God has certainly been shown to move people to do stuff without doing anything particularly dramatic.. When three world religions assume a near omnipotent deity such a claim isn't particularly ludicrous especially given the quote about.Biblical criticism I shared.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Possibly, but the fact that it's plain to see how the Israelites manufactured Yahweh as the One True God due to their political motives calls into question the validity of the entire faith.

Or God, allowed the Israelites to manufacture his cultus as 'One True God' without them exactly realising. When three world religions assume a near omnipotent deity such a claim isn't particularly ludicrous especially given the quote about.Biblical criticism I shared.

It's not particularly ludicrous, because one of the religions (Judaism) forms the theological and textual basis for the other two. When we observe Yahweh's origins, it's undeniable that he comes from a wider pantheon of gods that were eventually phased out because of political motives, and doesn't particularly suggest the interference of Yahweh in this transition from polytheism to monotheism.

[Jehuddah]

As a person who read all of the Torah, I also noticed such a thing:
Why does in one place he is called Hadonai (In Judaism we don't say Yaweh but Hadonai) and at the other Elohim? And Shaddai?

But I didn't notice the different dialects, they are written in pretty much the same style (At least in the original language Hebrew in which I read in).


The Tanakh is divided to three,
the religious part,
and the historic part,
the mixed parts.

The religious parts include the prophets, the heavenly explanation to historic events etc.
The historic parts include the kings, the wars, the revolution, the exile etc.
The mixed parts include the exodus, destruction of Sodom and Gemora etc.

The historic parts are real,
now, I personally do not believe the religious parts.

I must say you did a large research there.

By the way, there are few books in which we know who wrote:
For example, Solomon wrote:
Mishlei
Kohelet
and Song of Songs.

[The Realm of God]

Or God, allowed the Israelites to manufacture his cultus as 'One True God' without them exactly realising. When three world religions assume a near omnipotent deity such a claim isn't particularly ludicrous especially given the quote about.Biblical criticism I shared.

It's not particularly ludicrous, because one of the religions (Judaism) forms the theological and textual basis for the other two. When we observe Yahweh's origins, it's undeniable that he comes from a wider pantheon of gods that were eventually phased out because of political motives, and doesn't particularly suggest the interference of Yahweh in this transition from polytheism to monotheism.

Key word in your arguement is 'particularly', if we accept that God allows most things to happen ('good' and 'bad') then I'm sure he could have allowed some politicians to declare him the one true God.