Who exactly do non-Catholics think compiled the Bible? Is their answer "It compiled itself"?

The Holy Spirit of God was present at that convention, but the men working on the bible already had the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit within them.

Which is secondary to the authors of the 66 books of the bible having the Holy Spirit of God as their indwelling inspiration.

Because it was not written by Enoch, and never taken as scripture by the Hebrews. It also contains many errors. In fact, just by quoting one phrase from it, the book of Jude almost didn't make it into the bible.

so are you pretending the council of nicaea never happened? are you pretending there weren't 100s of books claiming to be inspired and it was catholic bishops who created the modern bible.

What is it with protestants trading loving dialogue for Catholic bashing. I find most Catholics to be much more loving and caring about Christ's actual message then Protestants. And if you've ever actually opened a catholic Bible (I'm not a Catholic BTW), you will see your claims about adding content about mary rediculous.

You also seem to be very self righteous. The same thing you are accusing Catholics of being

Catholics are basically just pagans and romanists appropriating Jew mythology. Protestants might be crazy but they're at least true to the letter.
t. atheist

I'm not pretending anything. Nor do you know what happened at the Council of Nicea, if you think they developed a canon there.

I care nothing for Rome, for Catholicism, or for Roman councils. Or for any Pontifex Maximux, emperor or pope.

They don't even know the message. They're following satan's gospel, which is why it does not offend you.

The gospel of the cross, the gospel of Jesus Christ, offends people.

And you appear to make accusations that are better suited to yourself than to others.

The Bible you use came to you through their hands whether you like it or not.

See

It most certainly did not.

There have been Christians for centuries who never bent the knee to Rome, and who Rome did not manage to murder.

Furthermore, there were Christians for centuries prior to the advent of Roman Catholicism, and there will be Christians forever in heaven while papists burn in hell for all of the evil that they do.

Why does anyone take the Bible as the word of God? The Old Testament contains hundreds of years of obvious oral embellishments (remember when humans lived more than 200 years?), and the oldest book of the New Testament was written DECADES after the resurrection of Christ but everyone treats the contradictory first-hand accounts as equal.

>the Bible
>Oral traditions in Hebrew and Arameic and other languages. Written in Hebrew, Arameic and Greek. Translated, copied, edited and embellished countless times in dozens of languages. Resulting in hundreds of versions.
Tell me again how it is the ONE true word of God.

We do because everything you just said is false.

The OT is a written tradition, not an oral tradition.
The copying process was more exact than anything you have ever done.
It tells the plain truth of the events that happened.
Remember the world before the Flood? No, of course you don't. You think everything has always been the same, because you've been indoctrinated by foolish theories of incrementalism and rationalism.
The witnesses to the life, death and resurrection wrote in the time of hundreds, if not thousands, of eyewitnesses to the events, and there are exactly ZERO contradictory accounts.

Nor does anything in the bible contradict anything else in the bible.

Finally, the bible is 30% prophecy, and all biblical prophecy comes true when it is supposed to come true.

Wholeheartedly believing in this, knowing what we know today, is like watching every step of a cow being turned into a cooked steak and still believing the steak was always a steak.

Reading that, and your posts, makes people less intelligent than they were 10 seconds prior.

It can't be said that there isn't a high degree of agreement in the translations and canons. It's probably more of a problem the more recent the translations are.

The Bible is so full of contradictions it would take an entire thread to list them all.

u smell of anus

>knowing what we know today
Like, how the OT is far from original? How committees descided which books ara canon? How the stories of Jesus are
amalgamations of contemporary myths and prophecies? How the gospels contradict each other on key points?

God seems not very avid at publishing. Perhaps a single truth for the ages would have been a better idea.

Literalism is stupid.

Yes, your misunderstandings and false allegations would take a long time. Why bother.

Siding with a known heretic is stupid.

>high degree of agreement
Good to know what standard God adheres.

Must be your upper fingertips from shitposting.

At least Aesop's fables were internally consistent.

...

And yet they were not.

Genesis 11:26 does not teach that Abraham was born when Terah was 70. This verse basically means that Terah began having children at age 70, not that all three children were born at that age.

Took like 30 seconds to google.

yeah but there was no bible before the advent of Roman Catholicism

Unconditional love offends people. Try having a debate with an athiest and say how much you love them. For protestants it literally "lets see how legalistic I can towards others not myself, then claim persecution when people despise that"

Yet somehow there is no way to distinguish these true Christians from the Catholic/Orthodox communities they lived in. Almost as if they're figments of your imagination

Uncohesive dogma is stupid.

Which part of the post are you contesting?

Genesis 11:26
26 Now Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Lie about the verse, then say the verse is wrong.

Unbelievable.

You are quite insane. The bible was written between 32 AD and 95 AD. Where did the bible go, in your imagination, until 325 AD?

He was declared a heretic long after he was dead and buried. There is no reason to believe people at the time thought him thus

>For protestants
Spotted the papist.

There absolutely is, but only for 1) born again Christians 2) given the gift of discernment who 3) test those who say they are in the faith 4) but are not.

>The truth is stupid.

Hence the mess that is your life.

The comment was to Aesop's fables not being contradictory.

Because of what he did when he was alive. Which mostly involved denying the nature of God and cutting out parts of the bible.

The books were written around that time, but their was no single list of which books were cannon and which were not. Many books popular then are considered heretical or at least not cannon now

You make it seem as though nobody ever had a collection of those 66 books prior to (not the council of Nicea) the council of Trent.

Pure papist garbage.

So magic basically.

unconditional love despite trying to murder everyone who isn't you for 1500 years?

A bunch of Greeks, who BTFOd the Bishop of Rome whenever he tried overstepping his bounds?

The gifts and works of God do appear as magic to the children of the devil, because magic is what the devil does best.

That is not what I said

I haven't read them all. It was a spot of idle punditry.

Aye, they loved at least 68,000,000 people to death in the past thousand years. Bloodiest and most evil institution on earth.

It was a sane response to your absurd post. The absurdity is on you, not me.

Who care's what some old geezers believed was the age of the world before modern archaeology and science. They were just going by the information they had available which happened to be a part of their religious scripture. It doesn't show whether they believed in the creation feats literally.

Ah, yes, the old iron chariots. Somehow God is weaker than iron chariots, even though he created the sun.

Let's think about that for a moment, shall we?

If you believe the mess that is current scientism today, you are ten times more the fool.

The Bible didn't exist until 325 AD. The Bible represent less than 10% of Judeo-Christian texts that existed in 325. The bible is just an edit that conforms to the political agendas of various church fathers, as clearly seen in the letters that they sent to each other. Also some of the books in the bible were edited at teh request of these church fathers...so they weren't finished until 325

I said the books were written but not universally agreed upon and many books considered noncannon today were included by many Christian groups.

That is one hundred percent true

>religious DOGMAS should change based on empirical evidence
It's not really religion then.

Also that picture BTFOs your claim that young Earth creationism was started by protestants.

Yes, it just materialized in Constantine's hands. Nobody had any copies.

Even though today we have over 24,000 manuscripts, many of which predate Constantine.

Whoops.

I would not give you a single penny to find out what papists think are the "proper" books in the bible.

What errors exactly are present? It reads like an apocalyptic companion piece to Genesis.

Do you know the difference between a copy of a book found in the bible today and a copy of the bible?

Who exactly do Christians think wrote the bible? Is their answer "god wrote it", or do they in fact know that they worship a work of man?

There exists 0 (zero) complete bibles or copies of which that existed before the 300s buddy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
you can keep talking about how the source material is older, it doesn't change the fact that the bible is representative of Catholic cannon, not all Christian texts. If you take the bible literally its because you're following Catholic rules.

Even God is a titanic fuckup sometimes.

If this were the literary work of one man, he would be laughed at through the ages.

“And for all of you sinners there shall be no salvation". Enoch Chapter 5:6

That would directly contradict, well, everything in the bible.

It was not written by Enoch, the 7th son of Adam. It was written between 300 BC and 100 AD by various people, none of whom were divinely inspired.

Holy shit. If you try one more time to give the Catholic church the credit for assembling the bible, I'll let the Orthodox guy tear you a new asshole.

Correct. And yet, with tens of thousands of manuscripts in a dozen countries or more, we can know what the original said at 99.5% confidence levels.

Nothing in your life is at a 99.5% confidence level.

Look dude you're the one worshipping a book made by Catholics. There were hundreds and hundreds of religious texts that the Catholics decided not to include. If you don't want to worship Catholic cannon I suggest you read those or go searching in the deserts of Israel for the missing pieces.

I worship the one true God, who is also called the Word of God in the word of God.

I have nothing to do with papists.

I'm sorry but I didn't even bring that up, the Catholic/Orthodox were a single faction at the time anyway, though the orthodox poster is right that the council of Nicea was dominated by Greeks

And again you can't figure it out.

The bible has 66 books.

The Catholic bible CHANGED THE BIBLE and THEN ADDED MORE NON-SCRIPTURAL BOOKS TO IT.

Get it, yet?

And he was right that the RCC had nothing to do with creating the books of the bible.

Your asinine statement that nobody had all 66 books prior to the COUNCIL OF TRENT IN THE 16TH CENTURY is as foolish as you are.

Then you might want to acknowledge that the bible is Catholic and the ones who said the bible is gods word are also Catholics. God might get angry that you were in bed with papists all along.

Enjoy your polio and syphilis
>beliefs should change based on empirical evidence
ftfy

the septuaginta that was quotex by paul and other apostles had way more than 66 books though

I didn't say that.

Are you aware there is more than one person here disagreeing with you?

Orthodox actually

The bible existed for 300 YEARS BEFORE THERE WERE CATHOLICS.

Enjoy your Atomism.

It did not. It had 39. Just like today's Old Testament.

How can a man tell fools apart?

As though there were a difference.

Left leg, right leg. Both will be destroyed when the entire statue is destroyed.

Codices are largely attributable to the advent of Christianism, that's probably a main reason why there weren't "complete" manuscripts.

Also for all the talk of who compiled the Bible you'd think the Jews would get more credit.

>beliefs should change based on empirical evidence
No, they literally shouldn't. Christianity is not compatible with empiricism.

Then Christians should stop arguing with empiricist disciplines like science and history

The Protestant Bible is literally the Catholic bible with a few word changes though. Anything with "bible" in the name is based on the catholic bible with exception of the Coptic and Ethiopian texts, which also were arbitrarily created with a small percentage of existing texts. What do you propose constitutes cannon?
"Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The New Testament books receiving the most controversy were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, and 3 John." ????
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment ????
"While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. " ????
There wasn't even a old testement cannon until 250 AD lmao
"The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative."
????

"None of whom were divinely inspired"

This is ultimately irrelevant. Whether inspired or not, it is still man who wrote the text that we have today. Also, any claim to inspiration rests solely on the human author, unless there's some other source.

Christians, and anyone else that takes hebrew mythology so seriously, is fundamentally in love with the works of man and has divorced himself from the divine. It's the greatest, and most terrible and harmful, self-own of all time.