Why should the authors of the Bible be considered any more credible than...?

Question

...Muhammed, Joseph Smith, or L. Ron Hubbard. They all claim to have been divinely inspired. I think they were probably all delusional.

Answer 1

For starters, many of the stories in Scripture are backed up by eyewitnesses of the day (feeding the 5,000, preaching to 500) and often times names and places are given so that people of the day could verify those stories.

That style of "verifiable" information was crucial to the day. That's how business was done.

Joseph Smith doesn't have that kind of backing, and L. Ron Hubbard admits he made up scientology on a Navy boat in the 1950's.

Answer 2

how credible is the following?

1 kings 7.23

useing that to make a building, where the radius is 10 cubics and the circumfrence is 30 cubics, i find that the circle won't work, due to the ratio of pi

Thus, I would think the other 3 authors listed might be more credible. Let's examine them.

Muhammed . . not an author. Qur'an written by Muhammed's secretary during and after his life. The mathametics of this is foolish there is passage about inheritence after a mans death that result in 13/12 portions, not correct math, its not possible

L Ron Hubbard "I'm going to start a religion cause thats where the money is"
Not divinely inspired

Joseph Smith . . . .Indeed, the man had 54 wives yes? He used words to deceive men to make whoopy with their wives.

I'm sorry. If there is a God we won't find him in a book, not that I have read. I wish for one.

In the meantime I look to my own heart. Which tells me its ok to love my fellow man as I love myself.

Go in peace to love and serve your God, in your own fashion, something tells me you and me serve the same God.

We have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

Answer 3

The authors of the Bible were closest to the actual events and fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

Muhammed appeared on the scene independent from the Apostolic mark of the Church. Joseph Smith, and L Ron Hubbard modern reformist completely seperated from this Apostolic mark of the Church.

What authenticates the original Apostles is the laying on of hands to signify authority throughout the two thousand years of Chrisitianity. This concept of Apostolic authority and unity with the written accounts in the Holy Bible are the checks and balances that Jesus Christ established.

Jesus said there would be false members ie. Judas Iscariot that would fall away, even after they proclaimed to be faithful members.

Answer 4

None of these men are authors of the Bible. Where did you get that idea? Joseph Smith supposedly translated the Book of Mormon from plates of gold, but he didn't write it.
L. Ron Hubbard was the founder of Scientology.
And Muhammed was a prophet.
There are no authors of the Bible - just translators of what was written or spoken by God, prophets, apostles and Jesus.

Answer 5

Authors of the Bible shouldn't be considered credible at all. The Bible is really just a fake story, perhaps a bit like the Loch Ness monster tales.

When we pass on information to another (example: story, joke, description of something etc) by the time these details are passed on by word of mouth, interpreted by others, and then written down, the final details are typically quite different than the original information.

Since the Bible is just a man-made story passed down over many years in various forms, the chance of it being accurate in any shape or form is remote.

There are people who swear blind that the Loch Ness monster exists regardless of all the evidence to the contrary, but a fence post bobbing up and down in the Loch does the trick. Similarly there are people who swear blind that God exists and the Bible is fact, yet there isn’t one blind bit of evidence to support such theories.

Answer 6

While there are some good books in the bible, It should be kept in mind that the bible was put in its current form by the council of nicea around 300 ad. With the Roman empire expanding into new territory and therefor new religious areas it was necessary to have a unifying religion ie. you allow a yule tree(christmas now) and you allow the same date but now you say it is Christs birthday , its a compromise. However I think it would be naive to think that the people who picked and chose between many, many books what to include in their bible would not further their own hidden (or not) agenda....If you would like to see what they left out and destroyed every copy of search DEAD SEA SCROLLS or gnostic texts.

Good Luck,
Ormus

Answer 7

The Bible is God's inspired Word.

Answer 8

Well, thats why there are so many different religions. Lots and lots of delusional people. I guess a few of them could have been right, I don`t know. I`m not an athesist, but I`m not one of those stupid people who think Science is wrong and their religion is right.

Answer 9

The writers of the bible were just humans like the rest of us with all the same fallacies we all have. They were recording history as to how they saw it with all their personal bias' intact. Every historian does that which is why with any history you have to read between the lines to gain what truth may be there.

Answer 10

the authors of the bible may have been pure at heart, it's the religion that took hold that could corrupt the bible. look at some basic things, nowhere in the bible does it swearing is bad, nowhere in the bible does it say drinking alchohol is bad (however drinking in excessive amounts is bad)