To all the Christian's that answered the question...?

Question

about putting words in god's mouth. Almost all of you said it was a sin. But, then turned around and said God said everything in the Bible. But, worn't those stories by word of mouth for centuries before people could actually write what was spoken? Have any of you ever played telephone where you start at one end and you say a sentence and you say it to the person next to you and then they say it to someone next the them and when you get to the end of the line it never sounds anything like what came out of your mouth? Isn't that the same thing as putting words in Gods mouth?

God inspired Jim Jones too but nobody said he was a prophit. and yes writing was being done but the poor weren't taught how to write. it's just like salves not being taught how to read. that's how you control the population. only the wealthy were taught to read.

Answer 1

God inspired the prophets to write the bible, it is the Word of God and what we have to go on. However I don't and am not spoon fed by religious leaders. I am glad that we are free in the US to own a bible and read for ourselves.

Answer 2

If you reject God's Word as God's Word as the starting point, you have decided the question before you begin.

If you want to know what God's Word says about it self, then it has some answers for you, starting with 2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

If the Bible was passed by word of mouth, i.e. memorized carefully, is that any less accurate than printing or writing? If God is superintending the preservation of His Word, is He any less able to do so for the memorized word than the written word? Why limit God in that way? Why think that the people of the ages past were any less smart, intelligent, or capable than people are today? If there were few written texts, why would that mean that people were illiterate?

For example, there are less than 400 copies known to exist of Homer's Illiad, but there are more than 24,000 ancient Scripture portions known to exist. Do you accept the Illiad as what Homer wrote? Then why not accept God's word?

But if you have already decided, then nothing can change your mind.

Answer 3

You're right, the Bible was written 200 years after Jesus died. Not only that but it was written by ordinary men, men are flawed and bias. Also, like you said too much time has passed and there have been to many different translations...who knows what God's word is nowadays, the Bible has been used to much to fit people's agenda. That's why belief in God should be more important to Christians then words in some book.

Seems like people think if there is no Bible, there'd be no God. That's not the case people, God didn't literally appear to these men and told them what to write. If he did, I'm sure we would have heard about it...and who knows if this "inspiration" was God...we don't. Jesus was just a prophet spreading a message and somehow Christians mistook that as meaning that Jesus is actually the one true God. I wonder how he feels about that? How some put prophets before him.

Answer 4

If I convey thought by words and find the meaning to be obscure to others, then I can rephrase the words. Is the second attempt a sin? The bible is not going to be changed, and we don’t know how many revisions some portions have undergone, and it is not that important, because the spiritual truths being conveyed are absolute, even though somewhat obscure, as human concepts are used to convey spiritual ideas. One must look beyond the words to find the prize. The written word doesn’t put words in God’s mouth because He speaks spiritually, although some will attempt to hide truth by adulterating words and writings.

Answer 5

It is a know fact that writing was in use as early as the time of Abraham. We have the Sumerian Tablets, found within a hundred miles of where Abraham lived, that date from the same century in which he lived, that show writing for record keeping and for literature was common. Abraham first appears in the 12th chapter of the Bible.

So of the 1189 chapters in 66 books, 1177 of the chapters and 65 of the 66 books could have been written at the time they happened. That means only about 1% of the Bible might have had to be passed down as only an oral tradition. And since writing was already common by Genesis 11, it could extend further back then that. By the second book of the Bible (Exodus), it is already talking about at what point Moses and the others sat down and wrote out what he had said and done.

When you get into the history of King David in 1 and 2 Samuel, it is very obvious that the author of that section was very familiar with David and his actions, temperament, and personality. It had to have been recorded by someone who actually knew and lived with David and wrote it, if not in David's lifetime, within a handful of years of his death. There was no "oral tradition" involved.

Same when you get into the 16 books of the prophets. There is not a serious scholar who does not believe that those books where penned by the real prophets during their lifetimes. Same with history books like Ezra and Nehemiah. There is some question over whether some of the books may have been edited at a later date, but there is question that they were originally written at the time they happened.

But the time you reach the New Testament, you have all by 5 books that were letters written between individuals and churches. Again, no oral tradition has ever been hinted at for 75% of the New Testament. The remaining five books are the Gospels and the book of Acts. There is ample evidence (existing manuscripts, quotes in other wrtting, inscriptions, etc.) to show that four of those books existed within 35 years of the time of Christ. Possibly as early as 17 years. As there would have still been thousands of people alive who knew Jesus and had heard him personally, it would have been difficult to have totally altered the stories and saying.

The last book produced, the gospel of John, was written about 60-65 after the time of Christ and shortly before the death of John. When he wrote, he had the other three gospels available to him. Almost everything he tells us are stories that the other three did not include (why repeat what they had written?). But with each story, John takes the time to comment on the meaning of Jesus' words or actions. Each one was designed to dispute a heresy or false teaching that had crept into the church during his life time. Yet he never disputes one word of the other three gospels. So even Jesus' closest friend approved of what the others had written. If they had altered the story, you can be sure John would have said so. He said it about everyone else.

Then you also seem to not understand what "oral tradition" means. It is much different then the telephone game. An Oral Tradition is a carefully structured story designed to be passed from generation to generation. Take a look at Genesis chapter 1 (the only chapter of the Bible which absolutely had to have been an oral tradition - since God had to have told man what he did before man was created). It constructed with certain repeating patterns ("And God said", "It was good", etc.). In the original language, the stressed and unstressed words follow a pattern similar to modern poetry. Words that begin with the same sound or letter are carefully placed. Sentences are balanced to counteract with each other - same number of words in each. The whole thing is designed so that the changing of even one word in the chapter would be obvious to anyone hearing it. Then it would be repeated over and over until the person responsible for keeping the tradition could recite it flawlessly.

We have not even talked about memory aids. The person who had was responsible for the traditions would have a staff, or other item, that was curved with symbols and notches that related to the tradition he guarded. As he told the story, he would follow the markings around and up the staff to help him keep his place in the story. Each mark would relate to a stanza in the poetic story he was telling. If there were not the right number of lines and words in between each marking, you knew the story had been altered. Go back and read in Genesis and Exodus about that staffs the early Jews carried as their symbols of authority. Those would have been the carved staffs of the oral tradition. That is what Moses turned into a serpent in front of Pharoah, what he held out to part the sea, what he used to strike the rock and produce water, etc.

So the arguement that the Bible can not be believed because it is an oral tradition has no basis in facts.

Answer 6

Were you reading my mind? I have lost all faith in man to be able to teach me of God's word because they have given me just cause. All I have left to live on is to believe that there is something out there that is far better than the days we live in and am unable to trust in the words of a sinner to show me the way. People ask the questions, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" We all know the answer. Now, "If millions all around the earth believe in the love of God and he has been presented to you at some point in your life, is there a God?" Of course! But I don't need to be in the presence of every tree that is falling to know it makes a sound as I don't need to be in the presence of sinners to know there is a God. Point being, I have a hard time excepting all things written by man from something that was word of mouth. One day I will meet my maker and hear it from Him.

Answer 7

If it was true that some of the Bible was corrrupted by that "telephone thing", it still isn't the same things as putting words in God's mouth. That would be like just taking some sentences or something that you think is important, and adding that to the Bible like it was gospel truth. (no pun intended)

Besides, don't you think that an all-powerful God would care enough about getting His Word written down properly, that IF it had to passed along by word of mouth, He would ensure that it got passed along correctly?

Answer 8

Are you familiar with the word "inspired?" The Bible is the INSPIRED word of God. That means that God, as the Holy Spirit, brought the Bible into being through various individuals through the ages. So no, it isn't putting words into God's mouth, it is God putting words into the hearts and minds of men. god Bless.

Answer 9

2 TIMOTHY 3:16-17

- People probably wrote a whole lot more then than we do now because there were as far as we know only two ways to keep records & record history; writing & talking.
___________________________________________

- The Bible is filled with references of the cammand to the prophets to write down the message of God & the written letters of the Apostles.

- Read the Bible so you will have clarity.

- It is ignorant to say someone was told by God to do something if it is not supported by the Word of God.

Answer 10

First, worn't isn't a word. What I think you meant to spell is(weren't).

No, it's not like putting words in God's mouth. Don't you understand that the WORD of God is from HIM. The Word of God is infallible. It can't be destroyed. Man may try to change it, of course. But the true Word will never fail nor will it change. Telling a story or a message led by God is not like lying. It's inspired by Him and given to mankind to spread the TRUTH. That truth is infallible and un-changing. Remember what God says ... that's it.