How is it possible that over 50 different authors that make up the bible....?

Question

How is it possible that they all wrote pretty much the same story?

What is your opinion?



My opinion is, the origin of the English Bibles of today can be traced to a time when men, supposedly under the divine inspiration of God, first wrote the books of the Bible. Before the fourth century CE, there were more that 30 different gospels, some of which can be found on the Gnostic & Apocrypha page. Many were officially outlawed during the Council Nicaea in 325 CE and the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE.


These councils eventually agreed on what is now considered the "word of God", under the direction of Constantine, collating the ACCEPTED teachings into a single comprehensive book.

The ENTIRE bible that is declared to be the 'word of God' is only the word of the few men that attended the Councils of Nicea.

cmw they are in harmony because the same group of men created what you see today in your bible.

Disprepancies Phoenix? After all the Council was made up of human men. Humans make mistakes.

Answer 1

I disagree with you, but even given your explanation, you leave wide open the entire mystery. Where did these men come up with the books they were to cannonize?

The books of the Bible are by 44 authors, in 3 languages, in 5 countries and about 11 occupations, spanning over 1,500 years. The fact that they are in such incredible harmony is the miracle.

Those who wrote in Babylon did not have a cell phone with which to contact those in Egypt, for example.

EDIT: Sorry, but respectfully, you are missing the point. "Those men" did not write the books. The books existed or they could not have gathered them together.

Answer 2

Well, it's possible that over 50 different authors wrote the books that make up the Bible because all the Books were written separately over the course of hundreds of years. The New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, John the Divine, and maybe a couple others. The Old testament by the named prophets (ezekiel, Jebediah, Hosia, etc), Moses supposedly wrote the first 5 books, etc. All these people lived in different times. Revelation is the most recent and was written in the mid-late 1st century AD. The Books of Moses were written about 750 years BC.

It's not possible that all the authors wrote "pretty much the same story." If you've read the Bible, you will find that other than the 4 gospels, they each tell far different stories. Is Samuel the same as Proverbs or Revelation? Please! Wake up! If you haven't read it, why do you make such comments!?

You are right that the various councils of Nicaea, Hippo, etc. settled on the Catholic Bible in the 4th century. 5 of those books were removed in the Protestant Reformation by Martin Luther and company. So the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are different.

Answer 3

It seems you are unaware that we have extant manuscripts that greatly predate the time you believe the Bible was invented. What you propose is impossible unless the conspirators you propose invented the Bible had a time machine with which to go back and plant manuscripts in their past. Furthermore, the Council of Nicea had nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of Scripture. Dan Brown's notion that the Bishops were burning alternative gospels at this council is pure fiction. The Council of Laodicea did recognize the canon of Scripture but this was more of a stamp of approval on what believers had already settled upon. Church fathers referred to circulating New Testament Scripture as early as the second century. By the third century many Christians were using the same New Testament we have today. The New Testament canon was essentially settled early in the fourth century and during this century the official New Testament canon was declared with increasing authority. There were, as we might expect some differences of opinion along the way to settling the canon but the consensus of the Church over the centuries shows a guiding hand in recognizing what God had given as Scripture.

Answer 4

I disagree with you wholeheartedly. There are many reasons why I disagree, but (regretfully) I will only list a few here:

1) If the gnostic gospels, the apocrypha and the pseudoepocrypha were also Divinely inspired, then we would expect that the doctrines and historic facts taught within them would be CONSISTENT with the remainder of the Bible. However, they are all clearly NOT consistent. Example: the Gospel of Judas teaches, among other things, that Judas was just following the directions of his Master by betraying Jesus; therefore, he is not to blame. This DIRECTLY conflicts with OT prophecy, such as Psalm 41:9 and Zechariah 11:13. Since God is not the author of confusion, the so-called Gospel of Judas is proven to be inspired by man, not God.

2) NONE of the gnostic gospels, the apocrypha and the pseudoepocrypha contain prophesies that have ever been fulfilled. Since the OT and the NT both contain fulfilled prophesies, it would be unwise to disregard them.

3) If one accepts Jesus as Savior, then one must accept His word. Jesus upheld the Divine inspiriation of books we now refer to as Job, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.

4) The OT cannon was closed nearly a THOUSAND YEARS before Jesus was born -- so it is clear the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the setting of accepted OT books. Please note, the Council did NOT cannonize certain pseudoepocryphal books as Tobit or Bel and the Dragon. This was done by the early RCC much later.

5) The FACT that the Dead Sea Scrolls proves the OT is virtually unchanged PROVES the Council did not make changes to OT Scripture.

Answer 5

If these authors were relating a story that they all perceived to be gospel truth, then the accounts would obviously be virtually identical. If 50 different authors (all Bill Clinton supporters just as the authors you speak of were all believers) wrote an account of Bill Clinton's presidency, the principal events would be repeated in all 50 accounts. Judas Iscariot also wrote a gospel but that was outlawed by the council you speak of. The council's actions can be compared with the actions of WWE in declaring that the late Chris Benoit should not be referred to in any way either in a WWE broadcast or on the WWE website. This is the same as declaring that Christ Benoit, in a WWE context, never existed.

Answer 6

It is possible because it's not the same story. The Bible is a collection of individual books by different authors that have been determined to meet certain standards of canonicity. The books are hundreds of years apart, from different cultures, different genres. There's poetry, history, songs, letters, etc. that are just gathered together.

Answer 7

They have been so freaking stoned while they wrote the bible they made cheech and chong appear like newb's. yet what somewhat made them diverse grew to become into that it grew to become into criminal to get stoned and grew to become into even frowned upon in case you probably did not. hiya guy, enable's throw in something approximately parting a sea! that would desire to be so freaking cool! hiya dude, I have been given the munchies! we could lick this toad and spot what happens!

Answer 8

I believe the number is 70, the septuagint, and the story is about as ridiculous as any other christian myth. It does show that at least they realized how pathetic their translation endeavor was and had to come up with a myth to sell it to the public.

Answer 9

My opinion is that you didn't actually read the bible. How you compare Numbers to Song of Solomon to Ezekiel to Galatians is beyond me. I don't think any two of the fifty plus authors agreed on anything:
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

There is no "one story" of the bible. The stories of the first several books are told at least two times each, in differing versions. The story of the Old Testament is of a god who loves his creation, then hates his creation, who walks and talks with people, and who can never be heard or seen, who rewards or punishes people on Earth during their lifetime and is appeased by burnt sacrifices. The god of the new testament is a spiritual entity, or a man, or maybe both. He loves the world and hates the world. He is appeased by killing himself. Now we have immortal souls and will be rewarded or punished in an afterlife.

Most of the books of the bible were built on earlier works, but they definitely take off in their own directions and show the very differing views of the many very human authors.

Answer 10

I find it's the differences that discredit the Bible. You'd think the Council would have been more careful in that respect.