is the bible a revelation of Gods word?

Question

isn't a revelation something that is revealed only to you?

If I had a religious revelation, maybe a sign from God, this would be a miracle. but once that revelation has passed on to someone else that revelation loses its authenticity and becomes nothing more than hearsay. whether the revelation is true or a false, the fact remains that, second hand, doesn't the information and knowledge becomes a matter of my credability as a witness? So if I then wrote this revelation down for future generations, how would they verify my revealed miracle? the answer would be they cannot, for they would have no knowledge of me as a person except for this written work, thus it would be logical to pass judgement and conclude that the statement is false.
it falls under the heading of mystery, like the Loch Ness Monster mystery; do you believe someone when they say they have seen it or not, the subject whether true or false comes down to the credulity of the witness. Isn't this the case with the bible

so with this knowledge; why would God use this method to spread his word? because the method is flawed from all sides, for this method hangs the word of God on the credulity if man

of man! not if man, sorry new kekyboard smaller than the last one.


nice to see you all again, missed you all
had to come back!!!!!!! lol

badman; yes I would! not unlike most Atheist my search for the truth has revealed the falsities in the bible to be many

Ibrahim; you seem to have disagreed with me then you seem to have agreed with what I was saying at the end.
Mahomet, though more credible than Jesus Christ, was no less a prophet, thus his word of Allah is based on his credulity as a man. Don't forget that he went on to build an army, just like the 3rd C Christians, to bring the word of God to the unbeliever. is this how your God works?

Answer 1

I agree, it was a Revelation to that person alone, and as we know the bible has been tampered with in translating Hebrew to Greek and is always being updated to show new facts and try to correct mistakes that were put in. Some religions have coined their own bible to fit their taste and to say what they want it to say.

Answer 2

There are certain facts that must be established.
What, where, when, and who

The lochness monster to fit this theory would need to state a time and place in the future, when it would appear, and what events would occur during the appearance.

The next president (the 10th king) will fall to Asia and Russia, (Gog and Magog)

The presiding passage meets the "what, where when and who requirements. The lochness monster does not.

As the tradition of men, and the excepted education of nations were all based upon hearsay. You had no choice of disagreeing with what was being taught, if you did you would surly receive a failing grade.

Those who hear the words, may remember them, not at this moment or perhaps not even in this life time, but you were told.

Answer 3

As salaamu 'alaikym, my very illogical friend.

Insha'Allah, no. Most revelations were sent to a "people" rather that only to a "person".

Insha'Allah, such would not diminish the nature nor authenticity of the revelation.

Insha'Allah, a prophet (i.e., true prophets) comes with clear signs from God (whether we address the Deity as Allah, Subhanna wa Ta'ala, YHWH or Trinity Father), such as healings, raising the dead, splitting the moon, etc.

Insha'Allah, one would verify the true nature of the revelation by the correctness of its recording and based upon the reports of reliable witnesses to whom the revelation was revealed and the agreement of said persons (ie., did they all agree, some agree, not agree at all, etc.).

Ma'a salaam.

Edit:
Silvertongue
, in trying to live up to the supposed meaning of your self imposed title, the English langauge seems to have illuded you. There is a science to verifying revealtion and sayings, as the same has been practiced in Islam for more tha 1400 years which has maintained the correctness and exactness of the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah al Hadiths.

Once again, your logic is flawed and "illogical".

Good to see you back.

Ma'a salaam

Answer 4

welcome back ST

In historiography, library science, and other areas of scholarship, a primary source (also called original source) is a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described.

Alas not one book of the bible falls into this catogory, nor the Koran, as Mohammad was illeterate, and thus the events transcribed down were made by scribes, and him being illeterate, he was thus unable to check the material written.

A secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed. Secondary sources often involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information.

So we have no primary sources, and the secondary sources have all been edited historically. But the Koran is mainly a secondary source.

Our bible at best is a tertiary source - a selection, distillation, summary or compilation of primary sources, secondary sources, or both. The distinction between primary source and secondary source is standard in historiography, while the distinction between these sources and tertiary sources is more peripheral, and is more relevant to the scholarly research work than to the published content itself.

Answer 5

The original is Hebrew, and not speaking Hebrew, I need a translation. Scripture starts with Genesis, and ends with Revelation. It includes 66 books, written by 39 different people, and compiled at the council of trent. It is our understanding that the Savior YAHOSHUA maintained in it what we need for salvation. There are various spurious works pretending to be inspired, but a careful reading should leave little doubt in the mind of the honest searcher.

Answer 6

'The bible' Old or New testament is a matter of faith only, very little from either testament can be 'proved' some of the historical tales can be proved, but not many given in the same time period as mentioned in the testaments.
It can all be explained using logic, for example there is no doubt that Moses was a great leader, he needed rules like the 10 commandments to keep his 'flock' in order'!
Now if these commandments were 'revealed' to Moses by God and even carved into blocks of stone for him to carry down the mountain to show his flock, so that Moses in turn could reveal this message .
This little story begs a few logical questions, why do it this way? Moses has to struggle down the mountain with his collection of stone blocks and tell all his folks the story. Why? Couldn't these rules have been passed directly and collectively to the flock?
There is a standard religious answer to this of course, nothing to do with logic:-
God works in a mysterious way, his miracles to perform!!
So there are logical reasons for the bible(s) being in existence the main one is to control us peasents, it is all based on belief, or the success of brain washing!
It is a complete waste of time trying to disprove that the bible(s) are a revelation direct from God .
What 'proof' would do the job?
It has certainly been proved that in the new testament for example that the gospels (stories) according to Matthew . Mark. Luke. John , were not written by these people, but who cares?
We could of course ramble on for ever on this subject !
Suffice it to say I do not believe either of the bibles are a direct message or revelation from God!
However they are very interesting stories and very well edited and ammended to suit a purpose.
I think it was Chairman Mao Tsetung who said "Religion is the opium of the working classes" To my mind he was correct, they need it, like I am now in desperate need of a few beers.

Answer 7

Siver tongue, your gods' words which is really a god's word? or a devils words? Bible did not tell which is god's word nor which is a interpretator's words.
If the words are for human good, even the word are coming from you,silver tongue's mouth, will be a god's words.
I tell you a big big big secret; you are god.
If you know believe you are god, will lean on your mysteries, magic power. Mostly of the magic can be done by scientist who are definately not your god. In my mind, anyone who understand the use of stuffs and not sutborn of stuffs are already god.

do I believe in god? in certain points of view, yes, I believe but in logically, I don't believe god who always did mistakes as earthquake, whirlwind, Tsimlami, short of food. Dry up ground etc, etc. From the disasters, I cannot see a fair, comparsion god. I can only see a so called punishment god. Then I prefer more on Hindru's karmas.

Answer 8

Welcome back, Silver Tongue.

Personally, I did not find God in the bible,
but in saying that, in finding God, I understand what the bible says in part.

For me, the wholeness of God is found outside in life, in experience, in self evaluation, in the word, in understanding the truth about love, in living.
The bible works as a reference at time, or inspiration, but I doubt I would have found the profundity of God, in this book. As one reveals and knows more of God, the bible does encompass levels within the writings, which if one did not have a personal experience of God, the word would not be understood on theory alone.
God is a living experience.
Also to understand the bible one must know God.
God is not understood through a book.
In saying that some of the bible is "ecstatic writing", which when read can "give" a "learning".
To live the learning, it becomes ones own, and then is a knowing.
To know God is a choice made moment to moment, in living this truth, the bible can be very useful, but God can be understood in many ways.

God is Gracious
Blessings be.

Answer 9

Bible (aka Goat Herders' Guide to the Galaxy) is NO MORE than a compilation of Bronze Age myths and superstitions voted on (for inclusion) by a herd of old bishops, each with his own agenda, at the behest of Constantine's legacy.

The New Testament is a result of that super salesman, Saul of Tarsus, needing to find something to sell but not wanting to take samples round on his sales trips.
Saul developed the Greatest Sting in the history of the planet; he knew there was a good living to be made from selling religion.
He took the best bits of all the successful religions that went before and VOILA! Christ-ianity.
A concept of Dreams and Promises based in man's inherent FEAR of Life, Reality and Death.

Answer 10

The bible is blueprint of the mind and being, relating the seekers (your) journey in mind to manifest the kingdom within yourself. It is preparation towards entering actual experiences and learning from your innate source. You are correct in your thinking in regards Revelations. A revelation is a experience, something that is acquaintance, direct experience. The bible and all scriptures are merely shadows/shapes to the real thing that carries substance. The substance is within you and you must find that substance which is the true spirit of the scriptures, the genuine Revelation within yourself.

It is not a Revelation of God, God does not dwell in a book, but you being a parcel within the mind of God, the path to God is through knowing your true authentic innate nature, knowing thy self. What scriptures reveal is yourself, that is aspects of the mind and being that must be worked on in preparation to enter the inner kingdom. The truth is most people have never read the actual scriptures although they believe they have, they have only read the garment, not what the garment conceals because they have not turned within which is to apply the key of knowledge.

Answer 11

I've always considered it a very subjective book at best--if it is the revelation of any divine word, then it would have lost it's meaning throughout all the translating and out-right rewriting it has been subjected to throughout the centuries (and who would re-write God's word if they really believe that it came from him anyway--sounds kinda blasphemous dontcha think?). Many biblical scholars even admit that they think many of the new testament books to be outright forgeries anyway--makes the whole thing sound kinda fishy to me!