who wrote the bible?


We are pretty sure Moses didn’t write the first five books of the bible, we know Job didn’t write the book bearing his name, we know Matthew, Mark, John of Zebedee, Luke and so many others bearing their names didn’t write the books ascribed to them, heck, we don’t know if these guys graced the planet what we do know however is that a group of people wrote the bible at different times for a period stretching close to 1000 years?[or somewhere close]. Since am not a bible scholar, this post is not meant as such but to introduce a friend of mine who I would expect that you find time, especially the theists, to read to understand a bit of how the bible was cobbled up before we start an argument on whether it is the word of a deity or not.

Here, you will find what is called Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis and it is my hope that you will read the introduction where he covers the origin of the gods and the different creation stories and other interesting stuff. 

Enjoy your reading 🙂

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

54 thoughts on “who wrote the bible?

  1. I am not pretty sure and I do not know what you assume we are pretty sure and do know. Could we start with Moses. What reason do you have to doubt that Moses wrote Torah?

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Prayson you really must have failed to follow instructions. There is a link provided in the body of the post that would have answered the question you are asking, that notwithstanding, Moses could not have written of his death because he wouldn’t be there to see it.
      Am told at the time Moses is claimed to have lived, they had not invented writing, where then did he write this things?
      Why do the stories contradict chapter after chapter? Is it plausible that a single person writing a book couldn’t write a coherent story?
      I know Moses didn’t write the Torah and I can hazard a guess that this particular Moses did not exist.

      Like

      • I fail to see since I do not know what scholarly education your writer has. Could you assemble contemporary scholars in the field of Old Testaments backing up his claims. Have you read any scholarly journal on the case for and against Moses authorship?

        ‘The objections you rose above are weak because 1. you failed to see that in ancient time, it was not necessary personally written. They had, what we today by call secretary, a person who walked and wrote for them, thus it is possible that the person writing for Moses include his death.

        Contradiction even if true does not show that a book is not written by the same author. Example, The God Delusion contradict itself chapter after chapter, but it will be unreasonable to think it is not written by one person.

        You can believe what you want to believe, but before I share your belief that Moses did not write Torah and that that Moses did not exist, I am looking forward for good arguments and evidences 😀

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          So you are saying he dictated to his secretary after he died? How ridiculous and am getting myself a secretary immediately.

          I would be glad if you can point out the contradictions in chapter after chapter of the god delusion.

          What I need you to do is to show me where you disagree with the documentary hypotheis. What business is it of the credentials of my friend as long as he can show you what scholars are agreed on?

          Like

          • No, I said it is possible for a person writing for Moses added the account of his death. If it is possible then your case is weak.

            Example a person X in death row could dictate his account, and the person writing it, could possibly include the account of the the death of that X in that book that goes by the name of X. If this is possible then including a death of a person does not necessary show that the book is not authored by him/her.

            I do not have to disagree with the documentary “hypotheis”. May be I want to agree with it. I just want to know what is your authors academic credits and if there are contemporary scholars, publishing journals in this field, agreeing with his “hypotheis” 🙂

            Like

            • makagutu says:

              Prayson my friend’s credentials are not important here, the Documentary Hypothesis isn’t his creation and besides he has shown how it was developed and also mentioned that there are those who object to it and those that accept it as correct, did you read that part as well?
              Read Deuteronomy Chapter 34:1-10.
              And you have failed to respond to the question about the invention of writing at this time. So you are arguing here Moses dictated to a secretary [how you know this I don’t know] who couldn’t write but wrote anyway? Is this it?

              Like

              • Well I think it is. Now does everyone is a expect with google. When a biologist is giving a case against a theory in quantum physics, I will not waste my time looking at his case, unless he produce thinkers from that field to backup his case.

                I truly wish to know his credentials and which contemporary scholars in the field of Old Testament backs up his thesis.

                Remember, my case does not have to be true, but simply possibly true, that a person to whom Moses dictated included his death account. If this is possible, not necessarily true, then your case fails.

                Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          RE: “before I share your belief that Moses did not write Torah and that that Moses did not exist, I am looking forward for good arguments and evidences”

          Prayerson, I don’t care what you believe. My only intention is to review the Bible, in the light of modern biblical scholarship, and report what I find, not to convert or deconvert anyone. I DO have a number of authorities that I cite on my website, which are available to you there, as I haven’t time to send out individual information packets. But I CAN give you one authority that I have reason to suspect even most skeptics will accept. It took the Catholic Church until 1992 to finally acknowledge that they were wrong and Galileo right about the earth revolving around the sun, but in The New American Bible, the Catholic Bible, in the introductory pages, they readily admit everything I’ve said.

          I’m not here to argue with anyone or to belittle you in any way – read those introductory pages, then come back, and we can discuss this further.

          pax vobiscum,
          archaeopteryx

          Like

          • Thank you Pax. I love the name Prayerson 🙂

            Thank you for sharing your intention and I do wish to share your belief given good reasons. Galileo and Catholic Church is irrelevant since I am not interested in church dogmatics but truth and truth alone not matter the cost.

            What are your credentials Pax. I am not trying to belittle you Pax, but would love to know if you are approaching this case as a reporter or as an expert in the field. Moreover, could you point me to contemporary scholars, publishing known theological journals, sharing your thesis.

            Yours,
            Prayson

            Like

            • archaeopteryx1 says:

              First, my name is archaeopteryx, not pax – pax vobiscum is a closing, meaning in Latin, “peace be with you.”

              I have given you those scholars, Prayerson – as I mentioned, there are a number of citations on the page Makagutu directed you to, and I can assure you, the Catholic Church employs squadrons of scholars.

              You appear not to have read any of the sources I’ve recommended. When you decide to get serious, let me know. Again, I don’t ask that you share my belief, if truth, for you, consists entirely of beliefs, then enjoy your delusions or pursue a more concrete truth.

              Like

              • Sadly “Pax”, as I am “Prayerson” 🙂 Catholic Church employs could simply be like outdated.

                Unless one publishes in known theological journals, which is open for peer reviews, then one can claim anything without knowing the up-to-date scholarly status in contemporary researches in that field.

                What are your credentials “Pax”?

                Yours,
                Prayson

                Like

                • archaeopteryx1 says:

                  I’ll repeat:
                  You appear not to have read any of the sources I’ve recommended. When you decide to get serious, let me know.

                  Like

                  • Thank you “Pax”. Sadly I will pass for two reasons. I am dealing with “unknown person” with a pseudo-name, and with “unknown credentials” bombing information not from contemporary scholars who publish there works in journals on this field but Catholic Church employs.

                    If you want to get serious, what is your name and what are your credentials? Who in contemporary scholarship, publishing known theological or historical journals, share that belief.

                    If you can not be serious enough to give your name and credentials, nor known leading scholars in this field, I can not take your case seriously. For I am looking for truth, and truth alone.

                    Like

            • makagutu says:

              Prayson, you claim skepticism as a reason for asking my friend to tell you his name whereas the matter in question here is not whether he is a cleverbot but rather the validity of what he has written. You claim on your blog you are a student of philosophy and theology, I believe you, but why does it seem to me you are not acting like one.
              I know personally one of the editors of the Catholic bible, so when they write the Torah was thought to have been written by Moses which now they know is not the case, we will take them at their word for one thing we know about the RCC is their resistance to change.
              You have written more than half of the comments on this post, and in half of them you are asking my friend to tell you his name which I had said earlier doesn’t matter for what we are discussing, you have however failed to show why Moses should be the writer of the bible.
              You keep calling him Pax which he told you ain’t his name. Is it so difficult to be respectful and argue against ideas and not people?
              Well the host has no problem with archy and it appears the only who does is you, so get over it and start responding to issues raised. Either you have a reason for rejecting The Documentary Hypothesis or you have none and then honestly say you disagree but you don’t know why!
              In the post that I referenced, he gives a history of the documentary hypothesis, and says who agrees and who does not. As a student of theology, one of the dons in your college must know about this hypothesis, could you spend time with him before we continue with this discussion or read it yourself.
              I hope this is not asking too much of you, but should you be unable to do some reading for yourself, then fair enough but while here, you are going to show some respect to my friends!

              Like

              • 🙂 Wow you take things so seriously. I call him “Pax” because he calls me “Prayerson”, it is simply fun. 🙂

                Thank you for know personally one of the editors of the Catholic bible, but I could also assemple editors from Jehovah’s witnesses, Pentecostals, etc to show you want they say about this topic. I have not problem with Catholics nor Jehovah’s witnesses but I am after truth, and if that means that my level of people I read is high, to those who publish known journals on this field, so be it.

                Your friend “Pax”, as I say, could be anyone. I am skeptical about his work because one, he is hiding behind false name, with unknown scholarly knowledge in this field. He could be a 13 years old boy, could be 80 years old man, he could be super intelligent thinker, he could be a layperson without even access to contemporary journals on this field, he could be an ex-Christian who is so sad. He could be anyone.

                I do respect him as a person, but I would respect him even more if he dare come into light.

                If I am not welcome to be skeptical of unknown person with unknown credentials offering a thesis not backing it up with contemporary scholarship in this field, it is fine. I just hope that your readers will see that their being feed information from unknown person with unknown authority, using not high class scholarship knowledge in this field.

                Yours,
                Prayson

                Like

        • makagutu says:

          Prayson, for one who is asking for peer reviewed articles or journals while at the same time taking the bible as true; who peer reviewed the bible? It’s authors are unknown, its stories impossible. You seem to treat things differently.

          By insisting my friend tells you his name and his credentials, why would be wrong in suggesting your intention is not to argue against the content of his writing but about his person. And you are a student of philosophy and theology, I thought they teach bible criticism in seminaries or wherever you study how to be a pastor?

          You dismiss the Catholic church without showing why. As my friend has told you, get any Catholic bible and look at the introduction to the OT, then you could write a letter to any of the scholars mentioned why they think the stories in the OT are not historical but is the stuff legend is made of.

          Now take your time, a week should be enough, to read through that website then once you are done, please come back and show me where and why you disagree with his posts. A good student reads, analyses and then asks for clarification or shows their disagreement based on fact not what they like or not like.

          Like

          • archaeopteryx1 says:

            Mak, he has no interest in reading anything. Your time is too valuable to waste on someone with such a narrow mind – ignore him, when the attention ends, so will he.

            Like

          • Your friend could be any one. I need to know whether I taking(analyse, asks for clarification or show my (dis)agreement) of something like Neo-Darwinianism from a Sundayshool teacher, a contemporary biologist or simply a reporter. Hiding behind false-names and firing claims hinders advance in truth. I wish to know who I am dealing with, if I have to use my time in first place.

            It does not matter if the Bible is peer reviewed, that is irrelevant in our discussion here. I explain that I am in search of what is up to date scholarship on this topic my dear friends. A good teacher does not hide his name, nor fail to offer contemporary up to date scholarship on this field.

            If narrow mind means ignoring out-dated-information from Catholic church employs, then I am awesomely very narrow minded. Because I am narrow mind, I want to fill my mind with contemporary eminent scholarship in this field.

            To that my dear friends, I will say thank you for your inviting, but I am too narrow minded to deal with unknown bloggers, with unknown credentials not presenting up-to-date contemporary scholarship debate on the authorship of Moses

            Yours,
            Prayson

            Like

            • archaeopteryx1 says:

              RE: “A good teacher does not hide his name” – you still don’t get it, do you Prayson, I’m not your teacher and have no desire to be. I personally don’t care what beliefs you hold, so I have no reason to jump through your hoops and present any kind of credentials to you.

              Possibly you can tell me what credentials your Yeshua (Jesus) presented. Where did he publish? Can you cite me a few peer reviews of his work – accredited peer reviews, that is.

              Intriguing that you fault me for remaining anonymous, while all four of the New Testament Gospels were written anonymously.

              Like

              • From your reply, I noticed two things. Your lack of knowing what is relevant and irrelevant shows that you are a reporter or a layperson in this field(apologizes if I got it wrong).

                If your not teaching us that Moses is not the author of Torah, then what are you doing?

                Like

                • archaeopteryx1 says:

                  As for what I’m doing, I stated that in my comment timestamped 22:30, go back and look it up. I have tried being courteous to you, but clearly, you don’t respond well to that. You have nothing of interest to offer me or this site. Rail to your heart’s content, no one’s listening.

                  Like

                  • I have nothing of interest to offer you, but I hope this site noticed, that unknown person with unknown credentials is offering a thesis that is not up-tp-date nor integrate with eminent scholars in this field.

                    Remember it was not me who is interested in offering a case that Moses is not the author of Torah. It is you my dear friends. But I believe I have say enough.

                    I hope you know that I am not against you personally but simply skeptical. You might be right that Moses is not the author of Torah, but unless I am presented with acceptable scholars in this field, or know your true name and credentials, I remain skeptically narrow minded.

                    Dearly thank you for everything, and I hope you do not take this personally 🙂 as I do not :O

                    Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Mak – RE: “Am told at the time Moses is claimed to have lived, they had not invented writing” – while it’s true that prior to 1000 BCE, there’s no evidence that the Hebrews had a written language, other nations did. There might be the slightest possibility that if the Moses tale were true and Moses was raised as a member of the royal Egyptian family, he would have been literate in Egyptian, but there has never been any evidence of a Torah written in hieroglyphics.

        Knowing, however, that many of the Biblical fables were warmed-over Mesopotamian tales, and knowing that the great Akkadian king Sargon, who conquered the remaining Sumerian cities and hacked clear a trade route between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean, actually began his career (according to legend) by being placed as a baby in a basket made of reeds, sealed with bitumen and floated down the Euphrates river nearly a thousand years before Moses was alleged to have lived, makes the accuracy of the Moses-in-the-bullrushes story a bit difficult to accept.

        Like

    • makagutu says:

      The readers are free to read what is written here and corroborate elsewhere. There are several criticisms to the Documentary Hypothesis that are readily available for any avid reader. One is free therefore to read and make a conclusion. If one feels the bible has a divine origin with Moses as the author of the first books, by all means, let us accept it. If after looking at the scholarly debate on Mosaic authorship and one feels less convinced, there are two options available either suspend judgement until more is known or don’t believe.
      Skepticism is a good thing, it means we question everything we are told and only make conclusions once we are convinced that the position we have taken is the right one. In fact I would be the last person to stop you from being skeptical. I grant to everyone what I demand for myself, and this includes you.
      For one reason or another, many people have written using pseudonyms and me and you agree that their use of pseudonyms does not make their work any less powerful. The question we really must be concerned with is the validity of the statements they have made. That is how I see it, I could be wrong in my view but that is what I think of the matter.
      There are countless volumes that have been written about the authorship of the bible and one has to make a choice or suspend judgement. There are many people who consider the bible as holy writ and treat it as such. This group of people feel the bible is the true word of god while there are those like me who see the bible as work of man with no claims of divinity and should be treated as an epic written by a group of people as they understood the world around them. There is likely never going to be an agreement on which group is the correct unless either the said god shows up or the believers drop their beliefs, these two things seem to me to be impossible. What this leaves us with is each person will adopt that which they find most persuasive besides very few believers consider the higher criticisms of the bible.
      If you are calling him Pax because he called you Prayerson, since he pointed it out it ain’t his name, then you should have raised the same objection so that only if he doesn’t change it then you could be right in calling him as you saw fit, I think this agreeable.
      It is important for us moderns to look at the archaeological studies and what anthropologists have told us about the bible.
      You are welcome to disagree with everything I write or reference as long as you deal with the content of my argument. I hope we can avoid ad hominem fallacies and argument from authority among other logical fallacies. That way we are able to learn from each other even if we continue to hold different opinions.

      Like

      • Cannot agree more with what you wrote. You are very correct in many points. Thank you, both of you for everything. It is my hope you know that I meant no ill and do highly respect both of you. Cheers friends.

        Like

    • Arkenaten says:

      @Prayson

      “I am not pretty sure and I do not know what you assume we are pretty sure and do know. Could we start with Moses. What reason do you have to doubt that Moses wrote Torah?”

      Because he did not exist. He was a narrative construct (A proposal first put forward by the likes of Martin Noth) and there is absolutely no archaeological evidence to support a stay in Egypt or an Exodus.

      Two of the finest archaeologists in this field are Ze’ev Herzog and Israel Finkelstein.
      If you are really interested in “Credentials” go look them up.

      The paper, ‘Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho” should answer many of the most important questions in this regard.

      Like

  2. john zande says:

    Damn, this guy knows his stuff! Great site, Noel!

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      I am glad you like it. You should start from the beginning, you’ll be glad you did. He is a fine fellow, the gentleman who hosts that site.

      Like

      • john zande says:

        I’m astonished at the detail and the depth. It’s going to take weeks to piece through it all… but its now proudly in my Bookmarks Bar, and to get a spot there you have to be very special! 🙂

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I’m honored, John, but come on Guys, you’re embarrassing me —

          Seriously, John, and any others – clickon the button on the bottom of the page marked “FIRST,” and you’ll be taken to the beginning. From there, navagation is simple. Oh, and there’ll be a new chapter out today sometime.

          archaeopteryx

          Like

  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Well thank you, Mak, what a pleasent surprise – you’re always welcome, but if I’d known you were bringing guests, I’d have tidied up a bit!
    arch

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      archy, there is a respondent who has raised doubts on your credentials. I don’t see how it is important but I think you could put to rest. It is in the comments at the bottom of this page.

      Like

      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        Mak, he obviously has not gone to the page or read any of it, as there are sources cited by the handfuls. Don’t waste your time with one who simply wants to waste your time.

        If he wants to argue with the Catholic Church as a reliable source, I can point him to where the Pope lives and wish him luck —

        Like

  4. Liberty of Thinking says:

    My goodness, Archy,
    Makagutu is right…
    Can’t you see who you are dealing with:-)
    You are better than replying to anyone leaving a comment here…
    Just as a matter of fact, never bother even replying to anyone asking your credentials if yhey haven’t introduced theirs first.
    You are being questioned about your credentials by someone to whom you have to translate pax vobiscum? Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,…

    Poor world…

    Take care my friend,

    Rom

    Oh, and by the way, Makagutu my friend, it wasn’t me….:-)

    Like

    • archaeopteryx1 says:

      “Pax vobiscum” wasn’t even my first clue. He’s threatening to not take me seriously unless I provide him with information, yet I made it clear to him (or thought I did), that I don’t care if he takes me seriously or not!

      Hope you’re well, Rom,
      arch

      Like

      • Liberty of Thinking says:

        I checked his page where he shares being a youth pastor and student of theology and philosophy, without mentioning any academic institution, at least I haven’t noticed it, nevertheless you had to tell him what pax vobiscum means…
        Greek, Hebrew, Latin were MANDATORY courses in my first three years (total five) of university, so interesting…

        Take care archy…

        (Rev.) Rom

        Like

        • archaeopteryx1 says:

          I began my first two years of Latin studies while still in High School. Here’s some Spanish:

          Vaya bién —
          arch

          Like

          • Liberty of Thinking says:

            Just like us, but we’ve had Latin from 8th elementary, but that was Romania, with a Latin based language.
            I nearly responded Vaya con Dios, but then it would have meant to have sent you alone:-))))))))

            Rom

            Like

        • I believe I would have told you if you asked. I took philosophy of religion at Aalborg University, Denmark and theology at Harvest Bible college Australia. Is there more you would like to know?

          “Pax” was meant for fun because he called me “Prayerson” 🙂

          Like

          • Liberty of Thinking says:

            Daniel

            Just as a friendly observation: arch… (regardless of why he decided to remain anonymous, as anyone should have the right to call themselves as they wish…) called you probably by mistake as he did (as I refuse to believe he was trying to mock you), so you shouldn’t have replied by intentionally (for fun…) calling him “pax”, that being not exactly gentlemenish:-)
            Also my friend, I hope you agree that the quality of a writing does not stand in the writer’s academic credentials, otherwise all the peer-reviewed “scientific” studies done by all nazi “scientists” should be taken for granted…
            Finally, with all my credentials, I do fully agree that the bible DOES NOT require any credentials of any sort to be critiqued! By the way, Calvin was a lawyer, Martin Lloyd-Jones a physician, and the some of the “icons” of the evangelical and neo-evangelical movements were VERY much laymen…I don’t want to get into rather embarrassing details:-)

            With respect,

            (Rev.) Rom…

            Like

            • archaeopteryx1 says:

              Thank you, Romulus – I don’t know whether I looked at the word hurriedly and typed what I thought I saw, or if I saw correctly and mistyped, either way, it was an error. Even AFTER his “Pax” reference, I didn’t notice the mistake until after I’d reread his comment, but after that, I saw little reason to apologize for an honest faux pas.

              BTW – I briefly scanned your poetry, good imagery! I plan to return as time permits.

              Like

            • Thanks Rom. Sorry I am not a serious type person 🙂 I salute your kindness.

              Like

              • Liberty of Thinking says:

                Daniel my friend, I mean no disrespect at all, but saying that you are “not a serious type person” following a fairly serious discussion about credentials and by implication credibility, does not build at all you own credibility… And not even the cute smiley changes that!

                My best wishes.

                (Rev.)

                Like

            • archaeopteryx1 says:

              Oh, and RE: “arch… (regardless of why he decided to remain anonymous….” – Prayson provided the answer to that question himself, though unknowingly, when he said words to the effect of (I’m not going to hunt up the actual quotation), “He could be a 13-year old kid or an 80-year old man” – he’s right, I could be either of those. But Mozart was composing at six, and Picasso was still going strong into his 90’s. I don’t wish to be pigeon-holed by the narrow-minded – judge the work, not the worker. (I could also be a 12-year old girl!)

              arch

              Like

  5. I love being fed reference material!

    Subscribed. Look forward to the read!

    Like

  6. Wow, all this talk of credentials. I am a high school drop out, my credentials are from the university of life in which I have studied for more than 60 years and am still earning my credentials.

    AV

    Like

  7. DID THE 1ST CENTURY CHURCH HAVE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES?

    The prevailing thought of many is that since the Bible was not canonized until sometime between 300 and 400 A.D. that the church of Christ did not have New Covenant Scriptures as their guide for faith and practice. That is simply factually incorrect.

    The Lord’s church of the first 400 years did not rely on the man-made traditions of men for New Testament guidance.

    Jesus gave the terms for pardon 33 A.D. after His death and resurrecting. (Mark 16:16) All the words of Jesus were Scripture.Jesus did not have to wait for canonization of the New Testament in order for His word to be authorized.

    The terms for pardon were repeated by the apostle Peter 33 A.D. on the Day of Pentecost. (Acts 2:22-42) The teachings of the apostles were Scripture. The words of the apostles were Scripture before they were canonized.

    The apostle Peter said the apostle Paul’s words were Scripture. (2 Peter 3:15-16…just as also our beloved brother Paul , according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand,which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures…

    The apostle Paul’s letters and words were Scriptures when he wrote and spoke them. Paul did not have to wait for canonization to authorize his doctrine.

    John 14:25-26 ‘These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to you remembrance all that I said to you.

    The words and writings of the apostles were Scripture and they did not have to wait for canonization to be deemed authoritative. The apostle did not use man-made creed books of the church or man-made oral traditions to teach the gospel of the New Covenant.

    Did the early church have written New testament Scriptures? Yes, and they were shared among the different congregations. (Colossians 4:16 When the letter is read among you, have it read in the church of the Laodiceans and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodica.) Paul’s letters were Scripture and they were read in different churches.

    They were New Testament Scriptures long before they were canonized.

    WRITTEN

    Matthew A.D. 70
    Mark A.D. 55
    Luke between A.D. 59 and 63
    John A.D. 85
    Acts A.D. 63
    Romans A.D. 57
    1 Corinthians A.D. 55
    2 Corinthians A.D. 55
    Galatians A.D. 50
    Ephesians A.D. 60
    Philippians A.D. 61
    Colossians A. D. 60
    1 Thessalonians A.D. 51
    2 Thessalonians A.D. 51 or 52
    1 Timothy A.D. 64
    2 Timothy A.D. 66
    Titus A.D. 64
    Philemon A.D. 64
    Hebrews A.D. 70
    James A.D. 50
    1 Peter A.D. 64
    2 Peter A.D. 66
    1 John A.D. 90
    2 John A.d. 90
    3 John A.D. 90
    Jude A.D. 65
    Revelation A.D. 95

    All 27 books of the New Testament were Scripture when they were written. They did not have wait until they were canonized before they became God’s word to mankind.

    Jesus told the eleven disciples make disciples and teach them all that He commanded. (Matthew 28:16-19) That was A.D. 33, They were teaching New Covenant Scripture from A.D. 33 forward. The apostles did not wait to preach the gospel until canonization occurred 300 to 400 years later.

    THE WORDS OF JESUS AND THE APOSTLES WERE SCRIPTURE WHEN THEY WERE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN. THEY DID NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR CANONIZATION TO BE THE AUTHORIZED WORD OF GOD.

    MAN-MADE CREED BOOKS AND MAN-MADE ORAL TRADITION WAS AND IS NOT SCRIPTURE.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      No, I will not follow your blog Steve.

      My friend arch has responded to your supposed dates for different books of the bible. I will not go that route with you. It matters least when they became scripture as you want to call them. They are no proof of anything except that a superstitious, barbarous, savage and ignorant nation imagined a god who created them, loved them and did lots of shit for them.

      Do you have any proof for the god claimed in the pages of this horrid book?

      Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s