Simple. Do you believe the bible condemns people?

Hmmmm, daft question. Books cannot condemn.

Firstly, I do not believe anything.

Secondly, the bible is an inanimate collection of archaic myths and legends compiled several hundred years ago, based upon sketchy historical knowledge and hearsay, relating to a small region of the globe and a small group of people who existed there a few thousand years ago.

Nope...Certain people condemn, and they condemn certain other people who they choose to disagree with.

By condemning other religions Christianity gained world popularity and acceptance until Islam came along.

Books can't condemn but people you say so where do they get the criteria you say they condemn from, the book , right.

So who or what is initiating, the person or what the person reads and regurgitates and says "according to this, you are this , you are that".

The person is just reading what it says but the reader you say is actually doing the condemning.

Like saying the messenger is the insulter and the messenger is just giving you the message of the one actually sending the insults having the messenger deliver them.

John 14:6

⁶ Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me

Hmmmmmm.

I think you are trying to say that whosoever wrote the message, intended to condemn.

Though whosoever that actually might be, I have no idea.

I'm guessing that most was cobbled together from hearsay in the 16th Century.

Jesus was a Jew and probably spoke in Hebrew.

So he did not say any such thing as you quoted.

Rudimentary English had 5th century origins, though as I just said to Mal, the narrative you are quoting was probably cobbled together in the 16th century.

Don't charge the messenger, charge the sender.

Now those adding their own to the message, that's different.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.”

The Bible has been translated in over 136 languages?

Yep, John is always portrayed as the girlie one, and was Jesus's favourite.

And John as likely as not, did not write the book of John, as he would have been getting on for a hundred years of age at the time of it's compilation.

Nope, what Jesus might or might not have said was mostly cobbled together in the big book at a later date, and was largely based upon hearsay and overenthusiasm.

And the more a tale is told, transcribed and translated then the more inaccurate it becomes.

The words of Jesus were corroborated by the disciples in the different gospels.

The Bible is fiction.

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection Of Evidence | Daniel Miessler

Christians do have knowledge about the conditions which determine why a person goes to heaven or hell. Namely, a person who sins against God is condemned; if that person dies in a state of condemnation, they will go to hell. A person who genuinely repents and believes the gospel is no longer condemned and will go to heaven.

Christians do not have knowledge of a particular person's beliefs at the time of their death. This means that a Christian would have a hard time claiming that a particular person will go to hell, especially if that person is still alive with time to potentially be saved. It would be illogical to say that a person who is alive has the potential to be saved, but they are definitely going to hell.

What a Christian can say is that if a person dies under condemnation of sin, and they do not repent and believe they gospel, then they will go to hell. This avoids claiming knowledge of the future.

A Christian can and should try to determine if people are currently under condemnation, not who will ultimately end up in hell.

The Bible was compiled several hundred years ago?

That is true.

KJV first published in 1611.

There was other stuff.

"There was other stuff"

You mean the other stuff that came over a thousand years before the KJV? I don't know about you, but I consider that more than "several hundred years ago."

Well one could say that some form of theistic idea has been around for many thousands of years, or maybe even millions of years, and that said idea has been evolving ever since.

One would also suggest that a MANGOD was the most logical idea for man to favour. Which is certainly not to say that there are/were no other animal deities.

And 2500 years or so ago, people started jotting down the ideas that preceded your popular, more modern Abrahamic compilations.

All in accordance with the evolution of intellect, science, literature and written records.

But you said the Bible was compiled "several hundred years ago." I'm just letting you know that statement is demonstrably false.

Well, if you're being picky then "Bible" is a Middle English word and therefore between 520 and 960 years old.

And several hundred would be more than two hundred and less than a thousand.

So "The Bible was compiled several hundred years ago", is demonstrably good enough for me.

Let's test that logic:

The word "Stonehenge" is estimated to have originated around the early 12th century. And apparently "several" now means between 2 and 10 (debatable). So I guess Stonehenge is several hundred years old, right?

BK type word play.

The adaptation of older texts named and known as "The Bible", was an Anglican compilation and did not exist as such, prior to it's compilation and naming. Which isn't to say that older adaptations were not produced.

Stonehenge was an Anglified name applied to an ancient monument. Bad example though, because the monument was actually reworked and reconstructed in the 1950's. So, the basic structure did exist prior to these events and therefore did exist prior to it's English naming, but not necessarily exactly as we see it now. Stonehenge as we see it now, is only about 70 years old.

That's actually a perfect example. People are not going around saying, "Stonehenge was built around 70 years ago." Even you had to add the qualifier "as we see it now" to avoid the ridiculous statement, "Stonehenge is only about 70 years old." It would be most accurate to say Stonehenge was built thousands of years ago, then restored and reconstructed in recent years. The monument is not a different monument, even if it does not look exactly the same as it did thousands of years ago.

A structure was constructed thousands of years ago, whereas a new structure was constructed from reclaimed material on the same site.

If I were to knock my house down and reconstruct a new house using the same material, would it be the same house?

Not that I'm particularly worried about a reconstructed pile of stones that is popular with tourists and pseudo Druids.

Nonetheless the first "Bible" was a book that was compiled somewhere between 500 and a 1000 years ago. Which depending upon how picky one wants to be, might be referred to as several hundred years ago.

Actually, the Baloney as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century.

Who officiated?

Though that was way too early for the Anglicised book which was named "The Bible".

There are two parts to the Bible. The first part is the Old Testament which was complied several thousand years ago by Moses who wrote the first 5 books. The second part is New Testament which was compiled after Jesus’s death roughly 2 thousand years ago.

Ok...So "The BIble" is an Anglicised book based upon hand me down tales and texts that purport to accurately describe events relative to a few specific characters from one specific region of the World during a period in time some 1500 to 2000 years earlier.

In relation to "The Bible" the old and new testaments are just two sections from the same Anglicised book.

Yes, the Bible existed before it was translated into English (anglicized). The original texts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, long before any English translations were produced.The process of translating the Bible into English, or Anglicization, began much later in history.