Does this book makes the holy bible a fraud?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

If I wish to be unbiased with my reply then in my opinion the answer would be Yes. There are many factors mentioned in the book that gives reference to the different versions of the Bible and hence it my answer is Yes.

I am glad that I found a brave and a open minded answer. You are correct. If the teachings are being manipulated, and if what we see today is a collection of such manipulations, what else will it be ultimately than a fraud? Still I mean no disrespect to the holy bible or the ones who believe it

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I don't think that it defrauds the Bible, but rather, this book shows that the opinions of humans vary regarding it. The Bible is over 2,000 years old, so it is entirely possible that translations of languages and time affected it. I am a Christian if this helps.

Thank you for the opinion. Yes it is. Over those many years and many translations from various languages to various more languages, how can the initial writings could have remained unchanged? If that would have happened, that could have been a true miracle

[Bigbluesea7]

I always find people who claim superiority to holy books to run into a bigger problem with their own credibility. What makes theme so special?

[Sushan Ekanayake]

I always find people who claim superiority to holy books to run into a bigger problem with their own credibility. What makes theme so special?

Nothing makes them special. But if someone is raising a valid argument against a religious belief, shouldn't we give it some value and a chance, keeping our minds open?

[ProofReader2020]

The author is questioning the church via this book regarding its authority to change God's word as per the need of political agendas and the authority to misguide its followers for mere mundane purposes. And he is also trying to see the practical and true aspect of the bible

This is a very challenging thread, but if you take that logic all the way back then it might feasibly apply to the original authors of the bible. Where would you draw the line on misinterpreting anyone's word? What is to say the book wasn't written with simple human motivations in the beginning? Nothing sinister just a pressing desire to offer some moral standards and examples in the form of easily understood and repeated tales to encourage a general improvement in people's behaviour.

[Vine Michael]

Maybe the author has a reason for her view but anyone who has sat with the word of God and has meditated on the scriptures they would see the Bible can never be a fraud. Men are subject to their own opinions and views but it would be preferable if they left the Bible alone.

[Fozia RYK]

No I don't think so, I found in the writing of author that this book is only an opinion. The way of expression of author about Bible is only the conversation to convince readers. This book is not a fraud with Bible.

[Huini Hellen]

The fact that the author's primary reference is the Bible only serves to mean one thing - this book's superiority does not overshadow the Bible. Thus, the author only invites readers to engage inbold discussions that attempt to demystify the Bible.

[Chigo Nwagboso]

This is a very delicate question. Inasmuch as it was written by humans, there's every possibility that somethings might have been changed... And again, people are entitled to their different beliefs and how they choose to interpret scriptures so, the Gospel that is inspired by the Holy Spirit isn't a fraud.

[JulietBlack]

I know the bible is not fraud. Although I agree that some institutions and personnel have given an erroneous interpretation of the bible for dubious reasons but that doesn't invalidate the truth of the bible.
I also think that trying to explain 'the true supreme being' through the lens of quantum physics and philosophical teachings is limiting. This book is mainly her opinion and in no one superior to the bible.

[Stephanie Runyon]

Its not better than the Bible. Quantum physics are theories that have not been proven. The Bible has been altered. The Catholic church has parts of it in the original Hebrew Language that they don't allow for print. The Bible is the basis of God's plan.

[Pamela Bianca Mas]

This book encourages readers to really ponder about their faith and beliefs. Although scientific and philosophical minds continue to strive towards fully understanding God with its theories and rationalization, the bible will always remain as the basis of everything else.

[Jorge Leon Salazar]

I would definitely say no. The word contained in the Bible has been subject to interpretation for over two thousand years. Some points have probably been misrepresented. That the author agrees on the existence of a God (A Supreme Being) endorses the Bible as a guide book.

[Maddie Atkinson]

It seems to me that the author is not speaking of Scriptures that he has studied since childhood but someone else’s interpretation of Scriptures that he has been taught. In other words, it seems his opinions are formed from the opinions of others that he believes to be true. The original source is important whether you are going to believe it or argue against it.

It must be remembered that all the teachings of the Bible that you learn from religious leaders are interpretations of the Bible. We no longer have the original transcript of the Bible and any translations we have today have all been interpreted from copies (that would have contained mistakes, making meanings different when translated) through history, and these interpretations have been manipulated by people wanting it to fit their agenda. The author's interpretation is no less valid than other peoples', as long as he isn't manipulating it, which he isn't. Your opinions are formed from the teachings you have learned from someone else's interpretation, he has just found an opinion that is more true to him.

[Maddie Atkinson]

No, in no way does this book supersede the Bible. First, it is difficult to take the doctor as an authority on anything when he has published a book so full of errors. Second, he has developed his own beliefs from the set of beliefs he sets out to discredit and adjusted it based on his understanding of science. One can cherry-pick Scriptures and make them say or support anything one likes, but it doesn't make it true. For that matter, one can cherry-pick scientific principles and poorly obtained "evidence" to support a good many things that aren't true as well. The book lacks sufficient evidence to support his stance.

I don't think he ever set out to supersede the Bible in the first place. A book can't be full of errors if it is entirely based on opinion. Sure, he has picked the science that supports his claims the same with the scriptures, but that's what people do if they are trying to get their points across, the science isn't wrong and his interpretations of the Bible are valid. You're right in that people cherry pick scriptures and it doesn't always make it right, but as long as you don't manipulate them to your own agenda, those scriptures are just there to guide people to their own truth, not tell you what to do, which is what the author has done. He is discrediting the teachings of religious leaders, not the scriptures in the Bible. I don't think he is looking for evidence to support his stance, but is trying to make sense of religion in his own life and has written it down for anyone else who is struggling like him. He does not claim to be correct, these are just his own beliefs that he is sharing with the world and he does not try to be superior to the Bible.