(WRT: "blue") ... ... Guess we all "get the blues" sometimes.

(WRT: "immutability") ... "Aye, there's the rub." The essential premise that repeatedly surfaces here ... and we could just as easily be talking about The Book of Mormon, BTW ... is that, somehow, "God gave us a Magickal Book." The book, therefore, is now constrained to be more than any historical document ever could be: it isn't pressed into clay tablets or writ by the hand of man upon papyrus or what-have-you ... it is "writ by the Hand Of God."

If you believe that, then I will not assert that "you are wrong," because above all else I believe that I should not by any means "cause you to stumble." However, I do not share in your opinion. If God wants to send me a message, he can ... make "the rocks cry out," or make a nearby bush burst into flames without being consumed, or make a donkey talk to me, or ... simply speak to me in a still, small voice. (Actually, He can do whatever He pleases. Of course.) I don't choose to hold books to a standard of "immutability." I don't think that to be terribly realistic. But, if you do, I shall not presume to "correct" you. I'm but a blind man, trying to figure out an elephant. You might be right.

So, "the singular authorship of Isaiah" ... it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I simply presume that it is not, and I presume the same thing for all such books. That's me. It might well not be you. What do I know .. I have no eyes.

Why are normally well behaved forum members getting so hot on this thread?

Look you guys, it is an open forum. You knew the title and yet you decided to get upset and less than polite.

One of the history shows told about a singular location of many of the books that could have been in the bible. How they decided to reduce that amount no one knows.

From a religious point, one might suggest it is the words of God.

From another point of view the words may be no more than a fable.

They're not hot due to the content but because I've returned, and because I'm a troll, whatever that is.

I said a similar thing in a PM, I wont engage blue in public anymore.

Glad you recognise the light heartedness of my post.

Many, which (again) are easily found, if you tried to look. And I don't consider hundreds (if not more), studies by people with FAR more qualificiations on the subject than you or I to be a 'sorry source' of information. But, you will not look, and continue to insist you're right due to belief rather than fact. Just ONE reference; and scoff all you want at Wikipedia...it's the bibliography you should read/reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...e_Bible#Isaiah

Isaiah is well covered, all three authors. And why, exactly, are they "sorry sources"?? Because you don't agree with them, or because you don't understand them?

Amazing the double-standards you apply; you say there is "mountainous debate" for what YOU agree with...but what you DISagree with is because it's done by biased skeptics.
Hundreds of man-years of research by thousands of scholars who know more about history and culture than I EVER will. The facts that these people have actually SEEN the documents, and have done extensive research on their provenance.
Oh?? Wasn't this you?
While you're *technically* correct, anyone reading what you posted certainly would not take away your 'true meaning', would they?
Sorry, but you're again wrong. Historians and archeologists enter into things with something you are apparently unfamiliar with: an open mind. They HAVE to view things objectively, and NOT let bias take over. If they do, they will not be taken seriously in their chosen profession, and (most likely), not be ABLE to work in those fields. EVERYTHING has to be researched, documented, and as close to certain as they can get it, before any publishing takes place. Science is not for speculation...that's why its science. Speculation and belief are checked at the door for any serious scientist or scholar.
Again, you're wrong. YOU have a 'view'...the rest of us have what actually IS fact. Documented, tangible facts. Saying they're not true because it's inconvenient for you, or it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't make them lies. Wave your arms all you like...it doesn't make it so. If you're going to argue about a topic, you need to have FACTS...not belief or bias. Facts don't need to be proven...they ARE. Saying the sky is blue isn't a 'view' or 'belief'...it's a fact, and one that can be proven.

It's because you're not interested in intelligent debate or rational conversation. You ignore facts, use circular logic, and ACT like a troll, through just a couple of gems like this:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4405023
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...2/#post4525774


And spare me...you've been told SEVERAL TIMES in the past what a troll is. And is Google broken where you live? Because if you truly DON'T know, what is preventing you from looking it up??? Wasn't this response from TWO YEARS AGO sufficient for you???
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4405014

Indeed. (Ladies and ...) "Gentlemen, gentlemen!" If you just want to throw stones at one another, that's what private-messaging is for: do it on your own time and in your own place. But if you wish instead to debate, to discuss, then let's enjoy that together. I'm sure God won't mind.

Well, from a sociological point of view, all of these books are "fables," that is to say, "cultural mythologies." That's the role that they play, which is how you categorize them. Now, if it so happens that you believe them, then that's where "faith" comes in and a religion is born. Then you can start to delve into the myriad ways the same religion is practiced, and how conflicts of opinion arise concerning them, and how-and-why people respond to those conflicts ... it never ends. And you are studying humanity, as I once heard it put, "in a way that is almost as intimate and personal as sex, if not more so."

So, "no more than fable" really is a misnomer, because "a fable" is really a very big thing. (The series of WikiPedia articles on the term make for some very interesting reading.) Plus, "no more than a fable" suggests: falsehood, and maybe a disparaging view (intended, or probably not) of those who do believe them. Not so. A fable is a type of story. Perhaps these "fables" are a greater form of truth ... life-lessons beyond the ken of "the scientific method" ... and, who knows, maybe they are "the words of a god," or even "of God." I'm certainly not going to prattle-off and assert that such things are nonsense. (And, I say very quickly, I do not mean to imply that you did or meant to.) The only thing that I know of God, is that I know nothing, including of what manner he may choose to speak.

Very well put, sundialsvcs.

I can't help but to expect that you're pretending. How can you look at the rainbow or the nightsky or a stunning sunset and then just because you can shift to a scientific perspective dismiss or slight the obvious--that there's an ingenious artistic creator behind it all. There are just too many instances of majesty, too many artistic perfections, too many handprints of one living, life-giving creator God for me to believe that any of you really believe that nature is accidental. Pardon me, but you just can't be that blind.

Careful, there is a false humility. And when you do take God for what he says, it's that by which you try to get one past him without fearing him.

Do those handprints include deadly diseases, like AIDS or cancer? Do they include things like the 2004 tsunami, where about 250.000 people died? Do they include things like the sudden infant death syndrome? Do they include droughts in third world countries?
I wonder why many religious people, especially Christians, take a rainbow or other beautiful things as a sign for the existence of a god, but loose no word over the things that are not beautiful in the world.

Speaking and appearance are 2 different things.

That's called corruption of perfection.
There are extremists who do. When the earthquake flattened Haiti, but left the Dominican Repulblic virtually unscathed (both are on the same island), there were some extreme elements in America who claimed it was pay back for Haitians rejecting "god" and turning to occult practises after they removed the colonial power.

Let me, and should it come to that, my God, be the judge of me; of whether or not I am "blind" to anything. And, should I be found by "my God" to be trying to "get one past him without fearing him," I'm quite sure that he can mete out a proper response to that travesty, without the assistance of any human.

Truth be known, you have utterly no idea what my perspectives are or are not; and how could you? Yet, you "rush to judgment," when the very clear admonition is: "judge not."

Of this one thing I am quite sure: "God does not need a cheering section." He puts the rainbow, the night sky, and the sunset in front of every man or woman who has the presence-of-mind to look up ... and he does not explain it to them; he never did. If he wanted to, I am quite sure that he is up to the task himself. And, seeing that he doesn't, it's pure folly for a human to do so, regardless of that human's well-meant intentions.

"And lean not to your own understanding ..."

Got a high opinion of yourself, haven't you? Martyr complex? It's your unquestioning belief that's being criticized.
Appropriate:
Proverbs xvi, 18
Proverbs xxvi, 11

God permits evil as a requirement of his just nature.

I don't ignore tragedy. Nor do I need to repeat its cause. Neither good nor evil are by accident but by appointment. I always look at tragedy--especially--the most unfair tragedy in light of God's divine retribution--that everything occuring in this life that might be unfair is accounted for in the judgment. Those treated most unfairly who themselves were fair will have their reward. Those who appeared to get by in life very well yet who were cheats and ruthless will have their punishment by degrees.

But the question you've done well avoiding is where you err.