How was the Bible created?  Can we trust its contents, and does it accurately reflect history and the word of God?  This infographic sheds some light on the subject.

One reason some may question the divinity of the Bible is the process by which it was created – seems a little shoddy for a god and all.  One must wonder why God’s publishing skills are limited to that of ancient man.  Let’s take a look at how the Bible came to be, in 20 steps or so.

Click the image to see a larger version.


How the Bible came to be

Source: Knowreligion.net

  • David

    17. “… ends changing during copping.” Or was that deliberate?

  • jo

    Small problem. None of this explains the unfailing accuracy of Bible prophecies nor how it is free from unscientific views commonly espoused in ancient mythologies.

  • Kevin

    jo – What accuracy are you talking about? It has been proven that the bible is NOT accurate in its history, cosmology, geography, and science. So I’m curious as to what you might be talking about?

    • Jo

      Kevin –

      i. I’m referring to this unfailing accuracy: http://bit.ly/1d0Y82v

      ii. Who has proven and when “that the bible is NOT accurate in its history, cosmology, geography, and science”?

  • Jo

    Are you aware that there are literally ** thousands ** of ancient Bible manuscripts – in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine – available today in museums the world over?In fact, no other ancient writings are as well attested to as the Bible’s. When you compare these manuscripts to modern Bibles it’s unmistakable how accurately these render the ancient texts.As such, any fears of tampering or errataare unwarranted.

  • Jo

    “The vulgar modern argument used against religion, and lately against common decency, would be absolutely fatal to any idea of liberty. It is perpetually said that because there are a hundred religions claiming to be true, it is therefore impossible that one of them should really be true.

    The argument would appear on the face of it to be illogical, if anyone nowadays troubled about logic. It would be as reasonable to say that because some people thought the earth was flat, and others (rather less incorrectly) imagined it was round, and because anybody is free to say that it is triangular or hexagonal, or a rhomboid, therefore it has no shape at all; or its shape can never be discovered; and, anyhow, modern science must be wrong in saying it is an oblate spheroid. The world must be some shape, and it must be that shape and no other; and it is not self-evident that nobody can possibly hit on the right one.

    What so obviously applies to the material shape of the world equally applies to the moral shape of the universe. The man who describes it may not be right, but it is no argument against his rightness that a number of other people must be wrong.”

    ? G.K. Chesterton