Mark Hunt: Who wrote the bible, and where are the transcripts?


On the 7th day, UFC heavyweight Mark Hunt took to his social networks, and asked who wrote the bible and where the transcripts are? In the beginning, the questions were calm, but in response to irate fans, turn a turn for the decidedly excited.

Can someone answer my question who wrote the bible,and where is the transcripts they wrote it from.

Can someone answer my question please who wrote the bible and where are the transcripts they wrote them from kept.

Wow ask a question and not one person has any clue jus regurgitation of rubbish that was told to them by someone else,people talking about the Vatican yet none of u have ever been there,or know where these transcripts are,easy answer u don't have a clue.the reason I ask this question is I would like to know,and when some of u vomit out rubbish about the bible u don't even have any idea about it,or where it came from.jus some verses u have memorised but still u have no idea where it all began.

U talk about god like u know him her or it personally,but when I ask anyone of u if u have seen god,I already know the answer,the truth is ain't none of u have any idea or clue about this subject,I also reckon ain't none of u have ever read the bible Quran any of these books,if u did u will know each and every verse of it,and I know u don't.i need to find the answers and I know I won't find them here,thanks anyway for putting your Imput much appreciated.


Just as I thought ain't none of u have any clue show me a picture of what god looks like.

Now I feel sad I ask all u to show me what god looks like and u all run for the hills.the truth is ain't none of u have any clue.jus like u haven't a clue about the bible.i need assistance please assist me I need to understand.

What is sad to me is when I ask real questions all I get is regurgitated answers and abuse,but I already know ain't none of u can answer these questions,because u haven't any idea.u can't even show me one picture,or where the transcripts are that the bible was written from.oh that's right cause u DONT KNOW.well it's simple jus say nothing, it's easier.u can hurl abuse all day at me I care not what any of u think I jus want to know the truth.

Again don't refer back to the bible until u have proven it's origin,show me where the transcripts are,stop referring to a bible written by a roman conquerer.u referring to a bible written by a murderer rapist and the rest of it.

This page is my page and it is not hacked,I simply ask two questions,1.SHOW ME A PICTURE OF GOD 2. SHOW ME WHERE THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN FROM. I have not abused anybody,so please refrain from abusing me.

I don't care about losing fans,neither do I care about the abuse,I am so astounded that nobody I have asked has answered these 2 questions no pastor I have asked none,jus regurgitation upon regurgitation.i have always believed in something throughout my life,but all u so called godly people answer at least one of the two.

I ask legit questions and I get hammered by all u so called Christians and yet not one of u have helped me understand just abused me hahahahagagsa

Well thanks for helping answer my questions and the abuse Hahahahaha neither question was answered but the abuse tasted real nice so Christian like of u all,many many thanks good nite.

Wow close to 3 hundred thousand views and not one person has helped answer 2 simple questions

Follow Mark Hunt on Twitter...

Related MMA gear from the UG Store


Century Official UFC Fight Gloves

Century Official UFC Fight Gloves

Only $59.99

Elevation Training Mask 2.0

Elevation Training Mask 2.0

Only $79.99


tags: UFC   Mark Hunt (detail)  

Get the MMA Underground app. for iPhone and Andriod devices.
iPhone Application Andriod MMA Underground Application

Recent Comments »

Bereal site profile image  

3/24/14 2:11 PM by Bereal

'Personal question for Bereal. Were you raised in a religious family or did you convert to Christianity at a later age?'*I guess it depends what you call 'religious.' When I think of 'religious,' I tend to think more of a set of duties that need to be done in order to achieve salvation. My family does and did acknowledge Christ as the Messiah and God's Son....if that is what you mean.I am a student of history. I received my BA in US History and also have a Masters (in education.) To make a long story short, this interest in history bled to my faith. It was and is important to me to have a historical root in my faith. I began to study the life of Christ from a historical standpoint. I have studied and read very extensively on the matter. My faith has only grown because of it.

Bereal site profile image  

3/24/14 2:03 PM by Bereal

'i realize that bereal is trolling pretty hard, but it is good practice for people that are more sincere about the issue, i didn't know a lot of these common tactics like the human eye thing before! :D'Is this for real? I am not sincere about the topic? What 'tactics' are you referring to? What are you talking about?

Bereal site profile image  

3/24/14 2:02 PM by Bereal

Jeremy,First, your attempts at put-downs and strength in numbers is about annoying and transparent as the lady I just saw who was trying to maximize her Big Gulp purchase at 7-11.I am no pyschologist, but it is apparent that my comment on the Genesis account of creation being congruent with Dr. Van Wyhe's fossil account prompted your multiple-post manifesto.First, yes, Van Wyhe's account of the fossilized record of sea creatures/land creatures/man does directly correlate with the book of Genesis. Not sure why that gets you so crazed.Second, your manifesto has so many variables in it. First, it is obviously slanted towards evolution. It claims to know exactly how the earth was created which is a problem. Second, it looks at motivations of the text of Genesis, presumptive interpretation issues, etc. It basically tries to spin anything it can against Genesis itself. It even said that the earth was not covered with water when geological evidence proves otherwise.

FETT_DiscipleDojo site profile image  

3/21/14 10:54 PM by FETT_DiscipleDojo

I don't think an "allegorical" interpretation is accurate, but perhaps you simply meant "non-literal." I would warn people on both sides against oversimplification, particularly when approaching ancient literature which was written according to very different norms than post-enlightenment western historiography. There are multiple mediating positions between Ken Ham type Creationism and Bill Nye Naturalism. Theistic Evolution, Old Earth Creationism, Concordist, Semi-Concordist, Non-Concordist, Intelligent Design...etc. The problem is that in our society people don't want nuanced discussion; they want talking points that generate ratings and/or fire up the base by confirming what they already believe. But for the sincere searchers for truth, there is a wealth of resources available on the topic of the intersection between Science and Scripture. I've included many of them in the participant workbook for Disciple Dojo's "The Bible & Science: Friends or Foes??" DVD seminar (you can see it HERE). To answer your questions, I believe that when read according to ancient Near East literary standards (including phenomenological language, figures of speech, framework narrative patterning, etc.) the account of Creation in Scripture dovetails with most of the findings of modern sciences such as astrophysics and geology. However, I believe the conclusions of evolutionary biology and anthropology are far less demonstrable than they are made out to be by ideological naturalists. Not necessarily false...just not as firm as some would have people believe, particularly when it comes to abiogenesis and the evolutionary mechanism itself. I also reject a purely literalistic reading of Genesis that many Young Earth Creationists embrace because I believe it actually conflicts with how Scripture itself treats the subject and doesn't take into account the way the Hebrew language works.

Jeremy1983 site profile image  

3/21/14 1:40 PM by Jeremy1983

DD, Thanks for your contributions to this thread. You are obviously very thoughtful and knowledgeable as to the intricacies of the biblical texts due to your studies. I will concede that you are MUCH more well-versed in the nuances of ancient texts, and thus, I do not wish to (nor care to) contend any finer interpretation of Genesis and its passages. However, it is quite clear that attempting to align the literal interpretation of the passages in Genesis with our modern understanding of the natural world is impossible. A more allegorical position is required.That being said, perhaps you could bridge the gap - so to speak - between myself (and others) and Bereal. Do you think the Genesis account of creation is, in any way, a scientifically accurate account for the creation of the cosmos, without error? Do you believe we have a young earth, that all animals (including man) were spontaneously created in their current form, and that man walked with all other livings animals on the earth at the same time?I'd love to hear opposing thoughts from an intelligent non-troll.

FETT_DiscipleDojo site profile image  

3/21/14 12:53 PM by FETT_DiscipleDojo

Jeremy, as a Hebrew Bible teacher, I have to say that your posts above contain a number of commonly-held assumptions that familiarity with the Biblical Hebrew language and ancient Near East literary norms resolve quite easily. The 19th century theories regarding the redaction of Genesis' various sources (all variations on Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis) are falling out of favor among Hebrew Bible scholars because they are built upon entirely subjective criteria that ancient Near East literature reveal to be false. Hebrew narrative if frequently characterized by such recapitulation and dyschronolization, both of which appear in the Creation material in chs. 1-4. Only through a literalistic wooden reading do these "contradictions" surface. Here's a fun little post over on the Dojo blog which shows the methodology behind much of these older forms of OT scholarship and why the findings tell us more about the interpreter than they do about the text itself:

ender852 site profile image  

3/21/14 12:17 PM by ender852

i realize that bereal is trolling pretty hard, but it is good practice for people that are more sincere about the issue, i didn't know a lot of these common tactics like the human eye thing before! :D

Jeremy1983 site profile image  

3/21/14 12:11 PM by Jeremy1983

last one...On to Genesis Chapter Two: 1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.3: And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. The idea here is that creation is completed---i.e., there are no new things appearing. Wrong. New species have been observed forming in the wild. Humans, despite the Genesis account, were NOT the last living things to appear. The end of the first creation narrative is reached with verse 3 (the diving lines between chapters in Genesis do not reflect the dividing lines between the different narratives that were spliced together). I include it only to note with interest that, according to the Biblical writer, God "rested" after his creation, and to wonder why a presumably omnipotent being would feel any need at all to "rest" . . . . 4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Here begins the second narrative of the creation story---a much shorter one than the first narrative. There are several differences between it and the earlier account in chapter one. First of all, the word for God used here is NOT the plural "elohim". This indicates that the second account was written long after the first one, at a time when Judaism had already firmly rejected its polytheistic roots. We immediately run into the first contradiction between this creation account and the preceding one. According to Genesis 2, plants and herbs had appeared, but there had never been any rain yet. Not only is this scientific nonsense (plants cannot live without water), but it also contradicts Genesis 1, which talks about the "waters above the firmament" (presumed by the ancient cultures to be the source of rain) and "separating the waters of the earth". The Genesis 2 account then describes the earth being watered by a "mist", which is not mentioned in Genesis 1 and which is contradicted by the account of God dividing the waters. Note too that in Genesis 1 the earth is covered with water and dry land appears when the oceans are gathered up-----in Genesis 2, the earth is dry and water comes from within it. The two accounts are mutually exclusive. 7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Here we have the second creation account's version of how man was created. As we know, it is scientifically untrue. Humans come from the same evolutionary process as every other living thing. 9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Now we have fruit trees and other plants being created AFTER humans had already been created, a contradiction with the earlier account, which has trees and plants created before any humans. 10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. And here we have the rivers being "parted", despite the fact that the first Genesis account has the waters being "divided" BEFORE the appearence of plants or humans. Yet another instance of the two separate narratives failing to conform to each other. 19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Now we have cattle being created AFTER the man, which directly contradicts the earlier version that has cattle being created BEFORE humans. We also have birds created AFTER cattle and AFTER humans, which also contradicts the sequence given in Genesis 1. According to the first creation account, cattle were created, then both man and woman. According to the second account, man was created, THEN cattle, THEN woman. Another indication that the entire book of Genesis is an edited compilation of several distinct and separate narratives, written at different times by different peoples, that was later spliced together somewhat clumsily. It is NOT a single unbroken historical narrative. 21: And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And finally we have a story here where woman was created AFTER man, in contradiction to the earlier account which has them both created at the same time.

Jeremy1983 site profile image  

3/21/14 12:10 PM by Jeremy1983

continued...Lots of problems here . . . . According to the Genesis account, no heavenly bodies were created until this, the "fourth day". Yet the same account has "day" and "night" appearing on the FIRST day. This is simply impossible, since "day" and "night" are defined according to the earth's relationship to other heavenly bodies. There could not have been any "day" or "night" without a Sun for the earth to rotate near. The "lights of the firmament" refer to stars and planets. As pointed out earlier, ancient peoples believed that the stars were held up by a clear invisible roof in the sky, the "firmament". Scientifially, we know that the firmament does not exist. We also know that, contrary to the Genesis account, these stars existed for billions of years before the earth (or even our own Sun) ever existed. The biblical account that has the stars forming after the earth did is simply wrong. Note also that this narration has the lights of the firmament being formed to "give light to the earth". This, of course, had already been done way back in verses 3 and 4, on the first "day". We also see a reference here to "dividing the light from darkness", which had also already been done, in verses 4 and 5. There are in fact several instances where the creation narrative gives two different times for the occurence of certain events. This leads Biblical scholars to conclude that, not only is the creation narrative in the first chapter of Genesis from a different source than the creation narrative in the second chapter (which contradict each other in several ways), but the narrative in the first chapter is itself a compilation of several different narratives which contradict each other. Note also that the Genesis account has the sun and moon both being formed at the same time, and has both being placed on the same "firmament" that holds up the stars. This reflects the ancient belief that the "crystal spheres" of the "firmament" --including the ones that carried the sun and moon---revolved around the earth. In other words, the Biblical account concludes, as did all ancient cultures, that the earth was at the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and all the stars were carried around the earth by a transparent wall in the sky. Scientifically, we know this is silly. Scientifically, we also know that the sun and moon were not formed at the same time, as the biblical writer states. The sun already existed when the earth accreted. The moon didn't exist for about a billion years after the earth had already formed. In fact, from geological evidence we know that the moon was itself formed by the debris from the impact of a large body with the already-formed earth---this impact debris accreting to form the moon. The Genesis account here is simply wrong. Another problem: according to this account, the moon is itself a source of light, and shines under its own power. This is further reinforced in Isaiah 13:10, which says "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.", and in Ezekiel 32:7, which says "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light", and Isaiah 60:19, which says "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee", and Jeremiah 31:35, which says "Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night", and Mark 13:24, which says "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light", and Matthew 24:29, which says "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken". Scientifically, we know that all of these verses are wrong; the moon does not produce any light of its own, and simply reflects sunlight. The writers of Genesis, who knew nothing of astronomy, were unaware of this. Finally, note here that verse 16 has God creating the "stars", which had already been created back in verse 14. Another instance of two different narrations being edited together (and not quite fitting). 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Jeremy1983 site profile image  

3/21/14 12:10 PM by Jeremy1983

continued...The Genesis account here places the appearence of marine life AFTER the appearence of terrestrial grasses and fruit trees. Scientifically, we know this to be wrong. This account also has whales as one of the first (if not THE first) marine life to appear. Wrong again. Whales are a very recent appearence, not developing until long after the dinosaurs had died out. The Genesis account mentions that birds were created at the same time. Wrong again. Birds date from at least the Jurassic period, millions of years before the first whale. The Genesis account is also wrong in stating that birds appeared before any of the other terrestrial animals---the "creeping things" (the literal translation of the latin root for "reptiles"). This is simply not true. Not only did reptiles and dinosaurs appear on land before birds did, but we know from fossil evidence that, taxonomically, birds and dinosaurs belong in the same group. 25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. The Genesis account here places the creation of "creeping things" (this phrase usually refers to insects, spiders, reptiles, amphibians and other "creepy-crawlies") at the same time as the creation of mammals ("cattle"). According to Genesis, these things all appeared AFTER grasses, fruit trees, whales and birds had already appeared. And Genesis is wrong. All of these groups appeared several hundred millions of years before mammals did. All of them first appeared in the ocean, not on land. The reference to the creation of "cattle" is also wrong, since cattle are a domestic animal that were produced by ancient pastoral societies. They are not a species that ever lived in the wild. The ancient Hebrews, knowing nothing of archaeology, got this wrong. 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Note here: God says "Let *us* make man in *our* image." Yet another leftover reference to Judaism's polytheistic past, that hadn't been edited out of the creation narratives. . . . The least sophisticated of Biblical readers interpret "in our image" to mean the PHYSICAL image of God, and this is the source of most creationist opposition to evolution. It is an untenable interpretation. God has no more a "physical image" than does gravity. Note also that despite all the creationist howling, the Biblical account doesn't say a word about HOW man was created (although this IS described in the different creation narrative found in genesis chapter two). Note here that this creation account has man and woman created at the same time, in contradiction to the second creation account in chapter two, which has woman created after man. Yet another indication that the Genesis accounts are edited and redacted versions of several different narratives, each written and passed on independently of the others until spliced together by the emerging Hebrew preisthood.