It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who Wrote the Bible? And Is it Still "Pure"?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
According to the bible Mosses wrote the Ten Commandments as they were dictated to him by God himself somewhere on Mount Everest.
Christians what about the rest of the bible?
Apparently the bible is called the "bible" because it is the binding of books. Apparently these books have pagan origins and were united to cause different faiths to unite as one. Is this true?
Apparently both the new and old testaments are bindings of formally separate books. Is this true?

None Christians: What do you think Mosses was really about? What then is his real place in history? And once again who exactly do you think wrote the rest of the bible?

Also has the bible (like perhaps most religions) been contaminated by man as it has passed through the centuries?
Up until 300 years ago the bible was written and spoken in Latin only.
Some ancient archaeological finds contradict the bible even though they share great similarity with it. Are such discoveries the evolution of religion? Or original works in conflict with frauds?
If the bibles contaminated (ether by man or time itself) surely anyone who did so would have to have had great faith in the devil himself? (Maybe because in ancient times today’s scientific explanations for natural events pointed to God alone instead).
I don't care if you view the devil as a single entity or as a coalition of demons, bad-spirits. If the bible was contaminated was it contaminated by him-it? What might have been added or edited?
And atheists who do you believe wrote the bible? Can you point to any possible historical culprits?

Do many of you Christians believe that God would strike down anyone who contaminated the bible? Is this written? Where exactly?

That should be enough questions to get you started so fire away please.




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   
The dead sea scrolls contained a manuscripts of the old testement that were 1000 years older then previosuly know copies and show that during that thousand years, and time leading up to the present they were acuratly translated.

Even the King James bible which was made in 1611 was made with not having all of the differant translations of the time and manuscripts. Except for word order, or spelling, there is no significant differance in content from what we have today.

Truely you can say that the Bible is God breathed and has not been changed or corrupted.

Tho some Denominations like the Jehovah witnesses do alter the translations slightly to better fit thier beliefs. They are an exception to the norm



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Well its late so I can't comment on all your points, but I will comment on one that is right out lie.


Up until 300 years ago the bible was written and spoken in Latin only.


Well then why do we have 1500-2500 years of manuscripts in Hebew and Greek and Aramaic?

Now to say that the most common scriptures we had untill 300 years ago would be a little more fair. But really I would take that back almost 200 more years.

See the Roman Catholic Group wanted absolute control over the people, and what better way was to withhold the Bible from the common man. And the had a Only a prist can understand the bible Attitude.

Well Waycleff and Tyndale were some of the early Bible translators, and they worked from the original hebew and greek texts.

One is on record as saying something to the lines of "Even the plowboy will be able to read Gods Word just as well as the priests"


Well Rome didnt like like this and burned Tyndale at the stake as a heritic. They also used his bibles for kindling.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Wycliff and Tyndale were great men of the faith, but did not translate anything from the "original" greek or hebrew texts. There are no original texts in existence today... but there are also no original texts of any great works of antiquity. There are however more surviving copies of the bible, full or in pieces, from various times, places, and language groups, than any other great written work of antiquity. Giving the Bible, at the very least, as much historical credidibility as any other ancient work.

But liberal doesnt want to discuss the historicity of the bible, liberal is just looking for a fight i think...and its late, and i'm way too tired.

You guys have fun.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
I thought that the Vedic scriptures were far older than any existing Biblical texts. And the cunieform tablets from Sumer, which from my recollection, predate Abraham, are also quite a bit older. And then I also read, and am in agreement with, theories which lay out the evidence to support that the oldest Egyptian hieroglyphics predate any Biblical texts now extant.
Chinese civilization was very advanced 5 millenia ago too..... apparently, and so their 40+ unopened ancient royal tombs may well hold more texts that are older. In my reading, the most popular candidate for authorship of the Jewish Pentateuch, the oldest chapters in the Christian Bible, was the Royal Egyptian exile, Moses. The bits about his death and burial are clearly not his doing, though. I like David Rohl's contention that Akhnaten, Egypt's first monotheist Pharoah, who was exiled for being one, and whose name was stricken from monuments nationwide, could have lived at the same time as Moses, and therefore would probably be the same guy. Tutmoses interestingly translates into DavidMoses, t and d being interchangeable, and v and u also being so. Ramses, or Ra-Moses is another famous name that hints at Moses' possible Royal Egyptian heritage.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Actually, The 1st set of tablets were written by the hand of God according to the bible Exodus 24:12


God inscribed the Ten Commandments into stone: "God said to Moses, 'Come up to Me, to the mountain, and remain there. I will give you the stone tablets, the Torah and the commandment that I have written for [the people's] instruction.'"

The 1st set were destroyed when Moses came down from Mt. Hoeb (MT. Sinai )and found the people of Israel worshiping a Golden Calf. This is found in Exodu 32:4 and is known as "Chet ha'Egel" (חטא העגל) or "The Sin of the Calf"
The 2nd set of tablets were then re-written by Moses under the commandment of God. This is described in Exodus 34:1. These are the ones that were placed in the Arc of the Covenant.
There is a conflict here though as to the authorship of the second set. In Deuteronomy 4:13, 5:18, 9:10, 10:24, describes the author of the 2nd set of tablets to be once again God and not Moses.

As to if the Bible has been "contaminated" by man or through the ages, Yes it has undergone changes which is one of the reasons there are so many versions and various ideological takes on the same passages. Then once you through in the facts that there are many passages that Hebrew scholars "deleted" or rewrote for the Old Testament, and the "Christian Scholars" who have done the same for the New Testament" so that the message better fits their own agenda.
Now add to this mix, the various translations that the biblical texts have undergone throught the ages and the various ways that a single word can be interpeted. Yes the Bible has changed and will most likely continue to change.
Since the Bible has undergone these changes and (as yet) no one has been struck down... gues that kind of answers another of your questions.

There was recently a project that just completed that was an attempt to put together all the biblical texts that are still in existenance and to try to get a better translation of the texts. It was called the Transparent Bible Project.
Here is a quick link to their site. I believe that it is an ambitious project and from the examples that they have on their site I think that they may be on the right track. I will purchase a copy of thier translations once they become available.
The Transparent Bible Project



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
The dead sea scrolls contained a manuscripts of the old testement that were 1000 years older then previosuly know copies and show that during that thousand years, and time leading up to the present they were acuratly translated.
Even the King James bible which was made in 1611 was made with not having all of the differant translations of the time and manuscripts. Except for word order, or spelling, there is no significant differance in content from what we have today.
Truely you can say that the Bible is God breathed and has not been changed or corrupted.
norm


Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't show this exactly...what it showed was there were varying texts circulating around this time...for there are some books that agree with the Septuagint LXX and there are those that agree with the MSS...in addition, there are those that don't agree with either text...
So, to say that it was god breathed is a little far-fetched because god wouldn't breathe conflicting texts into existence. Not to mention those texts that were found in the DSS that are not found in the modern day bible anymore...
The Tanakh was redacted and compiled by the "great" assembly; the scribes altered the original...either intentional or unintentional...however, they were not above tampering with the text

Unlike the Sumerian clay tablets, there are NO original sources of the Tanakh-Old Testament that have been found to date.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

According to the bible Mosses wrote the Ten Commandments as they were dictated to him by God himself somewhere on Mount Everest.



Just thought I'd let you know that it was Mount Sinai, not Mount Everest. They are in completely different parts of the world.

Don't have time to answer any of the other questions right now; but I thought I'd at least point out one portion of your question that is wrong.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by dissbelief
Wycliff and Tyndale were great men of the faith, but did not translate anything from the "original" greek or hebrew texts. There are no original texts in existence today... but there are also no original texts of any great works of antiquity. There are however more surviving copies of the bible, full or in pieces, from various times, places, and language groups, than any other great written work of antiquity. Giving the Bible, at the very least, as much historical credidibility as any other ancient work.

But liberal doesnt want to discuss the historicity of the bible, liberal is just looking for a fight i think...and its late, and i'm way too tired.

You guys have fun.



When I said original, I was refering to the original languages, not the original penmanship...

But interesting to note.... one group who copied Bible text would examine each letter. If there was one error in a entire book, they would throw it ALL out, not just the part where the error was... People were VERY Carful to preserve the word



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSoze

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't show this exactly...what it showed was there were varying texts circulating around this time...for there are some books that agree with the Septuagint LXX and there are those that agree with the MSS...in addition, there are those that don't agree with either text...
So, to say that it was god breathed is a little far-fetched because god wouldn't breathe conflicting texts into existence. Not to mention those texts that were found in the DSS that are not found in the modern day bible anymore...
The Tanakh was redacted and compiled by the "great" assembly; the scribes altered the original...either intentional or unintentional...however, they were not above tampering with the text

Unlike the Sumerian clay tablets, there are NO original sources of the Tanakh-Old Testament that have been found to date.


YOu are mistake there are two parts to the dead sea scrolls. There are the writings Jewsih religious teachings which you metion, and manuscripts of the old testements which I was talking about.

It is interesting to note that the book of Esther was not included in the Dead Sea scroll. TO say there isn't any originals doesn't mean much when you comparte differant copies of said manuscripts 1000 years apart and find the content hasn't changed



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
YOu are mistake there are two parts to the dead sea scrolls. There are the writings Jewsih religious teachings which you metion, and manuscripts of the old testements which I was talking about.

It is interesting to note that the book of Esther was not included in the Dead Sea scroll. TO say there isn't any originals doesn't mean much when you comparte differant copies of said manuscripts 1000 years apart and find the content hasn't changed


I guess I need to be clearer...Take the book of Jeremiah for instance...In the DSS it agrees with the LXX text and clearly Doesn't agree with the Masoretic text (from which KJV is based)...the length of the book was changed...the same type of thing with Deut 32 where the Masoretic scribes changed "sons of god" to read "sons of Isra-EL"-the scribes were obviously not above tampering to better support "there" ideology.

There ARE also instances where DSS agrees with the Masoretic text and not with the LXX. Also, instances where it agrees with neither text...So that right there alone means there are were at least two varying texts circulating at the time; not to mention the Samaritan Pentateuch which greaty varies from the others. These variants are found IN the books of the modern day bible. Has nothing to do with "jewish writings."

People want to use the DSS to prove the evidence that the modern day bible was god breathed BUT it cannot be done for there are variations.
God doesn't write with variations and contradictions!

Just like how many want to conveniently use the DSS scrolls to support there canon however they conveniently forget that there are books of the Apocrypha and Pseudo represented in the scrolls that are not found in there bible.

Your statement that in a 1000yrs nothing was changed is completely false. All one has to do is compare the LXX and Masoretic Text, the Samaritan pentateuch to the DSS and its obvious its been changed. You have passages shortened, passages lengthened, words changed, scribal errors-all of that is present as evidenced by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If the need arises I can point out the numerous variants in the texts of the Tanakh as witnessed in the DSS piece by piece

Its VERY important to have the Original source because things have evidently changed over time AND if we had the orginal source we would know which one of the variants is in fact fake.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The Christian bible has been altered more than a few times in the few hundreds years after the first gospels were written. This was meant to withold information.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Koze I like to know where you got that information from, because accoridng to the Internationa Bible society which has created the latest New International Version (or NIV) translation



...For example we have a scroll of the complete book of Isaiah dating from the second century before Christ. It is a thousand years older than any previous Hebrew Scripture document that we had before 1947.

Even though not all of the scrolls are unrolled and translated more than half a century later, the answers are coming clear. The texts are amazingly similar to the documents we already have. The variations are less than two percent, and not a single teaching or doctrine of the Bible we have is altered. Rather than posing a threat to the Christian faith, the Dead Sea Scrolls have, in fact, provided convincing support for the genuineness of God's revelation as given to us in the Bible.

some new Bible translations have added approximately 70 words to the end of 1 Samuel 10. The passage tells us that a certain king Nahash gouged out the eyes of the Israelites. While the text itself is of little consequence, it raises some very basic questions. Are new parts of the Bible still coming to light? Don't we have God's complete revelation? How is this possible?

Such questions need a forthright answer, and that answer is to trust in God's provision. This trust embraces our faith in His plan for the universe, and in His sending of His son to our needy world. Therefore, it also certainly embraces our trust in His revelation. If we trust Him with our destiny, we can trust His provision of exactly what we need to know and receive from Him.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
I thought that the Vedic scriptures were far older than any existing Biblical texts. And the cunieform tablets from Sumer, which from my recollection, predate Abraham, are also quite a bit older. And then I also read, and am in agreement with, theories which lay out the evidence to support that the oldest Egyptian hieroglyphics predate any Biblical texts now extant.
Chinese civilization was very advanced 5 millenia ago too..... apparently, and so their 40+ unopened ancient royal tombs may well hold more texts that are older. In my reading, the most popular candidate for authorship of the Jewish Pentateuch, the oldest chapters in the Christian Bible, was the Royal Egyptian exile, Moses. The bits about his death and burial are clearly not his doing, though. I like David Rohl's contention that Akhnaten, Egypt's first monotheist Pharoah, who was exiled for being one, and whose name was stricken from monuments nationwide, could have lived at the same time as Moses, and therefore would probably be the same guy. Tutmoses interestingly translates into DavidMoses, t and d being interchangeable, and v and u also being so. Ramses, or Ra-Moses is another famous name that hints at Moses' possible Royal Egyptian heritage.


How many original vedic texts are you are of.?You're right, Moses is generally accepted as being the author of the first five books of the Old Testament. Ramses was Pharoah in Egypt at the time of the Exodus.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinta_ilfirin

Originally posted by Liberal1984

According to the bible Mosses wrote the Ten Commandments as they were dictated to him by God himself somewhere on Mount Everest.



Just thought I'd let you know that it was Mount Sinai, not Mount Everest. They are in completely different parts of the world.

Don't have time to answer any of the other questions right now; but I thought I'd at least point out one portion of your question that is wrong.


Also, it's accepted that God carved the written stone tablets Himself and Moses delivered them to the people.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
The Christian bible has been altered more than a few times in the few hundreds years after the first gospels were written. This was meant to withold information.


Sources and links, please; or cite the books and authors where you got your information. Or are you just pulling it out of thin air.?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
The dead sea scrolls contained a manuscripts of the old testement that were 1000 years older then previosuly know copies and show that during that thousand years, and time leading up to the present they were acuratly translated.

Even the King James bible which was made in 1611 was made with not having all of the differant translations of the time and manuscripts.


so you've actually read the dead sea scrolls and read the other copies of the bible and compared the ancient arabic versions, with the greek versions, with the hebrew versions, with the KJV (original) in the old english language (of which you would find it almost impossible to understand one sentence) and thus come to the conclusion that not much has changed in the text?

i doubt it very much if you've compared all of those versions let alone understand all of them.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
This is not a new idea.
It has been handily refuted.

The basis of this idea is doubt. You are to doubt the authenticity of the bible.
Once that doubt has been established, you can then deny parts of the bible such as original sin, creation, resurrection.

It is satans oldest lie. It was the first thing out of his mouth in the bible.

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

There is the doubt

Gen 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.

Denial

Gen 3:5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The lie. The relative / alternate truth.
Remember what God said? "Let us make man in our image"
They were ALREADY like God. Satan is a liar and the father of it.

Now..when you hear the question

Do you REALLLLLY think the bible is the ACTUAL word of God?
C'moooonnn! REALLLLLLLLLLLY???

Where do you think the source is?

Guys, Gals..listen up.

If you believe in a God that you cannot see with these physical eyes at this time
If you believe in Jesus and that he was killed...and then got up and walked around for 40 days...and then flew into heaven...

Then how hard can it be to believe that THE VERY GOD who did those things...also preserved His Gospel..for you?
Its not hard for me to believe at all.

God is awesome, and He lets me walk with Him






[edit on 18-7-2005 by jake1997]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
so you've actually read the dead sea scrolls and read the other copies of the bible and compared the ancient arabic versions, with the greek versions, with the hebrew versions, with the KJV (original) in the old english language (of which you would find it almost impossible to understand one sentence) and thus come to the conclusion that not much has changed in the text?

i doubt it very much if you've compared all of those versions let alone understand all of them.


I never said I did. but like all people I get my knowledge from otehr sources. Such as reading books about translations, and talking to professional scholars that actaully do translation work and make the decisions

Don't try to use dis-information tactics by attacking me and my lack of professional ability on the subject, when I am more of a relay of informations, like 95% of the active ATS members are



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   
the dead sea scrolls mean nothing though because we still don't have the 'original' versions of these books. for something that is so holy. so sacred. so devine, the actual words of god spoken in this book, especially where moses is writing down the 10 commandments on stone tablets...yet these amazing things, we no longer have. so the clarity of the bible can never be proven without the 'original' versions of the books.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join