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

Originally posted by lightseeker
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.?

Do it yourself: www.google.com...

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Frosty]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
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.

We don't need the originals. And I don't know of many forms of writing that can survive 5000 + years of aging, the so called originals could have easily been destoryed by the babylonians or in the fire of the great libary of alexandria. YOu are asking for the impossible to prove something that really doesn't need originals to be proven

Evolutionist do the same thing all the time when searching for so called "Missing" links by finding an early homid then comparing it to older and newer examples then using it as proof of evolution.

ONly this time scholars use written texts and compare then to older copies, thus doing basic extrapolation and saying there isn't any significant differance. And that is exactly what the Dead Sea scrolls were able to do.

No we cannot prove that the bible you can buy at a bookstore is a 100% prefectly translation of the original text, but we CAN say that they are very likely close enough that there is very little noticable differance to remove almost any doubt how true it is to the original

Originally posted by Jehosephat
No we cannot prove that the bible you can buy at a bookstore is a 100% prefectly translation of the original text, but we CAN say that they are very likely close enough that there is very little noticable differance to remove almost any doubt how true it is to the original

no matter how much you want it, you can't prove the bible we have today is anything like the 'originals', they however, haven't changed much since the dead sea scrolls.

the problem with the bible is that the new testament was basically written to try and prove the old testament. having messianic prophecies in the old testament saying the messiah will do miracles, then having matthew, john, luke, mark (who never met jesus) write that jesus did miracles, is not proof.

Originally posted by jake1997
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
[edit on 18-7-2005 by jake1997]

It has nothing to do with a lie sent by Ha'satan. Its got to do with arriving at the truth. Should one just accept the truth without questioning when Yeshua himself said to test all things. That is blind faith.

No, you take the availible evidence compare it and when looked at unbiased the ONLY thing one can say is there WERE various text circulating at the time of Yeshua, at the time of the DSS. So we have absolute no proof of a god-breathed manuscript. For if we did, we wouldn't have errors, contradictions, etc floating around.

Its not about casting doubt on the bible, i simply want the truth and I believe part of that means restoration of what this world calls the bible. It should be texturally examined to arrive as close to the original as possible.
As the bible itself says, look for two witnesses and unfortunately on some matters we don't even have two witnesses agreeing.

Oh and since you brought it up, Did the serpent really lie?...did they gain knowledge of good and evil? Did YHWH kill them? Who told the truth?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the problem with the bible is that the new testament was basically written to try and prove the old testament. having messianic prophecies in the old testament saying the messiah will do miracles, then having matthew, john, luke, mark (who never met jesus) write that jesus did miracles, is not proof.

I surely hope they didnt write the NT in hopes of proving the OT...if thats the case they should have done a better job

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by lightseeker
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.?

Do it yourself: www.google.com...

Are you suggesting that I look up your arguments for you? If you are so certain of your assertion, that the bible has been altered, and rewritten, with the idea of withholding information, then why are you so shy, about giving up your sources? Your reluctance to do this speaks louder than any words, as to the reliablilty of your information.

Originally posted by KSoze

Oh and since you brought it up, Did the serpent really lie?...did they gain knowledge of good and evil? Did YHWH kill them? Who told the truth?

God never told them that He would kill them; He told them they would die, and they did. They died to the spiritual innocence and sinlessness they had enjoyed up to that point. Adam and Eve were put out of the garden and cursed and the land was cursed, and Mankind was cursed, not because they had been clever and bright, but because they had been disobedient; they had committed their first sin. So. yes the serpent lied as he always does and God was the only one Who told the truth in the whole story.

Originally posted by Liberal1984


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

The Welsh Bible came out 1n 1588 and the English version around 60 years before that. Please see...

www.llgc.org.uk...

Originally posted by lightseeker

Originally posted by KSoze

Oh and since you brought it up, Did the serpent really lie?...did they gain knowledge of good and evil? Did YHWH kill them? Who told the truth?

God never told them that He would kill them; He told them they would die, and they did. They died to the spiritual innocence and sinlessness they had enjoyed up to that point. Adam and Eve were put out of the garden and cursed and the land was cursed, and Mankind was cursed, not because they had been clever and bright, but because they had been disobedient; they had committed their first sin. So. yes the serpent lied as he always does and God was the only one Who told the truth in the whole story.

They gained knowledge of good and evil AND they didn't die immediately; so it appears the serpent was the one who told the truth. The hebrew word used for die there is used many times in the Tanakh to refer to a PHYSICAL death.

Originally posted by lightseeker

Originally posted by KSoze

Oh and since you brought it up, Did the serpent really lie?...did they gain knowledge of good and evil? Did YHWH kill them? Who told the truth?

God never told them that He would kill them; He told them they would die, and they did. They died to the spiritual innocence and sinlessness they had enjoyed up to that point. Adam and Eve were put out of the garden and cursed and the land was cursed, and Mankind was cursed, not because they had been clever and bright, but because they had been disobedient; they had committed their first sin. So. yes the serpent lied as he always does and God was the only one Who told the truth in the whole story.

They gained knowledge of good and evil AND they didn't die immediately; so it appears the serpent was the one who told the truth. The hebrew word used for die there is used many times in the Tanakh to refer to a PHYSICAL death.

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Savior:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


I pasted enough for you to get an idea of the topic of discussion there.

At the end, you see that concerning the history of the earth...one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day.

God said 'In the day that you eat of it you will surely die.

Mankind was made to live FOREVER. Sin brought death. Adam died at 930 years i think.

Later on because of mans afinity for evil , God cut us back to 120 years.

We are near the end of the 6th day. We are approaching 6000 years of existence.
The 7th day will be the millinium reign of Jesus Christ on earth.

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the problem with the bible is that the new testament was basically written to try and prove the old testament. having messianic prophecies in the old testament saying the messiah will do miracles, then having matthew, john, luke, mark (who never met jesus) write that jesus did miracles, is not proof.

That is your opinion and anyone can easily make that assumption because of the difficulty of finding proof. We don't have way-back machines, a Police box, or Telephone booths that can wisk us back into time to find out. So we have to look for information that contradicts what has been historically written, and so far no archeological finds, or anceint texts have done so. Thus until a contradiction occurs there is no evidance to support the assumption that the NT is a work of fiction to support the old testement.

Just like a legal court case, the burden of proof is given to the acusser. and you sir, have no proof to prove your assumption. all you are doing is arguing only by using using Disinformation tactics and not actaul proof or evidance

Originally posted by Jehosephat

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the problem with the bible is that the new testament was basically written to try and prove the old testament. having messianic prophecies in the old testament saying the messiah will do miracles, then having matthew, john, luke, mark (who never met jesus) write that jesus did miracles, is not proof.

That is your opinion and anyone can easily make that assumption because of the difficulty of finding proof. We don't have way-back machines, a Police box, or Telephone booths that can wisk us back into time to find out. So we have to look for information that contradicts what has been historically written, and so far no archeological finds, or anceint texts have done so. Thus until a contradiction occurs there is no evidance to support the assumption that the NT is a work of fiction to support the old testement.

Just like a legal court case, the burden of proof is given to the acusser. and you sir, have no proof to prove your assumption. all you are doing is arguing only by using using Disinformation tactics and not actaul proof or evidance

matthew, mark, luke were written around 70 AD to 80 AD, about the time when the christian movement was in a crisis. many of the prophecies that they wrote about were being fulfilled at that exact time, which is why they write about them in so much detail. john, who was greek, was written later around 100 AD, when all of jesus' original followers had died. both matthew and luke copy extensively from mark, quoting and sometimes taking whole passages. sometimes we don't need to go back in time to work things out, the only extra information we could gather would be 'who wrote the four gospels' as it is now a widely accepted fact that the authors are anonymous.

if any one has disinformation, then its your own misconception that the synoptic gospels were written by jesus' disciples.

matthew, mark, luke were written around 70 AD to 80 AD, about the time when the christian movement was in a crisis.

This sounds like you're quoting someone, to me, since I'm sure I've heard these words before. Which 'crisis'?

It makes very little sense to assert that Luke was written between 70-80 AD, since Acts stops in 62AD with Paul in prison. Since he was then released, executed in 64, the temple burned in 68, etc -- events which must have been included had they happened -- it is reasonable to suppose Luke-Acts were written around 62AD. Since it uses Mark, Mark must precede this. The date of Matthew is more inscrutable.

...john, who was greek, was written later around 100 AD, when all of jesus' original followers had died.

John himself was still alive in 100AD, according to those who knew him and those they taught. The evidence of authorship is that testimony.

sometimes we don't need to go back in time to work things out, the only extra information we could gather would be 'who wrote the four gospels' as it is now a widely accepted fact that the authors are anonymous.

I don't know who is supposed to think this. Anonymous works have no ascribed author, and the tradition about them tends to ascribe them to more than one person. The evidence for authorship is clear and unambiguous. Those who assert anonymity invariably seem to be amateurs who suppose that if they can find a cavil to the evidence, that proves there is no evidence, which is evidence that they were anonymous. Do you see the series of fallacies involved?

Tertullian, ca. 200, ascribes all the gospels to "apostles and apostolic men."

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Apparently these books have pagan origins and were united to cause different faiths to unite as one. Is this true?

No.

Apparently both the new and old testaments are bindings of formally separate books. Is this true?

The collection of books known as the Old Testament existed before the collection of the NT was closed.

Also has the bible (like perhaps most religions) been contaminated by man as it has passed through the centuries?

The bible is a book. Like all books, it has been copied, printed, etc. Errors can be introduced in this process. However the bible is the best preserved text from its era. It is a fallacy to suppose an inerrant text requires to be preserved without copyist errors, tho.

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

You're thinking of the medieval period in the Latin West. But in the East the Greek was used directly.

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?

Archaeology does not tend to contradict the bible. Some of the finds have been known to suggest errors in the bible; or, if you like, some biblical statements suggest that the archaeological finds are misinterpreted. Since both are only partial accounts, it's usually wiser to look at such apparent contradictions as points where the historical record is unclear, and where we can learn something by holding onto both pieces of evidence.

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?

Hand me your cheque book. I will contaminate it. Would this occurring require you to have great faith in anyone?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by lightseeker

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by lightseeker
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.?

Do it yourself: www.google.com...

Are you suggesting that I look up your arguments for you? If you are so certain of your assertion, that the bible has been altered, and rewritten, with the idea of withholding information, then why are you so shy, about giving up your sources? Your reluctance to do this speaks louder than any words, as to the reliablilty of your information.

Humbug, I am not going to go through the process of extracting information which is well known. ie Hitler had concentration camps, so I am not going to go through the ordeal of finding you the sources. It is the common knowledge amongst people on the subject of religous matters that the New Testament has been changed through out history just as it is common knowledge that the Church supressed knowledge during the Dark Ages.

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by lightseeker

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by lightseeker
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.?

Do it yourself: www.google.com...

Are you suggesting that I look up your arguments for you? If you are so certain of your assertion, that the bible has been altered, and rewritten, with the idea of withholding information, then why are you so shy, about giving up your sources? Your reluctance to do this speaks louder than any words, as to the reliablilty of your information.

Humbug, I am not going to go through the process of extracting information which is well known. ie Hitler had concentration camps, so I am not going to go through the ordeal of finding you the sources. It is the common knowledge amongst people on the subject of religous matters that the New Testament has been changed through out history just as it is common knowledge that the Church supressed knowledge during the Dark Ages.

What Hitlers Concentration camps have to do with the consistency of the bible, I don't know. Which "people" are you referring to? The ones that present claims without evidence? Specifically, what information was suppressed during the dark ages.? No, let me guess.. You don't know what the information was, because it was supressed, is that right.?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
matthew, mark, luke were written around 70 AD to 80 AD, about the time when the christian movement was in a crisis. many of the prophecies that they wrote about were being fulfilled at that exact time, which is why they write about them in so much detail. john, who was greek, was written later around 100 AD, when all of jesus' original followers had died. both matthew and luke copy extensively from mark, quoting and sometimes taking whole passages. sometimes we don't need to go back in time to work things out, the only extra information we could gather would be 'who wrote the four gospels' as it is now a widely accepted fact that the authors are anonymous.

if any one has disinformation, then its your own misconception that the synoptic gospels were written by jesus' disciples.

Ah, but the idea that the Gospels were all written after 70AD are based on a blatent misinterpetation fo scriptre pertaining to this passage which takes place shortly after the wedding at Cana, after the first temple clearing, and at least year before the last supper

John 2:18-22 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

which is later refered to in Mathew and Mark when Jesus appears before the Jewish leaders and witnesses lay false charges on Jesus

Matthew 26:61 Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "

mark 14:58"We heard him say, 'I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man.' "

THe reason this is significant, is because bible-haters point out this Prophaciy of Jesus and link it to the sacking of Jeruselam by Romans in 70 AD. When Jesus was not even talking about the Jewish temple! But the Bible haters use this as an example of writers after 70 AD creating a prophet out of Jesus after the fact.

But i no way can i see how writing a book later on a historical event makes that historical event any less valid, nor the book less valid. Yes, the longer a witness waits to reveal thier information, the worse it is. Regadless no amount of doubt on a subject is going to change someones ideology, especailly when the accusers only have hearsay, and opinions.

Originally posted by lightseeker

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by lightseeker

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by lightseeker
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.?

Do it yourself: www.google.com...

Are you suggesting that I look up your arguments for you? If you are so certain of your assertion, that the bible has been altered, and rewritten, with the idea of withholding information, then why are you so shy, about giving up your sources? Your reluctance to do this speaks louder than any words, as to the reliablilty of your information.

Humbug, I am not going to go through the process of extracting information which is well known. ie Hitler had concentration camps, so I am not going to go through the ordeal of finding you the sources. It is the common knowledge amongst people on the subject of religous matters that the New Testament has been changed through out history just as it is common knowledge that the Church supressed knowledge during the Dark Ages.

What Hitlers Concentration camps have to do with the consistency of the bible, I don't know. Which "people" are you referring to? The ones that present claims without evidence? Specifically, what information was suppressed during the dark ages.? No, let me guess.. You don't know what the information was, because it was supressed, is that right.?

Are you honestly telling me that you believe the NT has not been altered since the time of its binding and that what you are reading today is the original deal that was read in 200 AD?

Originally posted by Frosty
Are you honestly telling me that you believe the NT has not been altered since the time of its binding and that what you are reading today is the original deal that was read in 200 AD?

This is correct, transmission errors aside. You perhaps did not know that we actually have extant copies of some portions of the NT from 200 AD?

I'm a little nervous that there is some confusion of two different ideas lurking in this discussion somewhere. These ideas are:

1. Books can be deliberately altered by people in order to change what they say, for reasons such as forgery.

2. All books in our imperfect world get typos in them, depending on how copies are made. In our era, of printing, they can be compositors mistakes. In the manuscript era, there were copying errors.

It's a mistake to confuse #2 with #1. All books suffer from #2, including the bible. We deal with it by trying to prevent such errors, as was also the case in the manuscript era, and living with an area of uncertainty. But since words form part of phrases, phrases part of sentences, sentences chapters, this really is very rarely a problem -- no more so than the imprecision involved in having anything stated in words in one language and translated into another.

People who confuse #2 and #1 then usually go on to say that no book can possibly be transmitted from the past, and then straight to obscurantism. But since the beginning of modern times, it has been accepted that texts *are* preserved, by copying. The loss of the classics is the other (ridiculous) alternative. This is not specifically an issue with the bible; it is a general issue with the preservation of ancient literature.

I hope that helps!

All the best,

Roger Pearse