Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is the New Testament Accurate and Reliable? Archaeology?

page: 10
1
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
*clears throat*
Christ is NOT a name. It is a title. There are many Christs in history. Jesus Christ is a prophet named in the King James Bible. Get your stuff together guys. I'm sick of reading baloney... (Yes I misspelled that on purpose)


Oh sure, you think he was referring to someone else other than Jesus of Nazareth?




Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's moronic. the book was written by dozens of people.

no book is either accurate or not, things IN a book are either accurate or not, but not the whole thing. you're creating a false scenario here.



I do not agree. It was not written by dozens of people, oh wait second, in that line of thinking it was but what does the Bible itself say?



Every scripture23 is inspired by God24 and useful for teaching, for reproof,25 for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God26 may be capable27 and equipped for every good work.


2 Timothy 3

Emphasis mine...




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
OK - a little opinion here to even it all out:


#1. the bible has been mis-translated. Hebrew is a very general language. it is made to be open-ended and up for interpretation. Do you believe the way it was translated by a human? hush your mouth and your mind, and learn Hebrew and make your own conclusions. (this is true for both sides of this discussion.)

#2. Roman-Catholics and others like them have exerted control over the flow of Christianity. would you believe the translation they have adapted for their faith/beliefs? (I know I wouldn't trust it.)

#3. true esoteric or gnostic knowledge has been covered up for centuries. your beliefs are the product of what you have been taught. who taught your teacher? I don't believe that any of your "high" religious clergy have communed with God about how to communicate this sacred, ancient wisdom. (point 4 continues this.)

#4. Commune with God, YOURSELF. (a sentence with two meanings, much like the bible, take it how you will.) One of the main ideas in the Bible is the fact that you do not need to go through a human (clergy included) to reach God.

So, the point is,

whether you believe in Jesus Christ,
or that he is the savior of humankind,
or that he is a farce created to nullify gnostic faiths,
or whatever,

YOU can communicate with God.
YOU make the decisions of what scripture means to YOU.
YOU are part of God. God is part of YOU.

embrace him and your fellow lifeforms with love...



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
#1. the bible has been mis-translated. Hebrew is a very general language. it is made to be open-ended and up for interpretation. Do you believe the way it was translated by a human? hush your mouth and your mind, and learn Hebrew and make your own conclusions. (this is true for both sides of this discussion.)


You can get books and translate for oneself as I have done when I come to one that makes no sense or I want to translate myself. Nephilim being just one, Elohim another. All in all, translators have done a great job, depending on which one but that is another subject altogether.



Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
#2. Roman-Catholics and others like them have exerted control over the flow of Christianity. would you believe the translation they have adapted for their faith/beliefs? (I know I wouldn't trust it.)


the Latin Vulgate then? Well OK, then we have many older ones to use, not in Latin but in Aramaic and Greek.



Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
#3. true esoteric or gnostic knowledge has been covered up for centuries. your beliefs are the product of what you have been taught. who taught your teacher? I don't believe that any of your "high" religious clergy have communed with God about how to communicate this sacred, ancient wisdom. (point 4 continues this.)


Gnostic writings came around 100+ years after the new testament, point is moot.




Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
#4. Commune with God, YOURSELF. (a sentence with two meanings, much like the bible, take it how you will.) One of the main ideas in the Bible is the fact that you do not need to go through a human (clergy included) to reach God.


Absolutely not, one does not create himself. Clergy is besides the point, but we are not GOD, that is one of the very first lies, remember what was said in Eden.


Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
YOU can communicate with God.
YOU make the decisions of what scripture means to YOU.
YOU are part of God. God is part of YOU.

embrace him and your fellow lifeforms with love...


Free love like the 60's then?



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
#3. true esoteric or gnostic knowledge has been covered up for centuries. your beliefs are the product of what you have been taught. who taught your teacher? I don't believe that any of your "high" religious clergy have communed with God about how to communicate this sacred, ancient wisdom. (point 4 continues this.)


Gnostic writings came around 100+ years after the new testament, point is moot.

I was using the word gnostic as an adjective, not a noun pertaining to a certain circle of beliefs or writings.



Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
#4. Commune with God, YOURSELF. (a sentence with two meanings, much like the bible, take it how you will.) One of the main ideas in the Bible is the fact that you do not need to go through a human (clergy included) to reach God.


Absolutely not, one does not create himself. Clergy is besides the point, but we are not GOD, that is one of the very first lies, remember what was said in Eden.

We are all the children of God, who created us in His own image. There is a part of God in all of us, and we in Him. I cannot begin to fathom how you follow blindly like a sheep, but maybe that is what the Originators of Organized Religion asked you to be?


Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
YOU can communicate with God.
YOU make the decisions of what scripture means to YOU.
YOU are part of God. God is part of YOU.

embrace him and your fellow lifeforms with love...


Free love like the 60's then?

Of course, but not physical love like hippies, but spiritual love akin to the enlightenment that we are all part of one consciousness . I believe that organized religion has created many false teachings to keep us blind to the fact that we have the knowledge and the virtue to grow beyond the confines of our physical bodies.



[edit on 7/13/2007 by 12SeVeN34]



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
ed, show me jesus in a contemporary historical document. a document written when he was alive. then i'll stop questioning the document as much. the main character is suspiciously absent until a few decades after he supposedly died.



posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12SeVeN34
Of course, but not physical love like hippies, but spiritual love akin to the enlightenment that we are all part of one consciousness . I believe that organized religion has created many false teachings to keep us blind to the fact that we have the knowledge and the virtue to grow beyond the confines of our physical bodies.


For some reason I have the urge to smoke some weed...




posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ed, show me jesus in a contemporary historical document. a document written when he was alive. then i'll stop questioning the document as much. the main character is suspiciously absent until a few decades after he supposedly died.


Well sure I will grab my copy of the Jerusalem times for March 3rd year 32 AD, oh wait, they didnt have papers nor books then, they had scrolls....

So you basically are stating that the man named Jesus from Nazareth never existed?





Same could be said for Nimrod except I think he did because he was written about after he died...get the point.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by edsinger
3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 3:17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.



Christians love to quote this passage as if it proves the Bible is inpired, but there are several serious problems with this passage :

2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous

The meaning of 2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous in the Greek because the "is" is not found in Greek.

Here is Young's literal translation, which hedges it's bets by including "is" not found in the original :

16 every Writing ('is') God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that ('is') in righteousness,

Here is the literal translation without the fudged "is" :

16 every Writing God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that in righteousness,


Here is what essay on bible.org says about the variant translation :
"Such a translation is possible, but not required. Actually either translation can claim to be accurate. Both translations have to supply the word is since it does not appear in the original."
www.bible.org...


Some Bible versions do have the variant :

(2 Tim 3:16 REB) All inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,

(2 Tim 3:16 Lamsa) All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 NEB) Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,

(2 Tim 3:16 ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

(2 Tim 3:16 YLT) every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,

(2 Tim 3:16 Darby) Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 WYC) For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,

(2 Tim 3:16 Douay-Rheims) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

(2 Tim 3:16 Webster's) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2 Tim 3:16 Inspired Version) And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 Brown and Comfort Interlinear) ALL SCRIPTURE [IS] GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS,

GNT's note at 2 Timothy 3:16 that gives "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).

Note that apologists never quote this version of the translation, because it doesn't say what they want it to.


New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written

It is basic Christian history that the NT did not exist when Timothy was written. Timothy was written in early-mid 2nd century (mid 1st according to Christian stories though) But the NT did not exist as a collection until 4th century.

Timothy could not possibly have been cailling ITSELF "scripture" as it was being written, could it ?


Timothy is a forged letter

It is a well known consensus of NT scholars that the Pastorals were forged letters, not by Paul. You can read some details here as to why :
earlychristianwritings.com...
An excerpt follows :

2 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

1. Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith, " has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

2. Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative [myspace]style[/myspace], far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

3. The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

[out of space]



Iasion



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
GNT's note at 2 Timothy 3:16 that gives "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).

Note that apologists never quote this version of the translation, because it doesn't say what they want it to.


This one does not bother me at all as I take it into context, the meaning is the same. When translating from Greek to English, sometimes the meaning is hard to translate accurately, but this is not one of those situations. the word IS may have been added for the benefit of the English reader whist understood for the Greek reader.


Originally posted by Iasion
New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written

It is basic Christian history that the NT did not exist when Timothy was written. Timothy was written in early-mid 2nd century (mid 1st according to Christian stories though) But the NT did not exist as a collection until 4th century.


This one really grabs me, the New Testament was around before Nicea, this is a misnomer of those that don't understand. The history of the new Testament is well documented by Clement and others. The Canon so to speak was not formalized until Martian did his and it required a 'formal' list to counter it. The Early Churches knew which ones were scripture and those that were not, there were a few such as Jude and Revelation that some churches did not accept as they were not familiar with them.

That's one reason the Gnostic writings were so easily identified as non scripture as there was no discussion of them till long after the canonical books were in circulation, hence they came to late to be considered.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Hi all,


Originally posted by edsinger
This one does not bother me at all as I take it into context,


The context has nothing to do with it.
You didn't show any context, or how it is relevant.


Originally posted by edsinger
the meaning is the same.


The meaning is completely different as can be plainly seen by comparing them ...

"All scripture inspired by God ...."
vs
"All scripture IS inspired by God ...."

Ed pretends on one hand they mean the same thing - but on the other hand he still argues for only ONE translation as being correct.
Ed doesn't even seem to know his own argument anymore.



Originally posted by edsinger
When translating from Greek to English, sometimes the meaning is hard to translate accurately, but this is not one of those situations.


It clearly IS one of those situations, as I showed in my original post.
Of course, Ed just ignores the facts, as usual.

Here is what essay on bible.org says about the variant translation :
"Such a translation is possible, but not required. Actually either translation can claim to be accurate. Both translations have to supply the word is since it does not appear in the original."
www.bible.org...

I posted a list of over a dozen bibles which do NOT have the "is" included. Of course, Ed just ignored that fact too.

The Greek New Testament gives a note at 2 Timothy 3:16 "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).

Many Bibles and NT experts disagree with Ed's opinion.



Originally posted by edsinger
the word IS may have been added for the benefit of the English reader whist understood for the Greek reader.


Rubbish.
Adding the "is" CHANGES the meaning completely.
It was CHANGED for obvious reasons - so believers can quote it as "proof" scripture is true.



Originally posted by edsinger
This one really grabs me, the New Testament was around before Nicea,


I didn't mention Nicea.
Nicea had NOTHING to do with chosing the books of the Bible.
(Do you really believe they did, Ed ?)

When was Timothy written, Ed ?
Did the NT exist then, yes or no ?




Originally posted by edsinger
this is a misnomer of those that don't understand.


A "misnomer" is a wrong name or term.
I used no such wrong term, Ed shows no such wrong usage.
Here Ed is using big words he doesn't even understand.



Originally posted by edsinger
The history of the new Testament is well documented by Clement and others. The Canon so to speak was not formalized until Martian did his and it required a 'formal' list to counter it. The Early Churches knew which ones were scripture and those that were not, there were a few such as Jude and Revelation that some churches did not accept as they were not familiar with them.


So what?
You AVOIDED the questions Ed.
Please ANSWER -


Did the author of Timothy consider his words scripture as he wrote them ?

When the author was writing Timothy, what did "scripture" refer to ?

Did the NT exist when Timothy was written ?




Q.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion
Hi all,

The context has nothing to do with it.
You didn't show any context, or how it is relevant.

The meaning is completely different as can be plainly seen by comparing them ...

"All scripture inspired by God ...."
vs
"All scripture IS inspired by God ...."

Ed pretends on one hand they mean the same thing - but on the other hand he still argues for only ONE translation as being correct.
Ed doesn't even seem to know his own argument anymore.


Oh but it does, tell the truth, what you are implying is that only 'some' of the scripture is inspired. Well by the time this verse was written I think scripture was pretty much set.

example - The book of Enoch is not considered inspired, the Book of Revelation is, its really simple but to those that want to smear the Bible.

I could care less about whether "is" is there, I mean that worked for Bill Clinton didn't it? Inspired means God Breathed, and the Church understood what that meant.


Originally posted by goose

It clearly IS one of those situations, as I showed in my original post.
Of course, Ed just ignores the facts, as usual.


I didn't ignore them, they were just moot.


Originally posted by Iasion
Here is what essay on bible.org says about the variant translation :
"Such a translation is possible, but not required. Actually either translation can claim to be accurate. Both translations have to supply the word is since it does not appear in the original."
www.bible.org...


I posted a list of over a dozen bibles which do NOT have the "is" included. Of course, Ed just ignored that fact too.


Again moot, as I do understand quite a bit about translations.
Lets see the most literal of the English Translations, the NASB.

16(AU)All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

So this one has it, lets see one of my favorites ESV
16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

How about another with GREAT notes BTW, the NET

3:16 Every scripture23 is inspired by God24 and useful for teaching, for reproof,25 for correction, and for training in righteousness,
And the notes:23tn Or “All scripture.”

Either way I see no issues here, unless you look to semantics to find one.


Originally posted by Iasion
The Greek New Testament gives a note at 2 Timothy 3:16 "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).

Many Bibles and NT experts disagree with Ed's opinion.


many don't....so who is right? You can pick a much better one than this can't you?



Originally posted by Iasion
Rubbish.
Adding the "is" CHANGES the meaning completely.
It was CHANGED for obvious reasons - so believers can quote it as "proof" scripture is true.


It does if your looking for conflict. Of course the Gospel of Philip could be considered scripture, but its not inspired scripture. Christians do not even consider it scripture. Just as some consider 'Origin of the Species' scripture, some do not.



Originally posted by Iasion
I didn't mention Nicea.
Nicea had NOTHING to do with chosing the books of the Bible.
(Do you really believe they did, Ed ?)

Heck no, I think we agree on something, Nicaea was ~320's, Inspired Scripture was already decided for the most part 200 years previously.


Originally posted by Iasion
When was Timothy written, Ed
When was Timothy written, Ed ?
Did the NT exist then, yes or no ?


It was written right before Paul's execution or thereabouts, ~ 65AD.

Did the NT exist then? No Random House had not published yet.

But there were many writings circulating among the Church's and the Gospels and Paul's letters and Acts were around, were all of the books that ended up in the NT written yet? Nope, Revelation cam around 25 years later. The Church's knew what was inspired then for the most part and what was not. remember Martian didn't come along for 100 years or so.




Originally posted by Iasion

A "misnomer" is a wrong name or term.
I used no such wrong term, Ed shows no such wrong usage.
Here Ed is using big words he doesn't even understand.


Excuse me, I am not a scholar but I doubt anyone didnt folow what I meant. Oh great wise one - I am humbled. The word I wanted to use would get me a flag.

Lets see



Originally posted by Iasion
New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written

It is basic Christian history that the NT did not exist when Timothy was written. Timothy was written in early-mid 2nd century (mid 1st according to Christian stories though) But the NT did not exist as a collection until 4th century.

This one really grabs me, the New Testament was around before Nicea, this is a misnomer of those that don't understand.


See here you show your colors, you claim that Timothy was written 2nd century. If Paul wrote it, then how the heck did he write it when he was dead? See , this is another peck in the attack on God. Its a darn measly pitiful one at that.







Originally posted by Iasion
So what?
You AVOIDED the questions Ed.
Please ANSWER -



Did I?


Originally posted by Iasion
Did the author of Timothy consider his words scripture as he wrote them ?

When the author was writing Timothy, what did "scripture" refer to ?

Did the NT exist when Timothy was written ?


I already answered that one.....


FIRE AWAY.....



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well sure I will grab my copy of the Jerusalem times for March 3rd year 32 AD, oh wait, they didnt have papers nor books then, they had scrolls....


and stone or clay tablets.
and yet we have confirmation of appolonius (excuse me, i may have mispelt the name), who also claimed to be the jewish messiah, from a time period a lot closer to his death.



So you basically are stating that the man named Jesus from Nazareth never existed?


no, i'm stating that it's sevely doubtful that a man named jesus that came from nazareth that the bible speaks of existed.





Same could be said for Nimrod except I think he did because he was written about after he died...get the point.


well, you THINK he did, but you really can't prove that he did. i mean, that's another one i throw into question because there's nothing to speak of in terms of evidence and just an entry into a book.

so for you it's about faith, not reality. i do get the point



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
So when was Timothy written? Whats the oldest known copy? Who wrote it?

Your dating it to long after Paul was dead showed exactly what you mean...

Reality? Faith?

So which is it?






top topics



 
1
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join