Is the New Testament Accurate and Reliable? Archaeology?

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...

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...

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?

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]

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.

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...

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.

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