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.

 

Former Fundamentalist 'Debunks' Bible

page: 14
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by OldThinker
 



Is it illogical to you that an all-knowing deity COULD preserve His message to mankind?

When that supposed deity uses human logic and constantly contradicts himself, goes against science, human nature, and often subscribes to the belief systems and cultural opinions of people within that period of history? Yes, I find that highly illogical.



Please explain your assertions for this alternative hypothesis....


i am interested, about ready to board a plane...I look forward to your response...

OT




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 



What about EXTERNAL criticism?

What about it? There's evidence on both sides, the main source for the information you listed was a person aligned with the Campus Crusade for Christ International. Not someone I would expect to write an unbiased assessment, which is why they focused on the truths and not fiction. By the way I've seen that info before and most of it is old, predating new information, most of it comes from research done in the 70's, just so you know.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by OldThinker
 



I've found archaeology verifies the scriptures....thoughts?

Yes, there is archaeology that verifies places in scripture are real, and there is the evidence I presented, that shows that events described in scripture did not occur. Thoughts?



Yes, I have noticed your are very thorough!!! Good job....please give me some time to view and I'll get back to you....glad you are on ATS!

OT



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 




Please explain your assertions for this alternative hypothesis....


Explain assertions? Which ones? How would you like them explained? Would you like me to quote and dissect scripture?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by OldThinker
 



What about EXTERNAL criticism?

What about it? There's evidence on both sides, the main source for the information you listed was a person aligned with the Campus Crusade for Christ International. Not someone I would expect to write an unbiased assessment, which is why they focused on the truths and not fiction. By the way I've seen that info before and most of it is old, predating new information, most of it comes from research done in the 70's, just so you know.



Yeah, good point! I did find some from Clemson, you may be interested in, ok? Certainly not baptist-ville right?



The Biographical Test (conformation by historical text)
This test seeks to examine the accuracy and reliability of the Biblical manuscripts in our possession. In other words, since we do not possess the original manuscripts, how accurate are the extant copies? Are they reliable witnesses to the original or have they been changed and corrupted over time?

Manuscript evidence for the New Testament. Any objective look at the evidence will quickly point out that the New Testament Scriptures were the most frequently copied books of the ancient world. There are presently over 5,300 known manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. In addition there are over 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and over 9,300 copies of other early versions. [1] This gives us a total of over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament that are known to exist today! No other book or document from the ancient world even remotely approaches these numbers. As a matter of fact, the closest competitor in all of ancient Greek and Latin literature is the Iliad by Homer which is attested to by 643 surviving manuscripts! More typical is Caesar's Gallic Wars which is attested to by 10 surviving manuscripts, the Roman history of Livy by 20, and the history of Herodotus by 8. [2] Even if we lacked the abundant manuscript evidence, the New Testament would also be preserved in the writings of the early church Fathers. One scholar (Sir David Dalrymple) engaged in a diligent study of the Scripture quotations by the early church Fathers and came to this conclusion:

...as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses. [3]
In addition to the sheer numerical evidence, we must take into account the interval between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscript. The New Testament was composed between the years of 40-100 A.D. The earliest fragment found (the John Rylands' papyrus - a fragment of the gospel of John) dates from approximately A.D. 130. The earliest complete manuscripts of the New Testament (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) are dated to the 4th Century. Therefore, we have an interval of less than 50 years between the composition of the New Testament and partial manuscript copies of it, and an interval of less than 300 years between its composition and complete manuscript copies of it. Although this sounds like a considerable interval, it turns out to be remarkably small in comparison to other works of antiquity. The Iliad was composed around 900 B.C. and the earliest extant copy dates to about 400 B.C. (an interval of 500 years). Caesar wrote in the range of 100-44 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work dates from A.D. 900 (an interval of approximately 1000 years). Herodotus wrote in the range of 480-425 B.C. and the earliest copy of his work dates from A.D. 900 (an interval of approximately 1300 years). In spite of these numbers, no classical scholar would dare to question the authenticity of Homer, Caesar or Herodotus. Yet the Bible, with its overwhelming manuscript attestation, is constantly questioned and attacked!

Because of the remarkable number of existing manuscripts, the accuracy of the New Testament text is virtually assured. One scholar has calculated that of the approximately 20,000 lines of the New Testament, only about 40 lines (approximately 400 words) are seriously disputed by textual critics (less than 1%). In comparison, 764 of the Iliad's approximately 15,600 lines are in doubt (5%). The Mahabharata, the national epic of India, has approximately 26,000 of 250,000 lines in doubt (10%). [4] It is also important to note that the vast majority of the New Testament's disputed readings consist of trivial differences in spelling or style and not one of them affects a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith. In summation, we quote one of the greatest authorities in New Testament textual criticism.

One word of warning, already referred to, must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading...
It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world. [5]
Manuscript evidence for the Old Testament. Unlike the New Testament we do not have the abundant manuscript evidence for the Old Testament. For one, we only have approximately 1000 manuscript copies of the Hebrew Old Testament in existence. Excluding the Dead Sea Scrolls, each of these manuscripts represents copies of the Massoretic text. This text, named after a group of Jewish scribes known as Massoretes, has been the more-or-less official text of the Old Testament since about A.D. 500. Although the Massoretes were careful to record variant readings in the margins, there were no Hebrew manuscripts outside the Massoretic text "family" with which to compare it until the 1940's. In spite of this fact we can be confident that the Massoretic text is remarkably accurate simply because of the great pains that the Jewish scribes took to ensure the pure preservation of the Old Testament text. Both before and after the Massoretes, Jewish scribes treated the text with the greatest imaginable reverence and developed intricate systems and rules about the transcription of manuscripts so as to avoid scribal slips. Any imperfect copies were condemned as unfit for use. The Massoretes actually numbered the verses, words and letters of every book. They would calculate the middle word and letter of each book. They calculated the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurred in each book. They did all of this and much more simply to preserve the accuracy of the Old Testament text. As a result of this meticulous care devoted to the transcription of manuscripts, older manuscripts were not considered more valuable to newer ones, especially since they would be more likely to become deformed or defaced. This may partially explain the lack of more ancient Hebrew manuscripts.

In addition to the Massoretic Text, however, we have several copies of the Septuagint (Greek version of the Old Testament), the Latin Vulgate, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Syriac Version which were translated from sources older than the Massoretic text. Although there are minor variations in these versions, none is significant enough to affect any doctrine or event recorded in the Old Testament. Most importantly, however, we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls. Until the discovery of the Scrolls in the 1940's the oldest extant Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament dated to about A.D. 900. Since the Old Testament was completed around 400 B.C, that comprised a gap of about 1300 years. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we now possess a number of partial Old Testament manuscripts which scholars date before the time of Christ! Even more importantly these scrolls confirm the accuracy of the Massoretic text. For instance, the famous Isaiah scroll has been dated at around 125 B.C. The text in this scroll is remarkably similar to the one found in the Massoretic text. For instance, of the 166 words of Isaiah 53, only 17 letters differ. Ten of these are simply a matter of spelling. Four more are stylistic changes that do not affect the sense. The remaining three letters comprise the word "light" which is added in verse 11, and does not greatly affect the meaning. [6] So, after 1000 years of transmission, there is only one three-letter word (out of 166 words) in question, and it does not alter the meaning of the passage. Therefore, we can conclude that the Old Testament text in our possession, like the New Testament text, is remarkably accurate. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer states:

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. [7]



more here: www.clemson.edu...



edit: damn spelling, incarnate evil was right!


[edit on 17-5-2009 by OldThinker]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
the bible's "god" as you put it, was already present in the earliest texts (sumerian-akkadian)

here, let me explain something
EN-LIL was the biblical JEHOVAH. The name EN-LIL is a title. It means LORD OF THE SKY/HEAVEN/AIR.
this is an etymology chart, constructed by a scholar who believed the word "EL" was not part of the etymological history of the word "LIL"
he was trying to prove that AL'LAH was a pagan god and had nothing to do with JEHOVAH. his evidence for this assumption was that EL was never LIL, but AL was, which was completely false.
here's the chart he created
www.balaams-ass.com...
if you can't see the image, here's a brief explanation
EnLIL = god
LIL (drop gender prefix)
ILAH=god (semitic, arabic)
AL'ILAH=the god (add "the")
AL'LAH=the god (contract the semitic form)

What that is saying essentially is,
LIL=IL=ILAH=AL'ILAH=AL'LAH

Part of the reason he believed this was, he assumed BEL and BA'AL were not connected etymologically, when in fact, they were the same. I contacted a linguist and scholar of ancient semitic languages to resolve the subject, this is what he said:


Bel is Baal because (1) Baal was rendered into Greek as Bel (the "e" being the long "e" - the "eta" in Greek - as opposed to the short "e" the epsilon); and (2) When the Greek spelling was transliterated into English (when various texts from the ancient world got translated), the transliteration was "Bel" since English transliteration doesn't distinguish between the short and long "e" of Greek. A scholar would use diacritical marks to distinguish them, but translations of these texts were meant for the wider English reading audience, who could care less about such precision (and it was easier to typeset too).



What that means is LIL=IL=EL=AL
same god name, over and over again.
so yeah, al'lah was enlil, etymologically-speaking.
that confused me greatly, as it appeared the god word LIL had evolved into the one size fits all word to describe divinity, any divine being, even though originally, it started with enlil from ancient sumerian-akkadian texts. the first place i noticed this was in the word "BABEL" which had its own unique etymology. apparently the word BAB-EL was BAB-ILU in akkadian. there was the god word IL and its descendant, EL, yet the tower of babel was a reconstruction of another god's holy site. his name was EN-KI, which means LORD OF THE EARTH

why was his temple building being named with the god word for EN-LIL? that really had me puzzled for awhile. turns out, just as we use the word "god" generically, this seems to have also happened to the "LIL" word.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by undo]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



Hey undo, how are you?

I'm sittin on a plane....typing until the door shuts...nice thorough post!

OT



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 



Yeah, good point! I did find some from Clemson, you may be interested in, ok? Certainly not baptist-ville right?


The statement at the bottom is telling:


Furthermore, the reliability of the Bible has been conformed by the subjective experiences of countless individuals who have placed their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as Saul of Tarsus, persecutor of Christians, was changed to Paul, apostle and missionary of Christ, so to have countless lives (including the author's) been changed (II Cor. 5:17) by placing their faith in Christ. This is overwhelming evidence to the fact that Jesus Christ is still alive and well today, and that the Scriptures which attest to Him are indeed accurate and reliable.


So people's faith is evidence that the bible is a reliable source? Yes, I think that's fishy. At least this one has some more current references mixed in with the old. I'll have to give it a good read.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



same god name, over and over again.


You seem to skip over something here though. The Jesus story, the God story, tales told in the bible, they all stem from other religions. I’m not disputing this, I think it makes a strong case and helps to discredit the bible. So far no one can explain to me why the bible should be taking seriously when several different religions and cultures with separate ideals had the same story and concepts before the prophets of the bible?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


because they are talking about the same group of beings, the ELOHIYM, and its many variants. there were also many sons of god as well, some of which would eventually be called by the god word.

i think what you and some scholars are picking up on is the adoption of language variants. the hebrew culture was assimilated several times. each time this happened, they adopted the language of the area, which includes the words and concepts adopted from the host culture. an example is the idea of ba'al riding the clouds, which is said of jehovah in the psalms. it doesn't invalidate it, it just indicates the hebrews adopted the idea not the actual event.


[edit on 17-5-2009 by undo]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



So far no one can explain to me why the bible should be taking seriously when several different religions and cultures with separate ideals had the same story and concepts before the prophets of the bible?


Perhaps it has more to do with; what message was so important that The Gods had it repeated in different ways so as to get our attention?

The Bible should be taken seriously as far as any hidden messages that are contained therein. Most seem to go fanatically by rote while others discount it entirely. The message, I believe, lies somewhere in-between.

It seems to be the folly of mankind to go either; right or left. We love extremes! Often the actual truth is down the middle. But where would we be without fanaticism?

Which side do you want to be on when much more is discovered about God and the Bible, including the cosmos and the different universes, when more is revealed? How many argued with Copernicus regarding the placement of the earth and the sun?

Most poo pooed him. Where do you want to be? Truth is very rarely as black and white as the religious and atheists would like us to believe.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



because they are talking about the same group of beings


But why would Jesus come and go more than once? The former Christ figures appeared before his supposed existence. The bible states that he was the only son of God and sacrificed himself for your sins, do you disagree? Why is it preached that only one religion is the true religion if there were other correct religions before this religion?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 



Perhaps it has more to do with; what message was so important that The Gods had it repeated in different ways so as to get our attention?


Then why didn’t God state this? Why is it not mentioned in the bible? Then why would it be claimed that there is only one true religion and savior?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


i dunno why he would come and go several times. maybe he knows. why don't you ask him?

btw, i don't buy the "horus" is jesus thing.
osiris was narmer before he died, a 0-dynasty pharaoh.
he founded dynastic egypt. his akkadian name was
enmerkar. his babylonian name was nimrod.

jesus was not the son of nimrod.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 



The message, I believe, lies somewhere in-between.


Then why didn't the bible or it's prophets state this? By the way I agree, it isn't black and white, that's why I'm not religious and I'm not an atheist, but that doesn't explain away that the bible is mythological text, derived from other ancient tales, that uses some real places and people to convey the story.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 




i dunno why he would come and go several times. maybe he knows. why don't you ask him?

That's convenient.

Why wouldn't he say so to his prophets? Why would this not be mentioned in the bible? Your theory conflicts with the bibles very assertive claims that he certainly did not come several times, that he was the one and only, and that there is only one true faith to subscribe to.


btw, i don't buy the "horus" is jesus thing.

I don't either.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 



But why would Jesus come and go more than once? The former Christ figures appeared before his supposed existence. The bible states that he was the only son of God and sacrificed himself for your sins, do you disagree? Why is it preached that only one religion is the true religion if there were other correct religions before this religion?


Pardon me for answering this post to Undo. But I can't help it!


There may have been many messengers that came down to earth or were born special. I believe we are a master experiment by the Greatest Scientist of all. I would appreciate your thoughts on: Are We an Experiment...?

I believe that we were set up to be religious and that it takes some doing to get away from those traps. But traps they are! It doesn't mean in the nil existence of God. It may mean that we are meant to grow beyond man's teachings and the Gods have given us many "clues" in order to do so.



Then why didn’t God state this? Why is it not mentioned in the bible? Then why would it be claimed that there is only one true religion and savior?


The Bible is wrong? Possibly! It was written by man for man. We are not to hold God accountable to the Bible. There are mysteries related to the Bible that are fascinating. Even more so, if one can leave religion (all) behind.

But...did He inspire it? Yes. Why, knowing that it would create tremendous issues with man and even government?

I feel that there has been very logical and systematic meanings behind what the Gods do. Most of it - not at all, what we have been taught. It is our choice to find them.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


maybe it was mentioned in the bible. maybe it wasn't. most people just understand those parts they are lead to study. many women don't like the old testament because jehovah scares the heck out of them. they call it a dark and depressing part of the bible. many don't understand it at all. some passages have several meanings, which you only realize after studying it for awhile.

i do know there's some parts that we no longer are aware of due to translation variants. here's an example, describing a text in deutoronomy in which moses indicates their elders and forefathers had kept an oral tradition about the past history of their people. it also explains a few more details regarding the divine council:

www.herealittletherealittle.net...
www.thedivinecouncil.com...

i honestly believe what people are picking up on as regards similarities is that they are all talking about the same divine council. the same members of the divine council, who have name variations due to language and cultural variations.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



i honestly believe what people are picking up on as regards similarities is that they are all talking about the same divine council. the same members of the divine council, who have name variations due to language and cultural variations.


But there’s no explanation for the repetition or why it was not explained. These things did not all come together, they came at different points in history, and often with variations of ideals. It doesn't seem logical or consistent.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join