Is Today's Bible Authentic?

reply to post by texastig

I thought it was in the T&C's to at least post a few sentences in an OP, and with videos to give a short synopsis?

Nothing but a vid? Wow, what a powerful argument.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

On the other hand, if you don't believe the Book, you won't believe in the Author, and its preservation will be a complete enigma to you, maybe even an fnigma. As I like to say, it all works together, or it doesn't work at all. But it does work.

Don't you mean authors (plural)??? The Pentateuch wasn't even written down for centuries and the new testament's books were first put in writing (the earliest one) 70 years after the fact--many were written decades, some even over a century after that---none possibly written by those given "credit" for writing them.

Then there's the council of Nicaea where for political reasons to benefit the Romans was convened in 325 AD to pick and choose which books were allowed to become "cannon".



All a farce.

edit on 12/16/2013 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

No, I mean Author - I subscribe to the word-by-word, letter-by-letter inspiration of the text.

Neither you, nor the scholars you have read, know anything about when this or that was written. It's all guesswork if you don't have a time machine. Anyway, with my view on inspiration, the time lag is NOT a problem.

It's "canon," not "cannon." Remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not really exist yet in 325 AD.

Bring up all the objections you care to, but the Bible is still the most well-preserved Book we have from antiquity.

reply to post by texastig


The problem is, this guy in the video is comparing the Bible's accuracy with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that's all fine and all, but...............

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain a lot of books (scrolls) that are omitted from the Bible, like the Book of Enoch, Jasher, Jubilees, Tobit, the Wisdom of Sirach, Psalms 152–155, etc., and the more sectarian rules and beliefs of Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk and The Rule of the Blessing.

Also, can anyone tell me why there is no account in the New Testament of Jesus lighting the Hanukkah Menorah?

So, no today's Bible is not authentic, in my humble opinion.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Bring up all the objections you care to, but the Bible is still the most well-preserved Book we have from antiquity.

This is kind of the problem though. In a world like this one, the truth is not preserved, it is covered up and hidden away. Rome was probably the most corrupt empire in the history of Earth, if not the top then right near the top.

Rome spent a thousand years conquering, pillaging, lying, and cheating to get where they were, all while worshiping false gods. Why would they all of a sudden start spreading the truth after getting so far lying? And why did god allow them to grow for so long while not worshiping him? Even Jesus said not to babble like the pagans, yet he for some reason let them become so large for so long? Doesn't make sense.

Rome was famous for religious and cultural diffusion and that's how they lasted for so long, they adopted other people's customs and turned them into their own. They did the same with Jesus' words, took them then set up a false religion of subservience around them. Romans 13 is the most obvious giveaway of this actually happening and Rome's history of twisting what others said is another giveaway.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

I subscribe to the word-by-word, letter-by-letter inspiration of the text.

Do you then read the Original writings on scraps of parchment in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and Aramaic--and not the translations to get the true word-by-word, letter-by letter text?

Remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not really exist yet in 325 AD.

I didn't say it did.

There were proto-versions of it before, though.

What does that have to do with authenticity anyway--when the RCC was formed?

Bring up all the objections you care to, but the Bible is still the most well-preserved Book we have from antiquity.

What about Herodotus from the 5th century BC?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


You are tossing the baby w/ the bathwater. Instead of rejecting Christianity, the answer is to get back to the core teachings of Jesus, rejecting 1900 years of pagan influence, bad theology, and church tradition.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Obviously you have never read one of my threads or any of my posts otherwise you would know that I do not "throw the baby out with the bath water". I value the words of Jesus above all because they teach of love and forgiveness, not worship or sacrifice.

Jesus died because of our sins not for them. Those who killed Jesus changed his message then created the church around his words. I would say that more often then not Paul is used to justify Christian doctrine and not Jesus himself. There's something wrong with that in my opinion.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Well, I have read your posts before. The important thing is this: If "they" changed the message of Jesus, how would you know it or find it again? I only propose that I/you/we need to dig through many layers of dross which have been applied layer upon layer to the message of Jesus.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Look at Paul if you want to find the dross that has been applied. Jesus taught that in order to be forgiven you must first forgive others, Paul says to be forgiven you must believe in the death and resurrection. Pay attention to Jesus' words without the teachings of Paul and his church distorting your perception of them.

The church force feeds a certain interpretation (based on Paul's teachings) and says that you go to hell if you don't believe in it. You're supposed to search for an answer, not be given it. Like Jesus said, seek and you will find. Being stuck in one mindset is not seeking, it is setting up camp with smores and a guitar.

Jesus said to be as children, that means to forget anything you have ever learned spiritually and start your own spiritual path with your own questions and answers. Christianity is the antithesis of seeking.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Being stuck in one mindset is not seeking, it is setting up camp with smores and a guitar.

hahaha!!

that is funny!

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


As an ex-Randian, ex-Libertarian, ex-atheist, ex-Adventist, etc, etc, etc, I don't think I've yet set up camp and I don't play the guitar. I do like s'mores...

I like to think I'm still bopping down the garden path, on the way to where I belong. Even if I did set up camp (so to speak) at this point, I would be far out of shouting distance from most people. Their reaction to the truth about Hell speaks volumes. Some of them are still at the trailhead...

Even so, I'm not a Paul-basher, but I understand that many are.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

You're full of answers/replies, but no response to my questions?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Lazarus Short


But you're hopping and bopping down the same old tired road over and over again, the road that billions of others have taken before you, that of Jesus dying for our sins and everything having to revolve around that one concept.

Religion has trapped you into one mindset, you're eating smores and playing guitar right now because you refuse to move off of that one road. You need to branch out a little more, explore other avenues and ideas. Thinking freely has never hurt anyone and it won't hurt you. There is no such thing as separation from God except in the belief that you are. It's okay to think outside the box.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


...it's all been done before I agree

freethinking brings you to one narrow path.

Is it "authentic"? Of course. Does it represent everything truthful? No. The OT is a 2,000 + year old account of a group of desert tribes' collective mythology. In that sense it is remarkable the OT has survived at all. The stories it contains are likely of three types: 1) Real or near-real accounts of historical events, 2) Accounts of historical events that have been grossly changed over time, e.g. Noah's Flood. and 3) Completely fictional accounts of things that never ever happened at all. Add to that the extensive editing by people with agendas over more that two thousand years plus the inevitable misunderstandings of translations and you have an amalgam that is nearly impossible to unravel.

Does that mean that you should reject the Bible entirely? Of course not. That's an extreme and petty reaction. The Bible gives us hints of the past. Noah's Flood likely recounts events of 12-14,000 years ago of a global warming event that had the sea level rise about 60 feet. Combined with other legends from all over the world and you gain a hint of what happened way back then. Did God speak to Moses from a burning bush and give him the Ten Commandments. Probably not. That strains credulity to the fullest.

But none of this can take away from the fact that the Bible is one of the few texts that has survived, albeit not unchanged, over a very long period of time. There are few texts that have.

Our tendency to reject the Bible is a natural reaction to those who claim it is the Living Word of God, a preposterous notion that fails at every level imaginable. But just because these people are completely delusional does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

But you're hopping and bopping down the same old tired road over and over again, the road that billions of others have taken before you, that of Jesus dying for our sins and everything having to revolve around that one concept.

Religion has trapped you into one mindset, you're eating smores and playing guitar right now because you refuse to move off of that one road. You need to branch out a little more, explore other avenues and ideas. Thinking freely has never hurt anyone and it won't hurt you. There is no such thing as separation from God except in the belief that you are. It's okay to think outside the box.

As usual, you, as many others, post a theory as to who/what Laz is and what he is like. You know so little, and yet you are willing to spin a tale about my mindset and perceived needs. Seriously? First of all, I don't do religion. Church services, ceremonies, and rituals don't do much for me (though foot washing almost made me cry, it was so moving). I'm not a church member. I rarely enter a "steeple house." In the Christian world I'm rather a heretic. I think outside the box quite a lot, actually. Your condescending attitude is not appreciated...

Anyway, what's wrong with Jesus dying for me, or for you?

reply to post by Chamberf=6


Laz:
I subscribe to the word-by-word, letter-by-letter inspiration of the text.

Chamberf=6:
Do you then read the Original writings on scraps of parchment in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, and Aramaic--and not the translations to get the true word-by-word, letter-by letter text?

Laz:
No I don’t – since the Bible is the best-preserved book from ancient times, any good translation/version will do fairly well, except when theoillogical bias has crept in, and given us “Hell” “Eternal Punishment” and the like. A few hours with a good concordance can open one’s eyes… Anyway, I was speaking of the original autographs.

Laz:
Remember that the Roman Catholic Church did not really exist yet in 325 AD.

Chamberf=6:
I didn't say it did.
There were proto-versions of it before, though.
What does that have to do with authenticity anyway--when the RCC was formed?

Laz:
Yes, it was in progress at that time, even, and you are correct. Another issue.

Laz:
Bring up all the objections you care to, but the Bible is still the most well-preserved Book we have from antiquity.

Chamberf=6:
What about Herodotus from the 5th century BC?

Laz:
There are a whole lot more Greek manuscript copies of the Bible than of Herodotus, and probably by an order of magnitude. Further, those Bible manuscripts are in close agreement, except for a few spurious ones much beloved by scholars because they are the oldest.

Chamberf=6:
You're full of answers/replies, but no response to my questions?

Laz:
OK, there you go.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


It doesn't make any sense. What real world evidence shows that believing in Jesus has helped in any way?

To me it seems like a get-out-of-jail-free card for those who are destroying the planet. They can do whatever they want because Jesus is supposedly coming back to fix everything for us. Billions upon billions of people believe without a doubt that Jesus will come back and fix it for them, which is why they sit on their hands and wait for war to happen so he can come back. It's a pacifying belief, a belief that suits those in power perfectly.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

It doesn't make any sense. What real world evidence shows that believing in Jesus has helped in any way?

the Salvation Army...

or how about the Catholic Church? who has been on a massive charity campaign since at least the reformation.

hell what about the last 250 years... what has your affiliation done?

got anything to show for it that hasn't happened under Christendom? (Western Civilization's Banner)