The Bible is the literal word of God, Discuss?

Lastday...

Which is the greater thing, to heal the body or to forgive sin??

I am not here to prove my fathers power.

It is better to enter into heaven crippled....

Two types of people are going to do exploits at the ending of time. The man of sin, and those that know their God.

Thomas had to see in order to believe, but blessed are they that see not yet still believe.

Remember that Pharaoh's magi's also performed deeds.

If any, even an angel, preach or teach something else, let them be accursed.





God is here on earth in His son Jesus Christ.
The law is a schoolmaster to introduce us to Him.

If you seek Him you WILL find Him, currently He is very near.

"Die for your dins" that makes no sense what so ever... how does someone dying atone for someone else's sin? An omnipotent god could do that with out someone dying....explain to me "how shedding ones blood", helps someone else's sin.....and while you at it, how bout explaining to me, "why" blood sacrifices had to be given to an omnipotent god in the OT...makes no sense at all!

God is just and righteous and sin had to be dealt with. The thing is God is in charge. If I went out and killed someone and then the police came and said what you have done is very bad, and then said don't do it again, where's the justice, and where's the deterrent not to murder. No a murder has to be dealt with. Sin is offensive to God and keeps Him away from us as intimately as He desires us to be. Wrongdoing has to be dealt with. God took out His wrath upon my sin on Christ. A person is certainly free to keep their sin, just realize that it will be dealt with. The sacrifices required of in the OT are a foreshadowing of Christ. He was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. When people took that lamb and there sin was symbolically placed on it, then they saw that lamb die, they were aware that sin is no laughing matter to God. There were watching something die in their place. Thats what Jesus did, He took my sin that had a hold on me and took God's wrath for it. The Bible says Jesus became sin for us, and he did it willingly so that we by faith can live forever.

God has more planned for us than the reincarnation theory. You come back as a cow, then a snake, then a rat then hopefully you don't come back but go into nonexistance and be absorbed and be done with. My gosh, He has a whole eternity planned out for each one of us. He knows exactly what we enjoy doing that will bring us enjoyment for all eternity and we'll always be learning and growing.

Or the Islam theory of your good deeds have to outweigh your bad.


I was just watching CNN and they had a story on evangelicals in the US. and something was brought up about christianity being inclusive or exclusive. God has already died for every sin that every person who has ever or will ever live, committed. He's taken care of your entrance into eternity with Him. It's a done deal, all you have to do is accept the gift of Jesus Christ. How much more inclusive can you get. No one is left out, even someone not born yet has been offered this gift. There is assurance in Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by dbrandt
It's a done deal, all you have to do is accept the gift of Jesus Christ.

The "gift" does not come without strings attached, and therein lies the rub.

Specifically, no "gift" will be forthcoming unless you swear fealty to Jesus.

That is no minor requirement.

I spent 25 years trying to reconcile the many, many conflicts within Christian dogma -- idolatry, polytheism masquerading as monotheism, ritual vampirism and cannibalism, worshiping a fellow human being, human sacrifice and demands of servitude from supposedly superior beings.

I'm glad I failed, am following a path more suited to my spiritual needs, and am no longer motivated by fear and ignorance to try to appease a savage and hateful god.

BUT, if you are truly happy and finding fulfillment as a Christian, then more power to you! The truth of your path can be felt in your heart.

If you are certain that Christianity is the right path for you, no one, especially me, has any business telling you otherwise.

When I argue about and criticize Christian dogma, it is to point out those things I consider to be in error. But error marks all paths to some degree or another, and through it we learn.

Thus, Christian or "heathen", I advise the same: Look within, know yourself and follow your heart.

Originally posted by Majic

Specifically, no "gift" will be forthcoming unless you swear fealty to Jesus.

That is no minor requirement.

Right christianity is about making a choice. When someone gets married they promise to forsake all others and remain faitrhful to the one they've chosen.

When you choose Jesus Christ you are promising to foraske all others and remain faithful to Him alone. People have to make choices everyday. So choosing to be loyal or faithful isn't something that can't be done, or something that's takes away from a person it enhances a person.

They hard part is the payment of one's sin. Christ completed that, that's the gift you accept, that you don't have to earn your way to heaven or eternal life, it's been given too you through Christ.

Hey DBrandt:

You're meandering again off topic. It is getting very tiresome.

The topic of this thread is "is the Bible the Literal Word of YHWH" (i.e. the god of the Jews).

However, you seem to believe only in the version of the "bible" that came about as a result of various conflicted councils over the centuries.

The man you refer to as "Jesus Christ" (for whatever reason) knew and quoted freely in his teaching (to judge from some odd snippets in the council approved 4 Greek Gospels) from many books "not in your bible" and he quotes from translations which are also "not in your bible" i.e. quoting in Matthew from the Aramaic Targum of Isaiah, and not the socalled Masoretic Text which you know in your so called Bible...

"Tell John that the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised..."

Where in your so-called Bible does it say "the Dead are Raised "in the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah which your "Jeeezizz Kryzzt" is quoting here? Huh? Answer me !!!!!!

The so called Masoretic Text (Leningrad, AD 850) which YOU use for the Old Testament is based on a single manuscript from a VERY LATE DATEand does not include this passage in Isaiah---

So "Jeezzizz Krysst" is obviously quoting a differnt textual tradition of his own old-testament type scruptures "bible" than the one you use.

According to your own Greek New Testament Gospels, he is actually using a text very similar to the copies of Isaiah (newsflash, there were TWO versions found there) in Qumran among the Dead Sea Scroll Fragments.

The Old Testament YOU read was NOT VOTED IN AS CANONICAL BY THE REBBES AT JAVNEH (Jamnia) UNTIL more than 60 years AFTER "Jezzzizz" was executed for "armed sedition against Rome" sometime during the reign of the "divine" Tiberius Caesar--and after Israel was ground to powder by Rome.

So the text of the socalled "bible" you are reading (and believe to be the literal word of your God) does NOT match the Bible that "Jeezizz" was reading, according to your own text of the New Testament in your Bible !!

You REALLY need to take a hard look at the texts you claim to believe in----since judging from your pathetically ignorant posts on this thread, you clearly HAVE NOT READ THE TEXTS of the "bible" in their "more original" albeit textually corrupted (i.e. "less edited") versions both in Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek, but rather you choose to believe in some arbitrary pseudo post-modern hotchpotch pasted together from greedy publishers who have always made the big bucks on selling "bibles to the masses" and as publishers who want to make a buck anyway they can, want to sell more and more of their own silly translation-copies of what THEY consider the "bible" for profit, ultimately...

"Jeezzizz" quotes as scripture from The Aramaic Testament of the 12 Patriarchs (found at Qumran), the Testament of Moses, I Henoch, the Wisdom of Solomon and many other quotations taken from Aramaic texts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, all of which are not in your official canon of the Bible.

So get back to this original thread's topic and answer the question half way intelligently if you can--and stop preaching, you know not of which you speak.



[edit on 31-10-2004 by Amadeus]

Hey dont get at someone because of what they believe. That is just being ignorant. Although you do make some excellent points, Very interesting, Do you have any websites for the text that jesus might have read.

Good work, but argue the point and dont insult people.

OK back on topic.

Yes, the Bible is the literal infallible word of God. I know this because I live it and study it and put it to the test of real life. I have additional confirmation from God himself as I walk each day with Him. I have obviously made my choice to believe it and obviously you have chosen to not believe it. So if it is the actual word of God, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. I am fully confident with my decision. You are the one who posts against the Bible and I answer your posts. And as the time goes on you get angrier and angrier. So it seems like you want to discredit the Bible and yet can't handle it when you get a reply. You type all this "knowledge" in your answers, and when someone answers you they are stupid and don't know what they are talking about. That's childish. You are actually doing a service to God without realizing it. You bring up the Bible to discredit it and christians then have an opportunity to reply to what you have said. Then other members of ATS get to hear of the gospel and see both sides. That's what christians are to do is spread the literal word of God to others. Now, not all will accept but I'm sure some are coming to Him for the first time and some are having their faith strengthened. I know confronting your arguments is making me test my Bible knowledge and learn things I never knew before existed in God's word.

Originally posted by LadyV
I understand exactly what your saying magic. I am not anti Christian either...though I have gotten accused of it here. What I am is anti being told I am evil, I am going to hell, that I "stick up" for evilness (homosexuality) that I am wrong...that there is only one true faith ..."that's" what I am against.

Believe it or not, as a Christian I face some of the same stuff. There are some who say you have to believe EXACTLY what they believe with absolutely no deviation, even if they do not look to be in total accord with ALL the writings in the Bible. It does not matter that you are a believer, these Super-Christians want to attack anybody not like them.
I have always been told that being a Christian means, in part, to be Christ-like. When I read the accounts of Him, he seems to be a caring, loving teacher, and explainer. He and his followers also seemed Tolerant of others. He did seem to get upset with those moneychangers in the Temple, but that was a place of worship, not commerce.
He does not look to be an attacker. He offered what he claimed was a better way to God, and of living. As recorded in the Bible his followers in the EARLY church do not seem so belligerent either.
Rather than bomb temples or places of other religions, they seemed to try to take the moral High Road. Quite different from today when Abortion Clinics get bombed and persons get physically attacked by folks who claim to be doing God's work.
To whoever suggested the use of REASON --That is absolutely Imperative.
To those who want to know if I believe in a literal translation as the thread title asks,--I posted on that earlier. Go back and look it up.

Hey DBrandt:

What "text" are you using which you consider the "Literal Word" of your God..?

You are aware by now, aren't you, that "modern English translations-versions" of the "bible" pick and choose from various contradictory manuscripts rather arbitrarily. They have to...there is no original text between two covers---just a mess of late copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of texts that were corrupt and heavilly redacted over time to begin with.

You cannot believe in a literal "anything" unless you have that "literal object" in front of you from which you may derive your belief (in this case a LITERAL text of the Bible) and you would have to examine that same text very carefully before boasting that you know for a positive fact that this very text is the only "Word of God" (by which presumably you mean YHWH the god of post-Exilic Israel) and you have to do this BEFORE you can claim that you believe every word of it, since DIFFERENT texts contain DIFFERENT words.... and when it comes to the BIBLE, you are certainly DEALING WITH DIFFERENT TEXTS that DO NOT MATCH EACH OTHER very closely.

After all, the term "Literal" means "by the letter" (from the Latin word "Litera" meaning "letter" i.e. of the alphabet) .

To believe the "bible" "literally" you gave to show me ALL THE EXACT LETTERS of the whole single text that you believe in. And you cannot do that, simply because there are too many ancient manuiscript copies in existence that simply do not match (and Qumran's Dead Sea Scroll library revealed even more than previously thought).

If you try and show me some watered down American English paraphrase of the "bible" which adds and subtracts whole words, phrases and sentences from over 100 different manuscript traditions, you will be contradicting yourself, since we are NOT DEALING WITH A SINGLE TEXT VERSION here.

So do a little researching on your own about the formation of the canon of both the OT and the NT and the councils that decided and fought about the contents of that book (still unsettled unto this very day) and THEN you can start pontificating on this complex subject.......

Otherwise you are not making any coherent epistemological sense at all and are just wasting your time and ours...

www.geocities.com/bible translation

When literal is not accurate
Some people feel that a literal translation is the most accurate. But this is often not the case. A literal translation frequently does not accurately transfer the meaning of the original to the target language. Some feel that if a translation is not literal, it is not faithful to the original. But this is also not true. Some people feel that any translation less than literal means inserting the translator's own opinions about the meaning of the original. But this is not true either. A translator does not make up the meaning of the original. He discovers it through commonsense study of the language patterns of the original text. The translator understands, as does anyone who has learned more than one language, that every language expresses its ideas in different ways. The translator understands that much of what we say in any language is figurative, that is, non-literal. If we translate figurative language literally, we have not preserved the true meaning of the original. Some people feel that we should translate literally, then use footnotes or a commentary or a trained person alongside the translation, to explain what the real meaning is behind the literalisms of the translation. But this is not true translation, since true translation allows the user of the translation to understand the original meaning, just as the users of the original text did. We are not talking here about understanding everything possible in the original or translation, such as concepts which are difficult to understand, regardless of how they are expressed. We are only talking about commonsense, standard meaning understood in our normal spoken and written communication.

I'm going for a pass
In Spanish, if I tell someone that I'm going for a walk I say "Voy a dar un paseo." Correct translation in English of this Spanish is "I'm going for a walk." The literal translation is "I'm going to give a pass." The literal translation is simply a matching of the Spanish words to the English words. Such matching is not true translation. It is a form of transliteration, at the word level. If an English speaker hears this literal translation he can justifiably assume that the Spanish speaker is going to hand out a pass to some event, or he might assume that the Spanish speaker is a quarterback who is telling his teammates in the huddle that he is about to throw a pass (we do try to make sense of utterances like this, thinking that maybe the speaker didn't use quite the right words but that this is what he meant). "I'm going to give a pass" is not, of course, the true meaning of the Spanish utterance. The literal translation is not accurate translation. It is only accurate translation of the individual words, not of what the words mean as they relate to each other. Ultimately, the common misunderstanding that literal translation is the best seems to come from a focus upon individual words, rather than how the individual words relate to each other.
Other examples of wrong meaning from literal translation can be found on these websites:


The French Language: Proof That Literal Translation Is Not Always Correct
Some Cheyenne-English Translation Humor
Translation humor

Meaning is more than words
Intuitively, we all actually understand that meaning is more than just the meaning of individual words. For instance, we can understand all the words of the following utterance.
John forgot office at his home key

We can even make some sense out of this utterance. But we don't accuractely understand what this utterance means until we hear the words in their original order:

John forgot his office key at home.

Meaning is composed of the meanings of words, including any non-literal meanings of those words, as they relate to each other, within a social context. Meaning is not simply the meaning of individual words, strung together one after the other.

We need to apply this truthful, commonsense understanding about meaning, words, and how words relate to each other to our thinking about Bible translation.

Sincerity does not guarantee accuracy
There are a number of similar examples in the Bible, where a literal translation does not tell the users of the translation what the original meant, so the literal translation is not accurate, however sincere its translators were. Sincerity, even in the cause of devotion to God and His Word, does not guarantee that we will be as accurate, that is, as close to the truth as we should be. And our goal in dealing with God's Word should always be truth-telling, accuracy to God's truth.

Two priority questions
A priority question each person must ask of anything in any text is "What does it mean?" A priority question each person must ask of anything in any translation is "Does this mean the same as what the original means?" If the answer is no, then we need to revise the translation until its meaning is faithful, true, accurate to the meaning of the original. This revision is needed even if the translation is literal. If it is literal but doesn't preserve the meaning of the original, then that literal translation must be revised until it does. Being literal must never be the highest priority of normal translation. Having faithful preservation of meaning is the highest goal.

Some Bible examples
Did David sleep with his fathers?
In 1 Kings 2:10 literal renderings (KJV, NASB, NIV, NJB, NAB, NEB, REB, NRSV, NKJV) state that David slept (or rested) with his fathers (ancestors), because that is what the original Hebrew literally says. But that is not what the Hebrew meant. The Hebrew is an idiom, that is, non-literal usage of language, that means that David died (as accurately translated in LB, NLT, TEV, CEV, NCV, NLV). For us to understand the truth about what happened to David, either the translation must have a footnote telling us that the idiom means that David died, or we must have a commentary beside our Bible to explain the meaning of its literalisms, or we need to have a person with us who has been trained in the idioms of the Bible, to explain them to us. Which approach is the best? It seems to me it is best to simply accurately translate the meaning of the idiom. If we want the hearer to know the literal meaning of Biblical idioms, and it truly is interesting to know this, we can place this information in a footnote. To translate that David died is not inserting the translator's opinion or his own interpretation, and it is not a paraphrase. It is, instead, the most accurate translation of the original text.
Paul uses the same Hebraic metaphor of sleep representing death in his Greek of 1 Cor. 11:30. Literal translations of the Greek state that some of the Corinthians who have not participated properly in the Lord's Supper "sleep" (KJV, Darby, YLT, Wms, ASV, NASB, NKJV, MKJV, WEB). But Paul was not referring to literal sleep: he was saying that some Corinthians had died. Our translation of the original metaphor can only be left literal if all average English speakers who read it will understand that it refers to death, not sleep--that is, if we want average speakers to understand the Bible without outside assistance whenever a literal translation should not be understood literally. Translations which accurately and clearly translate the meaning of the original sleep metaphor of 1 Cor. 11:30 as referring to death are RSV, NRSV, KJV21, Bar, BBE, NIV, REB, NAB, NJB, LB, NLT, TEV, CEV, NLV, NCV, GW, ISV, and NET.


Who is hiding in your wife's heart?
Literal translations of 1 Peter 3:4 tell women that their beauty should come from "the hidden man of the heart" (KJV) or "the hidden person of the heart" (NASB). It is difficult to understand the original meaning from these literal renderings. But translations which straightforwardly allow us to understand the true meaning of this Biblical idiom are:
the inmost self (REB)
the inner self (NRSV)
your inner self (NIV)
your true inner self (TEV)
inner disposition of the heart (ISV)


These understandable renderings are not "interpretations" of the translators, as if the word "interpretation" refers to something not found in the Biblical text itself. Instead, the translators have carefully studied the original languages, they learned the meaning of the Biblical idiom here, and accurately translated that meaning to English. They are not inserting their own opinions in the translation.


Are children allowed on the honeymoon?
Literal translations of Mark 2.19 preserve the form of the Hebraic idiom, "children of the bridechamber, but do not transfer its original meaning in translation. Click on the preceding link to see which versions do translate the original meaning accurately.

Gutsy mercy
The most literal translations of Col. 3:12 contain the the phrase "bowels of mercies" or "bowels of compassion" (KJV, Darby, YLT) which cannot be understood by English speakers until they are told that for Paul and the Colossians, the bowels were considered a seat of emotions, as is the heart for English speakers today. Without such explanation someone might think that the Bible is telling us to be brave (as in the phrase "have intestinal fortitude") enough to be merciful. Would it not be better simply to translate the meaning of the Biblical expression to English, rather than retaining its literal form? The meaning is correctly translated in versions which substitute the English "heart" metaphor for the original "bowels" metaphor (ASV, Weymouth, NASB, WEB, LB, NLT, NAB, NET). Other versions also are accurate which remove any body part metaphor and translate the meaning of the original metaphor in nonfigurative language (KJV21, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, NJB, REB, NIV, TEV, CEV, NCV, GW, and ISV).

BIBLE FACTS

The system of chapters was introduced in A.D. 1238 by Cardinal Hugo de
S. Caro, while the verse notations were added in 1551 by Robertus
Stephanus, after the advent of printing.

There are 8,674 different Hebrew words in the Bible, 5,624 different
Greek words, and 12,143 different English words in the King James Version.
agards-bible-timeline.com...


I don't think it could be the actual word of a god unless he were the one that wrote it, and/or, you were to read the original scrolls/texts

I didn't read all the postings but I don't know what are your reasons for not believing the bible being true. But the first posting I have read. The reason some writings were rejected was because it looked fictitious or that it had an anonymous writer or one who wrote in another's name.

I've read the Old and New Testament apocrypha's out of curiosity of possibly finding some new sacred writings. But as I read I noticed that in one book for example the attention was not on Jesus but on Mary the mother of Jesus. Another was "Bel and the Dragon" where Daniel teaches sorcery to kill a dragon. Or "Judith" seduces an Assyrian general to get drunk and cuts his head off. How about the two deaths recorded in Maccabees of Antiochus? Or Ezra drinking a potion of some kind and dreaming things? So these books prove unreliable.

I've gone past examining the bible as simply a moral book and not to take it literally. The more I read it the more my mind is conformed into the mind of Jesus Christ. I often noticed that God is answering my prayers. Sometimes we take for granted and not pray on our every day situations. But I'm realizing that I have to pray for those things and not let them pass by.

I've lately read in a website that the bible is considered as a "wheel" within "wheel". As you noticed, my nickname is gilgalbiblewheel (Gilgal is wheel). Joshua records that when Israel entered the promised land, that day of Passover God had rolled away the reproaches of Egypt. So they called the name of that place Gilgal (meaning "to roll away"). Jesus died on the cross on another important Passover day, rolling our sins away. Jesus was called the Word of God. The Word of God is also the bible because the prophetic nature was fulfilled and will be fulfilled in Christ. Hebrews 10 quotes from Psalm 40 "In the volume of the book it is written of me" referring to Jesus Christ. The bible convicts us of sin and judgement and forgiveness, like a wheel passing over us. But it is not only figuratively true. It is MATHEMATICALLY true as well. You'll notice that the books are numbered with chapters and verses. www.biblewheel.com

Hey DBrandt:

Your long irrelevant posting about the issues of translation from one language to another DID NOT address my point:

I asked you NOT about HOW to translate something from ONE language to another---always tricky business in any case---but WHAT SOURCE TEXT are you using as the LITERAL WORD OF YOUR GOD?

It is the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TEXT VERSION that I am asking you to produce, even if you cannot read such a text yourself (lik 95% of most "Christians" today).

The answer is simple: THERE IS NONE.

Unless you know something 50,000 Biblical Scholars worldwide do not.

Also, since you are reading your socalled inspired text IN ENGLISH, you are NOT ONE but TWO language steps away from "Iesous" whom you worship as a god----his oral teaching was passed down IN ARAMAIC, then written down in GREEK (and other languages) then from GREEK into your English---so you can imagine the translation problems there.

AND YOU DO NOT EVEN HAVE A SINGLE ("LITERAL") SOURCE TEXT YOU CAN USE IN ANY ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO TRANSLATE FROM !!

So how on earth can you say that your watered down nonsense that you read as "Scriptrue" is IN ANY WAY "the inspired and literal word" of any god?

Try answering the question and stop dodging around...this is serious business for some people on this thread.

Originally posted by Amadeus


...this is serious business for some people on this thread.

Like me! I'm trying to understand better...and learn more, but I want what was originally said...not mistranslated thrown in text from someone who thought it was better than what was actually said! It's extremely hard to get understandable answers to start with....

CHRISTIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Web: www.equip.org Tel: 949.858.6100 Fax: 949.858.6111


Mon Nov 01 07:01:52 2004
Perspective: CP1001

reliability of the bible manuscripts



Non-Christians, (skeptics like New Agers or Mormons) claim that in the process of copying Scripture the text of the Bible was corrupted. Is this really true?



Suppose you wrote an essay and asked five friends to copy it. Each of them in turn asked five more friends to do the same � kind of like a chain letter. By the fifth �generation,� you would have approximately four thousand copies. Now, obviously, in the process, some people are going to make some copying errors. The first five people to copy it would make mistakes, and then most of the people who copy from them will make some more mistakes. Eventually you�d have thousands of copies and all of them flawed.



Sounds pretty bad, right? But hold on. Your five friends might make mistakes, but they wouldn�t all make the same mistakes. If you compared all of the copies, you would find that one group contained the same mistake while the other four did not � which of course, would make it easy to tell the copies from the original. Not only that, but most of the mistakes would be obvious � things like misspelled words or words that were accidentally omitted. Anyone looking at all four thousand copies would have no trouble figuring out which was the original.



That�s essentially the same situation with the Bible. We�ve got thousands of copies of the Bible in its original language, and scholars who have studied them have been able to classify them into groups and in most cases determine what the original documents actually said. The few cases which are still debated by scholars really don�t affect the basic message of the Bible at all.



In fact, interestingly enough when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered at Qumran, they predated the earliest extant text � the Masoretic text by almost one thousand years � yet in spite of this vast span of time, there was no substantive difference at all�..In fact, in looking at Isaiah 53 there were only 17 changes between the Masoretic text and those found at Qumran � 10 involved spelling, 4 style and 3 involved the Hebrew letters for the word light in verse 11. However, none of these differences were substantive � God has indeed preserved His Word.



On Manuscript reliability, that�s the CRI Perspective. I�m Hank Hanegraaff.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

How do Christians reconcile factual contradictions in the bible there are many: Contradictions in the Bible Check out this website to read the full list...

Here are a select few:

MT 28:2 An angel arrived during an earthquake, rolled back the stone, then sat on it (outside the tomb).
MK 16:5 No earthquake, only one young man sitting inside the tomb.
LK 24:2-4 No earthquake. Two men suddenly appear standing inside the tomb.
JN 20:12 No earthquake. Two angels are sitting inside the tomb.

MT 28:8 The visitors ran to tell the disciples.
MK 16:8 They said nothing to anyone.
LK 24:9 They told the eleven and all the rest.
JN 20:10-11 The disciples returned home. Mary remained outside, weeping.

MT 28:8-9 Jesus' first Resurrection appearance was fairly near the tomb.
LK 24:13-15 It was in the vicinity of Emmaus (seven miles from Jerusalem).
JN 20:13-14 It was right at the tomb.

MT 28:9 On his first appearance to them, Jesus lets Mary Magdalene and the other Mary hold him by his feet.
JN 20:17 On his first appearance to Mary, Jesus forbids her to touch him since he has not yet ascended to the Father.
JN 20:27 A week later, although he has not yet ascended to the Father, Jesus tells Thomas to touch him.

MT 28:7-10, MT 28:16 Although some doubted, the initial reaction of those that heard the story was one of belief since they followed the revealed instructions.
MK 16:11, LK 24:11 The initial reaction was one of disbelief. All doubted.

MT 28:1-18 The order of Resurrection appearances was: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, then the eleven.
MK 16:9-14 It was Mary Magdalene, then two others, then the eleven.
LK 24:15-36 It was two, then Simon (Peter?), then the eleven.
JN 20:14 - 21:1 It was Mary Magdalene, then the disciples without Thomas, then the disciples with Thomas, then the eleven disciples again.
1CO 15:5-8 It was Cephas (Peter?), then the "twelve" (which twelve, Judas was dead?), then 500+ brethren (although AC 1:15 says there were only about 120), then James, then all the Apostles, then Paul.

The list goes on, and this is in the four approved versions of the gospels, WE haven't even touched on the other eighty versions that were disregarded for no other reason than they told a version of the truth that didnt fit in with the political realities of the day.

Hey Gilgal Bible Wheeler:

Actually GILGAL is an ancient Canaanite-Ugaritic word means "circle"

(compare it with the Greek KUKLOS from whence we derive our English word "Cycle").

Gilgal was an ancient Circle of Stones from pre-historic times (probably like a mini Stonehenge) , and was considered by local Canaanites as a sacred spot upon which a temple to various gods was later built and this cult later was taken over by invading Israelitish tribes.

It has nothing to do with Passover, but was an ancient Canaanite high place (among 70 others) that incorporated the worship of YHWH (the clan-god of the Jews) with other gods (e.g. Ba'al, El, Asherah, Baal-Berith, Dagon, Chemosh and other local Canaanite deities of which YHWH was only one, in the period BEFORE the Exile i.e. up to about 587 BC when Gilgal was destroyed)...

Just for more info:

GOLGOL = means "circumference of the head" or "skull" from whence we derive the word "GOLGOLTHA" in Aramaic (lit. "a skull there" or "place of the skull").

The skull-shaped granite outcropping just outside old Jerusalem (nicknamed Golgoltha) where they crucified criminals formed a kind of hillock which would provide some visibility for executed criminals as a deterrant against sedition (which was the Roman charge against R. Yehoshua bar Yosef, the Galilean, called "Iesous").

Just thought you might appreciate a little background is all....

Originally posted by RedBalloonIt might have some basis in actual events, but the Bible consists of stories and fables and legends, or rewritten and reworked versions of an older document.

Actually, the Book of Genesis was compiled by Moses from eye witness accounts from before the flood.

A man by the name of PJ Wiseman proved this in his book, Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis.

In that book, using archeological evidence from secular sources that predate Moses, he showed that the phrase "These are the Generations of..." was actually a Signature that was common before the days of Moses. That phrase is found throughout the first 11 chapters of Genesis and prove that the preceding material had been written by the person so named. There is a "These are the generations of Adam" and of "Noah" and of his sons and of Abraham and even Moses and Aaron signed their material using this formula.

Further, the 'oldest' book in the Bible is that of Job and you will see, if you look in verses 32:15-16, you will see that Elihu is the author and that, therefore, once again this is an eyewitness account.

And, finally, a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew has been found and dated at 40AD - less than 10 years from the events recorded.

Many of you believe in "automatic writing" in which a person will 'hear' a 'spirit' tell them what to write.

So, why is it so complicated for people to believe that "Men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" so that the end result was what the men wanted to write AND what the Holy Spirit wanted to write as well?

Finally, it will be the literal fulfillment of the remaining prophecies in the Word that will be the deciding factor on the Truthfullness and Trustworthiness of the Word of God.

Jesterbr549:

Your specious claims that Moses had anythning to do with we call the TORAH today are totally without textual and academic authority.

Can you even read paleo-Hebrew? Have you even dared to compare something as simple as Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 in English ?

Do you know what contradictory Creation Myths are?

Do yourself a favour and go out and get a book called, WHO WROTE THE BIBLE? By Richard Elliot Friedman of Harvard now in paperback.

It will give you the layman's over view of the Graf-Wellhausen JEPD+ Redactor hypothesis which has been accepted (in the main) by modern biblical scholars since before 1900. It shows the development of the text over time and how the text conformed to the politics of the editors---long after the time of any Moses.

The different names for the "god" of Israel, doublets and internal contradictions in the various versions of all the OT texts and other grammatical give- aways shows that Moses was not the author of the Torah (or any other set of books) and that most of what you read in the OT was redacted and re-written after the Exile into Babylon i.e. during the time of Ezra in 430 BC, which would explain why there is so much late Hebrew language in the text.

Moreover the person who wrote Deuteronomy (attributed by tradition to Moses) included in that book an account of the death of Moses in the same style as the rest of the book, and he also wrote the book of Joshua---all in late Hebrew long after the time of Moses.

The authorship problem of the Hebrew "bible" is a very complex subject: and your silly over simplified and totally falsified link to show that the "scriptures" of the Jews were somehow miraculously based on eye witness testimony (e.g. the flood myth or what happened before the alleged event) does not take into account what we know of oral tradition and middle eastern literature, Israelite history, and the fact that much older traditions, myths, literature and laws of Israel's neighbours were the source from which various generations of Israelite Yahwistic priests stole (or more politely, adapted) their traditions---i.e. from much older and more sophisticated civilisations such as Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, Persia etc. (i.e. all the countries that invaded and occupied Israel for more than 600 years and influenced Israelite thinking and belief systems).

So you might also want to get a copy of a book called, "Ancient Near Eastern Texts", ed. Pritchard.

You will quickly learn that the contents of the Torah and much of the typological images in the whole Old Testament were much later adaptations of ,much earlier pagan myths and legends of the gods, re-written to confirm to post Exilic monotheism with YHWH at the head of the pantheon--some of them thousands of years older than "the jews"....

Then come back to this thread and we can have a nice little chat.....