The Bible is the literal word of God, Discuss?

Originally posted by StarBreather
The bible is a tear drop in the ocean of truth.

Oookaaaay...very metaphorical. Care to bring it home to reality with an explanation?

Nothing in particular. I just felt an urge to say something.

Oh, okay then. Glad we could help.

Amadeus raises some good points but they do fall on deaf ears. I am of the belief that those arguing vehemently that the Bible is the ad infinitum word of God never bothered to read anything about the origin of the church or the available manuscripts from which their Bible originates. It is akin to accepting the totally bastardized texts of The American Standard version et al, where 100 years from now, fervent believers will know nothing about its origin.

Unfortunately the plan back in the second to fourth centuries whereby Roman rule wiped out just about every manuscript they could get their hands on, whilst they set their scribes to plagiarizing, revising and injecting their own polemic take on Judaism and Gnosticism, just did not quite work out as planned. For the world was actually bigger than thought, 5 continents bigger, and the future generations more interested in the past than the present. Such was the beginning and will be their end, as hidden texts and destroyed cities within the religious centre of mankind circa 200BCE to 100CE, are forced to surrender history to the shovel. While more and more, ancient texts, and manuscripts are found in private libraries or the cellars of old world libraries, which give amazing insight to the secular, patriarchal, egalitarian, and pious metamorphosis of the scriptures we know today.

One thing is certain, that is when one avails oneself of the various documents, one begins to notice where the scribes made margin notes, whereby those notes later either appear in later manuscripts as textural content, or the textural content itself to which they refer is changed and or omitted. Case in point is where Pilate in codices earlier than the LXX, turned Jesus over to the Romans, but was later changed during the period where Christian Jews and non-Christian Jews were engaged against each other, to Pilate turning him over to the Jews. Nothing like stirring up a bit of derision in the ranks to further teh agenda of the day. Then we have new verses tossed in carelessly, such as with Paul�s Romans 16:1 and I Cor. 11 where he exalts women to the church, and out of nowhere, totally ill placed, comes I Cor. 14, where he demands they be kept silent. These are just two examples of many changes noted in manuscripts or papyri fragments which date earlier than the oldest completed Bible in existence.

In addition to that, numerous documents are available to those wishing to enlighten themselves as to just how the early Roman patriarchs of the church engaged in debate as to what would, or would not be included, and what such and such a verse meant, which resulted in either a redaction because it was harmful, or a change or inclusion of an entirely new verse. The letters are there for all to read if they would only be so willing to find truth, but alas, they would rather awash themselves in fear of God�s vengeance as they have been taught.

Despite the debate on the Biblical scholars, too few are interested in the historical aspect of The Bible, after all, most take up theological studies because of their faith, not because they have an anthropological side. But the minority does push on in conjunction with the archaeologists who have unearthed within the last 200 years, the most damaging evidence that the Bible is largely a conspiratorial attempt at control based on a lot of fable.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Amadeus raises some good points but they do fall on deaf ears.

The reason for this is because of the demeaning, insulting nature of his posts. If it were as clean, refined and respectful as yours, then I think the audience base would be a bit larger.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
Despite the debate on the Biblical scholars, too few are interested in the historical aspect of The Bible, after all, most take up theological studies because of their faith, not because they have an anthropological side. But the minority does push on in conjunction with the archaeologists who have unearthed within the last 200 years, the most damaging evidence that the Bible is largely a conspiratorial attempt at control based on a lot of fable.

It's true, if you're believer in the Bible you're much more likely to take it up as a theological study. To ask a historian to study something that's not a real book to him/her is asking them to be reeeaal objective about it, without feeling. I think it can and has been done but is not commonplace in our world. Ask someone how they feel about the Bible. I doubt anyone would be indifferent and say, 'It's a good source of history'. The Bible brings about a good bit of emotion because it discusses very heavy topics like God, eternity, the soul, good and evil, etc. In fact, it seems to skip current events for the sake of delving deeper into these topics (I.E. Jesus seems to brush aside the Roman Empire, the major worry of people living during that time). Instead Jesus goes through 'Don't worry' (Matt 6:25) about earthly stuff going down, it doesn't matter. Alright, let me get to a point here, sorry for the ramble - A historian who wants to know when and where events occurred would have a difficult time pinning everything down in the Bible and matching it up with a timeline, however, those historians who want to know about to sociological context of the people, their interactions and culture would be moreso richly rewarded.

I'm not sure where the muttling of fact and parable comes into play. My examples:

When it says (Luke 6:27) in quote marks Jesus said: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you..." then uhm, where's the fable? That's pretty literal in my mind.

When it says (Mark 4:2): He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said "Listen! A farmer went out ot sow his seed..." Not only is it clear by Jesus that it was a parable, it was also prefaced by the author saying - here's a parable by Jesus.

So if I understand the non-literalists correctly, the Hebrew people who try to make very clear what is and is not a fable(parable) got confused and they're all fables? Sorry, not making sense to me here. If we are saying some things are fables (that are not declared as such), can we be more specific and discuss from there?

Hi SomewhereinBetween:

Thanks for your comments. It's gratifying to find at least one voice or reason speaking up (the only thoughtful and/or rational responses I seem to get these days as feedback on my threads are all U2Us!!)

I do have one point to clarify:

You mentioned some text-manipulation ref: the story about Pontius Pilatus (Romans v. Iudaioi) but made a reference to the LXX which is the "Greek Old Testament" family translated out of the Hebrew Vorlage (more original Hebrew underlay-text) between 250 and 100 BC for Jews in the "diaspora" who no longer could read or understand paleo Hebrew, the language in which most of the OT was first transmitted in writing.

The LXX ("Seputaginta", which is Latin for "Seventy"), allegedly the number of Rabinnic scholars who worked on the translation project in Alexandria (Egypt), one for every goyim-gentile nation with its own god according to Deut 32:8) --tje LXX has nothing whatsoever to do with New Testament Greek Manuscripts discussing Pontus Pilatus, however which was a story originating after AD 36, some 200 years after the LXX was written. the LXX in other words is the Old Testament and the Apocryphal books iadded n Greek (e.g. Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus-Ben Sirach, Jubilees etc.)

Just thought I would clarify that one point: If you do happen to know the Greek text you are referring to (and it might take some time to trace), you can feel free list it according to its catalogue number and type (e.g. p66 etc.)

As for Saint4god, he should know (by now !) that the "tone" I sometimes adopt on these threads is deliberately styled to be calculatingly harsh at times (although certainly NOT meanspirited) to get the people's dander up a little who might be reading my threads:

There is far too much "complacency" at times about the really important issues about Judaiesm and its relation to early Christianity and the so-called "literalness" of the Bible upon which most of the modern Rabinnic Judaiesms are based as well as all the varied forms of "Christianity" floating around these days---all claiming to "know" the "literal word of God" etc. when in fact they "know" no such thing, since there is no "literal" text for them to "know" in the first place.

So if you can't stand the heat...as they say !

but don't expect a positive response, Amadeus. Anger leads to hate and hate leads to the Dark Side (yoda). The chief complaint I hear about Christians is that we try to cram information down someone's throat they think is unsubstantiated, but that's what it looks like you're doing as well as throwing poise, respect, and thoughfulness out the window in these discussions. I know what you're saying, but haven't a clue why you're saying it. Do you feel there is a higher moral somewhere? Did a Christian at some point inflict harm on you and this is a form of revenge? How are you trying to help people? The world is full of critics but few on problem-solvers. Just trying to give a perspective from where I sit if you haven't seen it already. I'll always read and listen, it just seems to me you have your books you quote and I have mine...unless you claim you were there during the time of Christ, then we can start a separate thread about that.

The Bible teaches you how to think, not how to quote verses. It's a guide, anyone can read but it takes real work to fully understand and apply.

Hey Saint:

The "bible" teaches someone how to think?

Since when?

It's throughout but if you're looking for specifics, there's an entire book on it called Proverbs. Example Proverbs 1:5: "let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance...". Great intro ya? I'd suggest reading all the Proverbs though, it make an excellent complete work.

[edit on 18-11-2004 by saint4God]

Saint4God, you said

A historian who wants to know when and where events occurred would have a difficult time pinning everything down in the Bible and matching it up with a timeline, however, those historians who want to know about to sociological context of the people, their interactions and culture would be moreso richly rewarded.

I absolutely agree with the latter part of your statement and only partially with the first, in that the problem is not pinning down the timeline, but attesting to the situations or claims within the Bible. Much history has been made available to us in the last 200 years, which has allowed us to look back into the past. Egyptian soil, as far as Biblical timelines are concerned, has been more than generous to historians. While it might seem from reading The Bible that Israelites were only a nomadic people for forty years, they were in fact not only nomadic but spread all over the Middle East, well into the time of Jesus, and in fact even after the Exodus, had quite an affinity with Egypt, with probably the largest Hebrew populations of all of the area. Much of the Bible has been dated as a result of Egyptian artifacts, and it was precisely during the Alexandrian times they enjoyed the most prosperity and freedom of religion. I�ll come back to this as it goes to respond to Amadeus.

With regard your literal and lore perception, I will first repeat what I have said on previous posts; For Christians the truth is contained within the NT, one just needs to learn how to discern it from the fiction, and that fiction arises from the spinning of truth, propaganda, and creative licence of agenda driven men who set out to create a new religion. So yes, the fables also exist. We must first remember that there is no historical evidence of Jesus, more than just an oddity or omission when one considers there that the scribes, whether Essene, of devout Jewish scribes want us to believe they carefully recorded the history of Israel from day one.

At the time of Jesus, the Jews were going through one of the worst and longest times of persecution than ever before, yet we are expected to believe that this man lived and caused them great problems and disruption during the vicious reign of the Herods, but the Jews could not be bothered to record his existence, not even to say their temple was defiled. Consider now, that during his time that the Jews were well scattered throughout the region, from Iraq, to Syria, to Egypt, and the NT recounts how Christ had multitudes of followers everywhere he went; you would think that feeding 5,000 people in that day and age by a miraculous act would result in a quick spreading of the word, and massive growth in followers. Acts too recounts multitudes of growth, yet, Christianity was having a great deal of difficulty establishing itself well into the second century. As far as the better fables in the NT go, I find Jesus� venture into the temple and throwing out those within it a real charm. One man against how many? And they allowed a heretic to destroy their wares, scatter their money and toss them out of their exalted place. They killed for far less heresy. This sudden docility from a people whose history is plagued with battle, and whose people themselves were certainly not being docile to Herod�s or Antipas� guard, demands quite a leap of belief. Prior to this very story, we are told Jesus makes his way into Jerusalem where a great multitude gathered, singing praises to Hosannah in his name, �and all the city was moved. And, the multitude said, this is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.� All these miracles and healings he perfumed to and before multitudes, and they praise him as before, yet, when Pilate places his faith in the hands of the multitude, his multitudinous followers must have all been at home.

Amadeus, following up on Egypt then. Yes I am quite aware the LXX refers to the Pentateuch initially, to which the other books were later added while still being known as the Septuagint, and still later, gaining popularity as the Greek bible. But the Egyptian reference is important, since the findings at Oxyrhynchus provide a seminal history of Christianity under the Greeks, where the book of Matthew, the only one of prominence became an integral part of their Biblical reproductions along with the LXX in all its aprocryphal glory, and some of the greatest insight into the manipulated NT texts of today. Poor choice of word when I said, �earlier than the LXX� It should have been earlier than the LXX as in Codex Vaticanus.

I know a friend at school that loved to read books. He read all sorts of books, mostly fantasy etc. So knowing that the most popular and highest sold book in the world is the Bible, he thought he would give it a go. He actually read it from cover to back 3 times (by the way, he is not a Christian).

What did he get out of the Bible after reading it 3 times? Not much. It was just a nice collection of stories. Now, if the Bible IS the inspired word of God, would it not have the power to make a person believe after reading 3 times? Well, I would argue NO.

Why? Because Jesus talks about this in the new testament with a parable. The world of God (meaning the Bible) is like a seed. Some falls on rocky ground (meaning people that have hard closed hearts) and the seed dies. Some falls amongst weeds that strangle the plants as it grows (meaning some people do actually believe it but are surrounded by people that don�t, so they lose their faith as well) and still other seed makes it to rich fertile ground and grows (meaning some people do want to listen and believe and their lives are changed).

Christ mentions numerous times while on earth about the Bible. 'Happy are those that hear the word of God (what the Bible teaches) and do as it requires'.

If the Bible wasn�t the word of God, why would Christ be telling people to follow it.

Another point that validates the Bible as the Word of God is when Jesus was tempted in the Desert. When Satan tried to tempt him, Jesus rebuked him by quoting scripture. Not only did Jesus quote scripture but Satan did as well. If scripture had no power, why would they be quoting it? Seems a bit odd to me.

The simple fact is, the power of the Word of God has not diminished over the years, and it is available for all to have. Unfortunately, the Devil knows this and will do anything to discredit the Word Of God... planting seed of doubt in your mind to make you think that the book is nothing more than science fiction.

For those people that can not believe the Bible because of some stories that just seem to impossible, I suggest this. Close your eyes, take a big deep breath and relax! Open the bible up to John and read the story of Christ. Try applying what he says to your life (try to pray as well). If after about 6 months you can see no change in your life, pick up the Bible, place it amongst your science fiction books and wear a t-shirt that says 'The Bible for me is NOT the literal word of God'

If you do see some radical changes in your life then you realise you have to wear a t-shirt around saying ' The Bible for me IS the literal word of God.. Lets discuss!!!'

**Typo**

[edit on 18-11-2004 by shmick25]

Actually the Bible is the literal Word of God.

When people claim the Bible contradicts itself, one has to wonder if they're looking at the Authorized King James, the modern versions, or all of the above?

The KJV is the ONLY accurate version in English today. The other versions contradict themselves a lot of the time. That's where confusion sets in.

The Catholic system has a hand in this confusion. During the Inquisition, Bible believers (as well as the Jews) were targeted. The Bible had to be kept from the people. Failing that, they came up with the modern versions. Westcott and Hort were Catholics. Look at the Alexandrian Cult.

Hi Amythist:

Actually, it's not the "translations" that are the biggest problem for scholars with establishing a definitive OT and the NT----- it is the problem of the

l. canon (i.e. the actual list of books) and

2. establishing a coherent Hebrew text of the OT for each of the books involved (too may contradictory Hebrew MSS running around since the findings at Qumran) and ditto for the Greek NT (several hundred Manuscripts to choose from, no two alike).

The King James Version in English has both translational problems (language changes over time) and also text source problems (their panel only had a few late MSS).

Does this make any sense to you?

I know for a fact that it is the literal word of god.
My copy has a quote on the inside cover in crayon saying, "this book belongs to god, and I is what who wrote it ok!!"

People who are immobilized by their "study" of the Bible cannot hear the "still small voice of God" themselves.

They worship the Book.

I'm not going there. God is ALIVE and can speak up for Himself, thank you.

I have no problems hearing what He wants from me. Thank you.

You wanna be stuck in the BOOK?

Go for it. That's a stage my own spirituality grew out of about 20 years ago.

The belief that God is silent and helpless is just as Agnostic as no relationship with God at all.

So there.

Ok so a lot more bunkum.
answer me this please with a simple yes or know response.
Do you believe that people who do not believe in god are less tha those who do?are they a lower class of humanity, weaker even or stupid.
Yes or no???????

These guys actually believe they know something.

Let them fight it out another twenty years and they'll realize they know NOTHING.

It's ALL just blowing smoke and ego posturing.

There is NO WAY we can know IN FACT about God until and unless we occupy a place inside HIS MIND.

And even then, we're going to have problems articulating the thoughts that God is THINKING.

You guys. Back off. You're giving "believers" a bad name.

If to have god and faith is to beleive like you then thank god I am who I am beacsue you are the reason people die in the name of religion.

Do you have something >BETTER< to die for ... Disease, maybe?

Money? Work-aholism? Ennui? Nihilism? Cynicism?

What?

I can't think of a better "case" to work for.

But who am I to have an opinion, eh?

Yeah I have something a whole lot better to die for, natural death. Will not die for anything but my family. It is a weird stance that you LIVE your LIFE by the reason you want to die.
oh well blessed be are those who are weak of mind.