Is Today's Bible Authentic?

reply to post by SisyphusRide

I don't sit around and analyze Lord of The Rings... what's the truth then? tell us please

Actually J. R. R. Tolkien was a Christian and wrote those books as an allegory of good vs evil. He was also close friends with the Christian apologist C. S. Lewis.

"Tell you the truth"?? That is for nobody to do in regards to beliefs. A debate on the topic however shouldn't be a problem.

Sorry for off topic.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


I'm a defender of my faith and beliefs... what you doing man?

you want to go get in a fight with someone over Lord of the Rings? a fanboy for instance?

go do it... I'm sure someone will tell you that you're wrong.

and that's what I am here to tell you...

leave Christians and Americans alone... you don't want to pop up on radar by making yourself known

there will be opposition

SisyphusRide
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

I'm a defender of my faith and beliefs... what you doing man?

you want to go get in a fight with someone over Lord of the Rings? a fanboy for instance?

go do it... I'm sure someone will tell you that you're wrong.

and that's what I am here to tell you...

leave Christians and Americans alone... you don't want to pop up on radar by making yourself known

there will be opposition

Fanboy? no.
But as I mentioned earlier, I did my own research and investigations into the bible (reading it several times front to back), including reading C.S. Lewis and about him and his life and conversion and his friends. (very intelligent man btw) Didn't convince me the bible was authentic though.

You brought up Lord of the Rings. What I told you about the author is established fact written by Tolkien and Lewis themselves.

Then a threat to "leave Christians and Americans alone"???

reply to post by Chamberf=6


better yet... leave any peace loving and freedom loving people alone.

I am into preemptism and I tell you this... the actions of the like of Dawkins and his followers are disgusting.

go pick a fight where you see real injustice!

I am unconcerned with your truth or your message, I could care less...

!!! COWARDS !!!

SisyphusRide
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

better yet... leave any peace loving and freedom loving people alone.

I am into preemptism and I tell you this... the actions of the like of Dawkins and his followers are disgusting.

go pick a fight where you see real injustice!

I am unconcerned with your truth or your message, I could care less...

I like peace and freedom too, should I somehow leave myself and my friends alone?

When did I ever mention Dawkins??

I am not "picking a fight" but posting replies in a thread on a topic of interest.

If you are unconcerned with me, you have replied to me a strange amount then.

Do you mean you couldn't care less?

SisyphusRide
!!! COWARDS !!!

Who?
Those that disagree with you and think that today's bible is not authentic?

Or is it more cowardly to shy away from a civil debate on the subject while insulting others?

reply to post by Chamberf=6


dude! I wasn't talking to you... I was speaking of everyone who picks a fight with someone for no reason, for no injustice... to rob them of their very being.

what's next... to take their life?

happens everyday!

reply to post by SisyphusRide

Sisyphus was an appropriate choice for you member name.

Todays Bible is barely a shadow of what it originally was.

It has been intentionally corrupted with several layers of 'coding' and metaphors.

Then it has been badly re-translated .. then retranslated again.

It's amazing that so much of the substance within it has survived through it all.

Chamberf=6
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

Too many times, posters on this (and many other) threads make assumptions about other posters which are just an over-reach.

I suspect that the scoffers and skeptics have not examined the evidences in an unbiased way, but have relied on sources which suit their already-existing intellectual leanings. Too many people adopt whatever belief system will place God as far away as possible. That is what multiple pages of posts boil down to.

Aren't you making assumptions, then, as well?

"Scoffers and skeptics" , may have examined the evidence as you did (including myself) and come to a different conclusion.

It was a general observation about people in general. Aimed at you? No, not really. Not an assumption either, I see it a lot. There are two kinds of people in this world - pro-God, anti-God, and the dead.

HigherTruth
Todays Bible is barely a shadow of what it originally was.

It has been intentionally corrupted with several layers of 'coding' and metaphors.

Then it has been badly re-translated .. then retranslated again.

It's amazing that so much of the substance within it has survived through it all.

Well, then, if you know that, you must have the original autographs in hand. Then, you must have also compared translations and re-translations and carefully compared them to the originals. Perhaps you even know who corrupted the text.

Or, perhaps you picked up an anti-Bible opinion from someone with an agenda. One or the other, please let us know, and tell us what the source of your judgment is. I might even have something intelligent to say.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

There are two kinds of people in this world - pro-God, anti-God, and the dead.

..Well that would make three...

but remember there are also agnostics (4th), also if someone doesn't believe your bible is authentic, they don't automatically fall into your "anti-god" category. There are many more religions and beliefs out there besides your own, Horatio.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Well, then, if you know that, you must have the original autographs in hand. Then, you must have also compared translations and re-translations and carefully compared them to the originals. Perhaps you even know who corrupted the text.

Conversely, it seems implied (IMO) that you know the exact opposite to be true. Like I said my opinion in what I read.
If so any proof? (besides your strong belief)

You wrote earlier that you believe it word by word , letter by letter--so still curious to know how you can be sure that nothing has been changed from the original separate writings.

The odds alone favor that it has at least changed over time, not even taking into account all the many translations.

Then take into account that the earliest writings of the old testament were written down 2500 years after the bible says the world began, then the new testament being written years after the people attributed to the books (Matthew, John, etc) died. SOOOO much word of mouth even before written down.

Then the whole mess of whether it's authentic (genuine) with the "original" "authentic" messages...it just seems to take a willful suspension of disbelief to even consider it all being "the word of god".

reply to post by Lazarus Short


If you only knew just how much I actually do know.



Check the thread that I may post tomorrow.

HigherTruth
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

If you only knew just how much I actually do know.



Check the thread that I may post tomorrow.

Well, I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

Chamberf=6:

Not the usual format, but when I have two posts to answer, sometimes I take it all to Word ‘fer Mac, where I can look at it more to my advantage, and without ATS’s time constraints…

First, so to speak, yes it is three kinds of people (at least). In case you missed it, that was my sense of humor at work. Don’t think I don’t notice the tactic of spinning every little mistake I make (even if it lies outside the topic), to keep me off balance. You will deny it, of course. I find myself in a “predictament” here, stuck in a bad situation I might/should have forseen.

No matter – here’s this: “Conversely, it seems implied (IMO) that you know the exact opposite to be true. Like I said my opinion in what I read. If so any proof? (besides your strong belief)”. I just can’t figure out what you are trying to say – I asked the fellow for more information, and then you ask for proof of me?! I think we both know that “strong belief” is not proof, but your grammar implies it is. Yes, I have proof, but I suspect that each point will be rejected out of hand, and so quickly that I will suspect that due consideration was not given. Been there & done that. Tell me why I should not be like my savior and kinsman Jesus the Christ, Who declined to offer proof to His skeptics?

Next: “The odds alone favor that it has at least changed over time…” Yes, the odds from a merely human POV, favor some randomization of the Biblical text. However, remember the Einstein said that God does not play dice. Smart guy, Einstein…

Moving right along: “SOOOO much word of mouth even before written down.” No, the NT itself says that it was not based on hearsay or Jewish fables, but men of God who wrote as they were inspired. That is not an exact quote, but close. You either believe it or don’t, but the internal and external exidence is against you. Read “Evidence That Demands A Verdict,” by Josh McDowell. It’s not an easy book, and it will leave you without excuse.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

First, so to speak, yes it is three kinds of people (at least). In case you missed it, that was my sense of humor at work. Don’t think I don’t notice the tactic of spinning every little mistake I make (even if it lies outside the topic), to keep me off balance. You will deny it, of course.

You haven't used humor in any of your other posts, so no, I did not think it was your "sense of humor at work". If it was, yes, I did miss it.
Some of the mistakes I point out are on topic and the very reason I point them out. Just as you point out my "mistakes" that don't agree with your belief it is authentic.

Yes, I have proof, but I suspect that each point will be rejected out of hand, and so quickly that I will suspect that due consideration was not given.

You have proof the bible is authentic, but will not share it? Ok... And as I have said I have done my "research" too but came to a different conclusion than you. So If you have solid proof, I'd like to hear it, so I can "consider" it. Do the dates the bible was written in relation to the events it describes not at least concern you at all?

Yes, the odds from a merely human POV, favor some randomization of the Biblical text. However, remember the Einstein said that God does not play dice. Smart guy, Einstein…

It seems that was just a turn of speech. Einstein:

You may call me an agnostic

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Many more quotes from him on this suject

No, the NT itself says that it was not based on hearsay or Jewish fables, but men of God who wrote as they were inspired.

Then why are the earliest writings from the NT (and OT) put into writing after all of the people there at the time were dead? You can't use the bible to prove the bible is authentic. That is a circular logic fallacy argument. (circulus in demonstrando)

Chamberf=6


Then why are the earliest writings from the NT put into writing after all of the people there at the time were dead? You can' use the bible to prove the bible is authentic. That is a circular logic fallacy argument. (circulus in demonstrando)

I think you meant to say "...can't use..." See how that works? Anything I bring up you have a ready answer to. However, did I not mention internal and external evidences? Yes, we can use the Bible to prove itself, because it interfaces with history, geography, and on, and on. Some will see it, some will not, and I find a mystery in what God Himself said about the way He had set things up, so that some would NOT understand, not see with their eyes, nor hear with their ears. It's a lot like some people having the ability to see what they are looking at, and others, not. Once the seeing clicks, you can never go back to not seeing what you were looking at. Do you understand that I am more interested in the process of your understanding than I am in proof and evidence? As long as I suspect that you lack the ability to see what you are looking at (in the "third eye" sense) then I am wasting my time presenting any proof/evidence.

reply to post by Lazarus Short

There--edited in the "t".

Yes, we can use the Bible to prove itself, because it interfaces with history, geography, and on, and on.

Ugh, Herodotus (500 BC) had many places, geography, history correct, but also had many things wrong. Just because real places are mentioned "proves" nothing about the main point of the bible.

Do you understand that I am more interested in the process of your understanding than I am in proof and evidence?
As long as I suspect that you lack the ability to see what you are looking at (in the "third eye" sense) then I am wasting my time presenting any proof/evidence.

You can "suspect" whatever you want about me, it doesn't mean you are correct. I'm not here for you to "convert" me, nor is that the point of this thread.

That just seems like an excuse to not provide proof/evidence...we are not the only ones in this thread, whether I have what you call the "third eye" or not shouldn't matter or be your reason for not providing your proof for others for that matter.