Off topic ? on religion.

[Oh, Gee!!]

That was my needlessly opaque version of , BTW.

a little too "on the nose" for my tastes

[2centsworth]

From a strictly spiritual point of view the bible must be 100% accurate because it's known throughout the world to be the word of Jesus. Since Jesus is perfect, all knowing, and in complete control why would he allow the bible to be known as his word if it wasn't so? If the bible is inaccurate then Jesus could not be all the things he said he was.

[spurster]

Unlike the Book of Mormon or the Koran which are claimed to come directly from God or angels, the books in the bible were written by people, copied by people, and selected by people. Infallibility doesn't hold much weight due to many inconsistencies and copying errors. Authorship is contentious in many cases.

The New Testament has a lot of problems along these lines. The first Christians thought Jesus was going to come back in their lifetimes, not giving them much motivation for initially writing it down. Also, they were persecuted off and on for about three centuries and did their best to destroy anything they thought was heretical.

Personally, I find these difficulties an advantage. Maybe God wants us to think things through rather than following by rote. The truth will set you free.

[bigzak25]

Personally, I find these difficulties an advantage. Maybe God wants us to think things through rather than following by rote. The truth will set you free.

RACK.

[Guru of Nothing]

Meanwhile, the Old Testament manuscripts in use have been shown to be 99.99% to the manuscripts found as the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing faithful transmission of Scripture over at least 2000 years.

However, some things get lost in translation. The OT was written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. Other tongues lack some of the tenses, phrasing, and nuances of meaning of those languages. There is the oft-cited example of Jesus' threefold redemption of Peter after the Resurrection, in which English lacks the multiple words for "love" that explain why Peter weeps.

99.99% ..... fulcrum ...

To be continued ... maybe ... deep thought does not suit me.

[mikejones99]

Detroit is used to the not pretty and now God says New Orleans will be the next nice black city like Detroit.

[travis2]

Excellent summary, ExtraStout...

[Mr. Peabody]

99.99% ..... fulcrum ...

To be continued ... maybe ... deep thought does not suit me.

Even if the Old Testament has been shown to be 99.99% accurate in relation to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is amazing when you consider the passage of time, that speaks nothing about the do ent's accuracy as to actual events. And honestly, the thing that scares me is that there are people who believe that everything in the Bible actually happened.

I even had a graduate student, a well-educated intelligent person, tell me "Well, you know that everything in the Bible has been scientifically proven true." It bothered me that this guy actually believed this statement. That's not to say that he was wrong for having religion and faith in his life, but to try and convince me that everything in the Bible has been scientifically proven true is preposterous. But there are people out there who believe this to be true.

[Phenomanul]

When, for example, a Reformed theologian is discussing the infallibility of Scripture, he is talking about "original manuscripts," that is, when Paul wrote his epistle to the Ephesians, that was inspired by God and is infallible for matters of faith and practice.

There are copying errors, however. That is why, for example, newer English translations omit clauses that are found in the King James Bible. The latter is based upon the Textus Receptus, a Middle-Age manuscript that shows evidence of centuries of copying errors, and instances where annotations got copied into the actual text.

Much older manuscripts have been found, and newer translations are more faithful to the originals. Despite all this, no significant points of doctrine are in question due to any manuscript discrepancies.

Meanwhile, the Old Testament manuscripts in use have been shown to be 99.99% to the manuscripts found as the Dead Sea Scrolls, showing faithful transmission of Scripture over at least 2000 years.

However, some things get lost in translation. The OT was written in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine Greek. Other tongues lack some of the tenses, phrasing, and nuances of meaning of those languages. There is the oft-cited example of Jesus' threefold redemption of Peter after the Resurrection, in which English lacks the multiple words for "love" that explain why Peter weeps.


The Catholic Bible includes the Apocrypha, several late books included in their Old Testament. These once were in the Hebrew canon, but later were eliminated because anachronisms were found in the text. They are omitted from the Protestant canon for the same reason.

Presumably, the Catholic Church does not believe that any such anachronisms invalidate the reliability of those books for matters of faith and practice.

Other sects and heterodox groups will change the text to suit their particular quirks of doctrine. I do not believe such groups are legitimately Christian.


The 4 gospels tell the story from different perspectives. Matthew expressed it in terms of prophetic fulfillment. Mark expresses it with brevity. Luke goes into scholarly detail. John gives the personal details on a frend who walked with Jesus.

You may notice that the gospels conflict with one another chronologically. As Westerners, we assume that anything out of chronological order is in error. That assumption does not necessarily hold for the gospels, as vignettes may be expressed in terms of spiritual meaning, or prophetic fulfillment, or other intent of the author.

To elaborate on an already good explanation.... I found this site about a year ago....

http://www.jpdawson.com/synopt/synopgos.html

One of the points the analysis mentions, is that the styles of the Gospels and the intended audience had much to do with the finished product.


Unique Subjects and Style


Matthew - Written to the Hebrew thinking
-Presents Jesus as King of Israel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke - Written to the Greek thinking -
- Presents Jesus as the Great Healer -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John - Written as an interpretation of the Life of Jesus,
not just reporting. -
- Presents Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark - Written in the ordinary language of the day -
- Presents Jesus as the Servant -



Also consider this.... if the Gospels all looked and read the same, would that give them any more validity???

Let's say for the sake of an example, that there was an accident on Commerce street. If you were to interview some of the witnesses most of them would probably notice different things and explain it a bit differently.... that wouldn't necessarily mean that they were lying or that they were wrong.

1st witness: "I was walking along the sidewalk and saw that a man on a bicycle lost his balance. A red Toyota Camry then hit him. There were three bystanders close by and two of them ran toward the man to offer aid, the one with the black shirt then gave him CPR. The ambulance arrived about 8 minutes later."

2nd witness: "At about 2 P.M. a red sedan ran over a bicyclist. The driver immediately phoned for help. One bystander ran to the victim and began administering CPR."

3rd witness: "A man was accidentally hit by a car. Two people ran out to offer aid. The driver of the car called the ambulance. The ambulance arrived quicker than I expected."

4th witness: "It was a windy day, and the wind caught a hold of a cyclist's hat. When the cyclist tried to catch it he lost his balance and fell on the street. A Camry turned right and didn't see the cyclist on the road. The impact was not fatal but it rendered the cyclist unconscious. The lady in the car retained composture and immediately called the paramedics. They arrived shortly after and right before it began to pour."

Imagine now that every witness said the same exact thing word for word... You would be freaked out and get the feeling that something did not feel right.

Perspective is a very important tool and used to convey style and personality. Surprisingly several events in the Gospels share this very same concept.

[Mr. Peabody]

To elaborate on an already good explanation.... I found this site about a year ago....

http://www.jpdawson.com/synopt/synopgos.html

One of the points the analysis mentions, is that the styles of the Gospels and the intended audience had much to do with the finished product.


Unique Subjects and Style


Matthew - Written to the Hebrew thinking
-Presents Jesus as King of Israel

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke - Written to the Greek thinking -
- Presents Jesus as the Great Healer -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John - Written as an interpretation of the Life of Jesus,
not just reporting. -
- Presents Jesus as the Son of God, the Savior -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark - Written in the ordinary language of the day -
- Presents Jesus as the Servant -



Also consider this.... if the Gospels all looked and read the same, would that give them any more validity???

Let's say for the sake of an example, that there was an accident on Commerce street. If you were to interview some of the witnesses most of them would probably notice different things and explain it a bit differently.... that wouldn't necessarily mean that they were lying or that they were wrong.

1st witness: "I was walking along the sidewalk and saw that a man on a bicycle lost his balance. A red Toyota Camry then hit him. There were three bystanders close by and two of them ran toward the man to offer aid, the one with the black shirt then gave him CPR. The ambulance arrived about 8 minutes later."

2nd witness: "At about 2 P.M. a red sedan ran over a bicyclist. The driver immediately phoned for help. One bystander ran to the victim and began administering CPR."

3rd witness: "A man was accidentally hit by a car. Two people ran out to offer aid. The driver of the car called the ambulance. The ambulance arrived quicker than I expected."

4th witness: "It was a windy day, and the wind caught a hold of a cyclist's hat. When the cyclist tried to catch it he lost his balance and fell on the street. A Camry turned right and didn't see the cyclist on the road. The impact was not fatal but it rendered the cyclist unconscious. The lady in the car retained composture and immediately called the paramedics. They arrived shortly after and right before it began to pour."

Imagine now that every witness said the same exact thing word for word... You would be freaked out and get the feeling that something did not feel right.

Perspective is a very important tool and used to convey style and personality. Surprisingly several events in the Gospels share this very same concept.

Please tell me that you are not arguing that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of actual events.

[Phenomanul]

Please tell me that you are not arguing that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of actual events.

It is the basis of our redemption, and reveals the nature of GOD as Father. It is the Revelation of Christ as Savior. Yes I believe in the Bible... NT included.

The example was not that difficult to understand.... It's perfect Peabody Logic if I ever saw it....

Though the witnesses say different things, they don't necessarily contradict each other....

[Mr. Peabody]

It is the basis of our redemption, and reveals the nature of GOD as Father. It is the Revelation of Christ as Savior. Yes I believe in the Bible... NT included.

The example was not that difficult to understand.... It's perfect Peabody Logic if I ever saw it....

Though the witnesses say different things, they don't necessarily contradict each other....

My questions is -- why does it have to be factually accurate? Can you still believe in the teachings and the wisdom of the do ent, can't you still follow the principles of the book, without it being 100% accurate?

Some of you seem to think that if the Bible is not a completely accurate depiction of actual events, then somehow that diminishes the value of the teachings. You have to question the faith of these people. The Bible contains some of the greatest teachings in history, regardless of the factual accuracy of the book.

By insisting that all of the events depicted actually occurred, you take something away from what it is to have faith in something. It's like you need validation for your beliefs or they are not worth anything.

[smeagol]

Well, it's not just the four inconsistent gospels. There's also the gospels that weren't selected for the Bible. So basically what we have is an abridged version of the story.

Those “gospels”, “acts”, “epistles” and “apocalypses” you refer too were not selected for a reason. They were forgeries.

While the New Testament Books were all written in the 1st Century, between 20 and 60 years after Christ’s death and Resurrection (Paul’s Epistles are believed to have been written in the 50s AD, the synoptic Gospels between 60 and 70 AD and John’s Gospel between 75 and 85 AD), scholars agree that the apocryphal gospels and other books were written in the mid to late 2nd Century. These books, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Philip, push a Gnostic agenda and are in contradiction with Christianity (very easy to see why they were not included in the Canon of the Bible).

Furthermore, St Justin, who lived in the earlier part of the 2nd Century, already wrote of four and only four Gospels. St Irenaeus, in the later part of the 2nd Century, wrote the same thing. St. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a disciple of St John. Ireaneus is therefore linked with the Apostles themselves.

[smeagol]

My questions is -- why does it have to be factually accurate? Can you still believe in the teachings and the wisdom of the do ent, can't you still follow the principles of the book, without it being 100% accurate?

Some of you seem to think that if the Bible is not a completely accurate depiction of actual events, then somehow that diminishes the value of the teachings. You have to question the faith of these people. The Bible contains some of the greatest teachings in history, regardless of the factual accuracy of the book.

By insisting that all of the events depicted actually occurred, you take something away from what it is to have faith in something. It's like you need validation for your beliefs or they are not worth anything.

I have mixed feelings about this. My personal view (which does not mean much) is that the NT is factual. The OT, on the other hand, has stuff that is difficult to reconcile, at least in my mind, with what must have really happened. Adam and Eve is probably a story which is mostly allegorical.

[Phenomanul]

My questions is -- why does it have to be factually accurate? Can you still believe in the teachings and the wisdom of the do ent, can't you still follow the principles of the book, without it being 100% accurate?

Some of you seem to think that if the Bible is not a completely accurate depiction of actual events, then somehow that diminishes the value of the teachings. You have to question the faith of these people. The Bible contains some of the greatest teachings in history, regardless of the factual accuracy of the book.

By insisting that all of the events depicted actually occurred, you take something away from what it is to have faith in something. It's like you need validation for your beliefs or they are not worth anything.

"Factually accurate" is a very broad and oft' misconstrued statement....

Are you talking about Jesus's doings.... i.e. his miracles... the accounts of his crucifixion and resurrection? Or about the doings of his disciples... or that of some of the other followers such as Paul's? or Timothy's? Perhaps the accounts in the Book of Revelations???

The New Testament has so many literary elements you can't try to label it as a work of 'fiction' or 'non-fiction' .... it is way too complex to fit neatly into either category.

Factuallity in this book, however, has major implications... Some events in the New Testament, though seemingly mundane to the casual reader, are the manifest culminations of prophecies in the Old Testament.

You are right in that the teachings themselves are priceless and value-rich guidelines to life, but to say that the historical context is irrelevant is not correct.

Again, the Gospels reveal the nature of Christ.... the incident where he calms the storm in the Sea of Galilee reveals Christ's dominion over nature... the incident(s) where He casts out demons from the possesed reveals His authority over the minions of ... The many incidents where He heals people reveal His authority over disease [and death in the case of the little 'sleeping' girl, and Lazarus]. Jesus's Transfiguration reveals Christ's divinity.

You may see these events as only 'supporting', 'contributing' non-essential works... but again, they are still needed so that a more 'complete' picture of Christ can be revealed. If the accounts that Jesus walked on water, or turned water in wine, or calmed the storm were not in the Bible, would that take away or diminish Jesus's Divine authority over nature? No, in fact Jesus himself stated that this [performing miracles] was not his purpose. But the fact that the accounts are included reveal other aspects of Jesus's 'personality' such as His obedience, compassion, and passion for GOD's justice [scene where he overturns several merchant's tables outside of the temple].

For me to sit here and claim with 100% certainty that the events in the New Testament are completely true would be out of my jurisdiction, and not to mention out of my grasp [I don't have access to original scripts... nor am I fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek so...]. But, I still believe them to be true based on Old Testament prophecies, and based on the consistency of Christ's nature as revealed throughout the entire Bible.

Yes, faith is certainly required to believe in the New Testament. Particularly because a chunk of it enters the supernatural realm. But belief in the factual accuracy of events in the New Testament as a part of one's faith is not equanimous to having a flaw in faith... OUR Cornerstone should be Christ....

[Brutalis]

as christians, it is not our duty to claim anything. it is our duty to have faith and lead by example. people will always doubt. even when the truth is right in front of their faces. but at the end of the day, the only people we can control are ourselves. that's what we must focus on good brother. Godbless you.

as far as factual, unquestioned, and unchanged?

well...to each their own, but i believe that it is questioned by many. i believe it has been changed through the interpretation of man. and as far as factual? Yes. I believe it is factual. That's what faith is all about.

I agree

[Brutalis]

If the book of Mormon was so real, why do they have to knock on my front door every month? Please, they are like ad companies.

I love their commercial, where the two girls are talking and one is like "i just feel so happy and complete" and here I'm thinking, ever heard of the uh... Bible? Laff.

[Phenomanul]

I have mixed feelings about this. My personal view (which does not mean much) is that the NT is factual. The OT, on the other hand, has stuff that is difficult to reconcile, at least in my mind, with what must have really happened. Adam and Eve is probably a story which is mostly allegorical.

Remember that article I posted a while back? The one that analyzed the literary style of Genesis vs. other books in the Old Testament....

If Genesis were more allegorical and symbolic it would flow more like passages from Psalms or Proverbs... Instead it reads more like the 'historical' books such as Kings, Chronicles etc... This is from an analysis of the breakdown of nouns, adjectives, verbs in the original Hebrew text....

Again, it requires a great deal of faith to accept Biblical creation, simply because the overwhelming power and authority of GOD is on display. However, I will concede that certain statements are not written in stone and subject to interpretation.... Though some of it can be literal... who knows... maybe GOD did make each of His 'creation' days equivalent to millions of years, or He simply 'fast forwarded' and compressed the 'events of millions of years' into each of those days (<--- my new theory)... With unlimited power to wield all I know is that it happened.

[2centsworth]

Please tell me that you are not arguing that the New Testament is an accurate depiction of actual events.

it has to be or else why would Jesus allow the Bible to speak for him. A god that powerful and perfect would never let his word to man be imperfect. Therefore, if you believe in Jesus the bible must be perfect.

[hendrix]

The OT, on the other hand, has stuff that is difficult to reconcile, at least in my mind, with what must have really happened. Adam and Eve is probably a story which is mostly allegorical.

Sorry Smeagol... I can't believe someone might actually think "Adam and Eve" is not completely allegorical.
I know, i know... I'm a infidel bas to all of you but still... come on!.

[Oh, Gee!!]

it has to be or else why would Jesus allow the Bible to speak for him. A god that powerful and perfect would never let his word to man be imperfect. Therefore, if you believe in Jesus the bible must be perfect.

who says it does speak for Jesus?

[Mr. Peabody]

who says it does speak for Jesus?

I think it says that in the introduction section of the Bible when God is talking about his process for writing the Bible and how he got the idea for certain characters.

There is also a nice foreword by Krishna.

[hendrix]

No, it's in one of the first pages, it says: "To my son, whom I love so much".

[Phenomanul]

it has to be or else why would Jesus allow the Bible to speak for him. A god that powerful and perfect would never let his word to man be imperfect. Therefore, if you believe in Jesus the bible must be perfect.

Your sarcastic undertone.... scratch that... the whole post wreaked of sarcasm....

But Zak said it best... to each his own.

The Biblical story of redemption is all that really matters... you either accept Jesus's act of redemption or you don't.... it's really that simple. The choice, however, is only yours to make...

Understanding God's word then becomes a matter of time considering the Holy Spirit is the one that reveals the purpose of His Word for our lives.... Until then, the Bible will simply be just another book... And this will continue to be the case for you or any other person who seeks to read the Bible without first seeking guidance from the Divine Author... just my 2 cents.

[smeagol]

Sorry Smeagol... I can't believe someone might actually think "Adam and Eve" is not completely allegorical.
I know, i know... I'm a infidel bas to all of you but still... come on!.

You would be surprised how many people believe the Adam and Eve story word for word.