bible FAQ

Where are they then? The earliest known OT mss are from the Dead Sea Scrolls which only date back to the 1st-2nd BCE. Also how do you know that Ezra the scribe never compiled an Israelite traditional history and based a lot of it on Babylonian tradition?

The earliest documents we have might be based on tradition and not reliable history after all oral history can and usually is embellished.

What I'm saying is that all the bibles we have today (whatever version you care to mention) have errors and inconsistencies so therefore the bible is not the infallible text that most suppose and therefore not the word of some god.


G

reply to post by shihulud

---

the bible itself is infallible... now, there are some things you need to do to amend the translations today in the bible and learn about the culture... learn the culture from a rabbi and learn the habrew lang. and read the bible in hebrew or greek... i promise you allot of contradictions would clear up...

the bible is infallible the man telling us what it means is fallible

reply to post by shihulud

---

shilhud do you have some problem with christians... enjoy trying to get them stumped or are you really investigarting what i have to say about your questions and seeing if the evidence you jhave supports your or mine theory..
do this ... read a skeptical book not as a skeptic and read a religious book as a skeptic vice versa... look at all the evidence you have in TWO point of v iew: skeptical and religious...
i realize most of the reason you think christianity is crap is because you dont fully uinderstand the religious poin of view.. talk to a theologian and a skepic and base you r view off th evidence not because you dont want to believe in anything so skeptics sound more rational...

there is alot of ways to say this but you get my point... please do so... and dont tell me you ant because feelings can be controlled and feith and skepticism : all a feeling

Um, it's not an error if there's no contradiction?

How can the bible itself be infallible when we don't have the original mss, when the evidence suggests some stories are based on other cultures stories, when the archaeological evidence suggests otherwise etc etc.
So how do you know which interpretation is the correct one? Is it your's, the RCC's, the protestants et al

I have no problems with christians per se only a problem with their beliefs.

I do enjoy the challenge and the debate that these questions entail and I do freely admit when I am wrong.
I do read both sides of the debate and do understand the religious point of view (to a degree) however I also disagree with some of the skeptical views. My views are just that - my views.
I totally agree that both your and my beliefs are based on feelings however you see things differently from me and have faith in your belief set while faith just isn't enough for me. To me I see discrepancies, errors, contradictions and ideals that I can't reconcile with in my head. You say that I don't understand the religious belief, do you understand the premise of mine?


G

reply to post by Alcove

---

I have to disagree, as another explanation put forward for this discrepancy is that Michals sons were adopted (commentary from Douay Rheims bible). All I see is an error in a so called infallible book.


G

reply to post by shihulud

---

thank you for explaining how you are approaching this...

well: the best wa y to answer this is this way:

there is a sentence: there is a gren tree.

this is an oral history sentence.... it is written down the same.... then copied without the adjective "greeen" then it is translated into spanish...

it still give s the same idea that the first sentence gave. the bible has some places in it where it wasnt the original but god allowed that because it wasnt taking away from the original meaning.

have you ever read dake? Finis Jenings Dake: alot of people dont agree with his doctrinal views BuT he is a great surce to clear up all of you questions of "contradictions" of the bible... look for his answer and you will find it and he will give AT LEAST 2 or 3 scriptures to back up his statements. most of the time he gives about ten.

anyway this is the best thing i can tell you right now... look at some study bibles and if you cannot find anything in them ask me... if you do it tell me what you think of the books...

i still hold that the bible is infalllible... ill have to get to the evidence tomorrow bu tonight i am too tired. look for my next post...

iesus_freak

So what if the oral history is wrong or embellished? What if the tree was brown and had fruit? or wasn't a tree at all but an object that looked like a tree?

it still give s the same idea that the first sentence gave. the bible has some places in it where it wasnt the original but god allowed that because it wasnt taking away from the original meaning.
I will read them if I come across them however I don't see why I should take someone else's word for it, someone else's interpretation of it as the truth - as you yourself stated a lot of people don't agree with Dake
Sorry but I cannot see the bible (or any other religious writing for that matter) as infallible. It was written by people who had biased views and agendas mainly many years after the supposed fact. Take Mark 16:9-20 for eg which was added many years after the original to conform with the other gospels - and its still in the bible today as being written by the author of mark.


G

reply to post by shihulud

---

no mark 16: 9-20 is in earlier manuscripts its just not in the one manuscript that was used in the translation... and why would leaving that part out make it not conform with other gospels

reply to post by shihulud

---

But either way, it's not an error, is it? I just don't get where you're coming from.

i like what youre doing jesus freak, but as a " jesus freak" myself, why do you believe the bible to be the truth? i had that perspective at one time, but with all the different denominations in religion, its obvious to ME at least the bible has been tampered with. its a known FACT. martin luther tampered, constantine tampered, thats at least 2 i know of. thats just what i know.....

i have been healed by god, i have heard god, and i have felt god. i know god is there, and listening, i have more than a wicked individual like myself deserves. i never question god, but how do you know the bible is the infallible word of god?

peace

You think one thing, the DR bible says another when all the bible says is Michal had no kids then Michal had 5 kids. It's more than likely a scribal error but its an error all the same.


G

reply to post by pureevil81

---

well isee what you are sating...

yes the modern known bible is tampered with but when you you do some work and investigate like get literel translations etc you can make out whatthe origianl bibel says th bible is infallible but yes the "bible" that most people read is tampered with but then its not the bible anymore isiit

reply to post by shihulud

---

could she not have had kids within that time or adopted other kids.... again its not an error at that timr they did not havr kids but inbetween shee adopted or had some... there is a space inbetween those verses

reply to post by shihulud

---

Oh, OK, you meant a scribal error. That's what it would be, yes. Thanks for the explanation.

Is that why Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian never quoted any verses from Mark after 16:8?

Or Eusebius stating "in the accurate manuscripts Mark ended with the words 'for they were afraid'"?

Is that why its also missing from the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Syriacus among others?

Also noted is a variant ending in some manuscripts (Greek Codex L) "But they [the three women] briefly reported to those in the company of Peter all they had been told. And after this Jesus himself appeared to them, and sent out by means of them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable message of eternal salvation." which is included the margins of most bibles.

So do you still wish to contend that Mark 16:9-20 was an original?

As for conforming to the other gospels neither Matthew nor Luke utilize any of the spurious claims such as being immune to venom.


G

That would mean every bible in existence is fallible as there was no ancient bible that we know of and all modern bibles are based on the ancient manuscripts

She couldn't have had some as it states that she never had any kids at all, unless she had them after she died (someone must have been into a bit of necrophilia).



G

reply to post by shihulud

---

actually i was reading today, on ats, about an ancient bible, some 1600 years old, its not supposed to be released until next year i think. we should check that out, its supposed to have differences, as an example, the book of mark is supposed to end abruptly when they find jesus's tomb empty......im curious about all that, like i said, check it out.

Some links would be helpful however please look 2 posts up to check out about the ending of Mark which wasn't in many ancient manuscripts.


G

reply to post by shihulud

---

The Textus receptus(from where we get The King James)
was made with Greek manuscripts, some of which include the last twelve verses;
Mark 16
Here is a list of KNOWN manuscripts and referrals to said verses.

the armenian text?
Jstor

Here's a good article.
Are the last twelve verses of Mark really Mark?