The Bible.... Myth, Real, or Both?

[1hole]

We are told that "God is Love," and indeed, this MUST be so, or He wouldn't keep putting up with such a recalcitrant bunch as us humans. A God of Love does not go around just looking for sins to punish. He IS, however, concerned with our growth and increasing our understanding and faith. Just reacting by punishing us does not edify or benefit us. It shames us, and diminishes us. God wants us to grow, so as I see it, He simply lets the natural and inevitable ends of our sins overtake us as they are naturally want to do. He's not punishing us. He's just LETTING us LEARN! Now that's the kind of action that a true God of Love works upon!

You misunderstand the purpose of the Father's punishments of his children in this life. You're right that God, as a good father to his children, doesn't seek reasons to stomp mud holes in our butts. His punishment goal is to correct our actions, not to extract revenge for our past errors. He loves us so he only punishes us enough to get our attention and change our heart; if we recognise our errors and get things right without punishment then no temporal punishment is needed. Meaning WE determine if we get punished, and by how much; I don't think that's a bad system.

God wants us to think! Why else would He have given us a brain so capable of abstract thought and investigation???? Sometimes, I have to wonder how we got so averse to actual logical thinking and evaluation!

Okay, let's use our heads and think a bit. Can we actually believe the meanings of scripture? I think so.

First, in Prov 3:12, Acts 17:11 and Heb 12:6-10 we're plainly told that God WILL chastize his wayward children BECAUSE he loves us, he's not a tyrant venting rage. So, we are left ONLY with the questions of where, when and IF we misbehave without repentance but God doesn't chasize us then he doesn't love us as a father and the Bible has lied; neither of us believe that. And, we also know that in the after life, all temporal punishments are passed over as if our errors never happened, right?

So, as my head sees it, and by elimination of the other two possible options, God's promised correctional punishments to discipline each of his beloved children has to occur here, before mortal death. How can it be otherwise?

Now, please note that I haven't even suggested that we will be whipped down or humiliated by God everytime we stumble. Those who foolishly think every bad thing that happens to us is automatically a "punishment" from God for our occasional failures are very wrong and need to read (and try to understand) the book of Job.

[Leftyfixit]

Each of us has to decide what we will do with Jesus. Our fate is in our own hand as far as believing the Bible and it's promises to us. We know technology can be lost as empires crumble the first things lost are education and morality. We the U S A are mystery Babylon and when you study the Bible the U S A fits into the roll of Mystery Babylon perfectly. That being said our fate as a nation is sealed to us. What can be changed is where we will spend eternity. If we trust and believe in Jesus as our Lord and Savior nothing else really matters. If We don't know Jesus personally all of the promises of the Bible are equally true for the lost. Why would anyone of sound mind want to temp fate to send themselves to a place of torment forever? Each of us chooses our place for eternity. Choose wisely.

[dtknowles]

This is not directed at any previous post, but should be mentioned for the sake of clarity when it is suggested that “editing” has had some detrimental effect on The Bible...

It is often said, erroneously, that the early Christian church (read Roman Catholic here) tried to “hide ‘The Word’” by using hand copied Bibles written in Latin...
First, the printing press made it’s arrival over a thousand years after monks were painstakingly making works of art with handmade bibles to preserve “The Word”.

Second... From before the time Jesus walked the Earth, and well past the time The Bible was being translated into English, Latin was THE universal language. Anybody, anywhere, that was “educated” could and did read Latin (Think Roman Empire, and it’s influence here).
Latin was at that time the BEST language to use if you wanted to SPREAD and SHARE the biblical texts.

Add the fact that Latin was, and is, very precise (why it is still used today in science, medicine, etc...) and the suggestion of any “attempt” to keep the biblical text hidden becomes totally ridiculous.

The use of Latin, it’s widespread influence and it’s accuracy, could very well be the ONLY reason we find early transcripts hidden away in ancient caves that confirm many of the texts we read today as being accurate translations.
“Just sayin’...”

This would be correct if in many places you replaced Latin with Greek. It is pretty clearly accepted that Jesus could not read Latin but could understand Greek. Even in Roman Times, Greek was the universal language and the earliest Bibles were written in Greek not Latin.

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

"The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament."

Tim

[cainttype]

I said “using hand copied Bibles written in Latin...”. That is accurate.
Actual texts that were translated were originally written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (which most scholars believe is the language used by Jesus), and an earlier Latin translation/version.
The Vulgate (Latin) was done in the 4th Century (late 300 AD time period), and was the language used by the RCC throughout it’s sphere of influence for over a thousand years before crude printing presses were developed.

The point was not where The Bible originated, or even in which languages, but rather how it was spread (and whether the claim that someone was trying to “hide” anything was valid...).
Nobody tried to hide anything... Simple truth.

[dtknowles]

I said “using hand copied Bibles written in Latin...”. That is accurate.
Actual texts that were translated were originally written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic (which most scholars believe is the language used by Jesus), and an earlier Latin translation/version.
The Vulgate (Latin) was done in the 4th Century (late 300 AD time period), and was the language used by the RCC throughout it’s sphere of influence for over a thousand years before crude printing presses were developed.

The point was not where The Bible originated, or even in which languages, but rather how it was spread (and whether the claim that someone was trying to “hide” anything was valid...).
Nobody tried to hide anything... Simple truth.

I don't contest your main point but the Codex Sinaiticus is believed to be older than the Vulgate.

Tim

[cainttype]

I agree, but my comments had absolutely nothing to do with the age, or authenticity, of any texts.

“Edits” were mentioned as possibly altering texts, and I simply attempted to make clear that much of what we view as Biblical text today is no different than the earliest texts we have access too... That, in itself, also destroys the myth that Latin was used as an attempt to “hide” any Biblical text from the masses by some conspiracy in the early Christian church.

Propaganda has always been an effective tool in sowing discord and mistrust, in both warfare and religion... Many old mistruths survive today because they’re never addressed properly, or considered critically on their merits.
I offered an opinion on one of those misconceptions.

[dtknowles]

I agree, but my comments had absolutely nothing to do with the age, or authenticity, of any texts.

“Edits” were mentioned as possibly altering texts, and I simply attempted to make clear that much of what we view as Biblical text today is no different than the earliest texts we have access too... That, in itself, also destroys the myth that Latin was used as an attempt to “hide” any Biblical text from the masses by some conspiracy in the early Christian church.

Propaganda has always been an effective tool in sowing discord and mistrust, in both warfare and religion... Many old mistruths survive today because they’re never addressed properly, or considered critically on their merits.
I offered an opinion on one of those misconceptions.

Agreed, care to take on another misconception. Who actually wrote the books of the New Testament?

Tim

[cainttype]

I’m almost curious what you mean by “misconception” here.
It is common knowledge that much of the New Testament was penned by unknowns, regardless of the name of the book in question. That would be widely known by anyone that even briefly studied the history of The Bible, instead of it’s contents.
Some books are credited to multiple writers, some books are credited to anonymous sources, some writers are credited with multiple books...
It’s irrelevant to a practicing Christian.

Christians accept that God is the author of the New Testament.
They also accept that men were inspired by God to put quill to parchment, preserving God’s word for mankind.

“Faith” that The Bible is the actual word of God separates Christians from other religions.
The idea that faith demands acceptance of certain ideas regarding God’s intent, his ‘plan”, or his overall characteristics is debatable, and can be discussed rationally... using those same “inspired” texts from both Old and New Testaments.

[dtknowles]

I’m almost curious what you mean by “misconception” here.
It is common knowledge that much of the New Testament was penned by unknowns, regardless of the name of the book in question. That would be widely known by anyone that even briefly studied the history of The Bible, instead of it’s contents.
Some books are credited to multiple writers, some books are credited to anonymous sources, some writers are credited with multiple books...
It’s irrelevant to a practicing Christian.

Christians accept that God is the author of the New Testament.
They also accept that men were inspired by God to put quill to parchment, preserving God’s word for mankind.

“Faith” that The Bible is the actual word of God separates Christians from other religions.
The idea that faith demands acceptance of certain ideas regarding God’s intent, his ‘plan”, or his overall characteristics is debatable, and can be discussed rationally... using those same “inspired” texts from both Old and New Testaments.

I believe that knowledge of the authors of the New Testament is relevant to determining is veracity. Part of my point is that the New Testament is incorrect about who wrote some parts of it. The Bible is not infallible.

Tim

[cainttype]

Christians accept that God is the author of the New Testament.
They also accept that men were inspired by God to put quill to parchment, preserving God’s word for mankind.

“Faith” that The Bible is the actual word of God separates Christians from other religions.

I believe that knowledge of the authors of the New Testament is relevant to determining is veracity. Part of my point is that the New Testament is incorrect about who wrote some parts of it. The Bible is not infallible.

Tim

So if I wrote a book, titled it “Tim”, and you read it later thinking that Tim must have been the author... What difference would it make if the information was accurate?
The fact that these NT books were often handed down verbally for years before ever being written down could well be attributed to the fear of LIONS by the early Christians.
If “John”, for instance, is an accurate accounting of John’s teachings and recounts what he witnessed accurately, what difference does it make?... None.

I’d be a poor student of history if I could only accept that things were said, or done, when they were written by the guy that DID it.... Can you imagine how much history would be lost if the criteria you suggest was actually adopted and applied to the scholarly works we depend on today?
Thankfully, we don’t view historical documents with blinders on.

[dtknowles]

So if I wrote a book, titled it “Tim”, and you read it later thinking that Tim must have been the author... What difference would it make if the information was accurate?
The fact that these NT books were often handed down verbally for years before ever being written down could well be attributed to the fear of LIONS by the early Christians.
If “John”, for instance, is an accurate accounting of John’s teachings and recounts what he witnessed accurately, what difference does it make?... None.

I’d be a poor student of history if I could only accept that things were said, or done, when they were written by the guy that DID it.... Can you imagine how much history would be lost if the criteria you suggest was actually adopted and applied to the scholarly works we depend on today?
Thankfully, we don’t view historical documents with blinders on.

It you wrote a book titled "Tim" years after I died but did not put your name on it as author but just claimed the book was the "world according to Tim" we might be skeptical.

Consider


"The author of First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather to an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century.[1] Most scholars now affirm this view.[2][3] As evidence for this perspective, they put forward that the Pastoral Epistles contain 306 words that Paul does not use in his unquestioned letters, that their style of writing is different from that of his unquestioned letters, that they reflect conditions and a church organization not current in Paul's day, and that they do not appear in early lists of his canonical works.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy

Tim

[1hole]

So if I wrote a book, titled it “Tim”, and you read it later thinking that Tim must have been the author... What difference would it make if the information was accurate?

.......Thankfully, we don’t view historical documents with blinders on.

Roger that.

"All scripture is inspired by God" so the inspired writers wrote what they were inspired by God to put to paper. So, on final analysis, the only authorship that matters was God.

The New Testament was completed and copies were being circulated by about 70 years after the cross. Quite a few old men still had living memories of the early church years so if the copies had any meaningful differences they would have been known and destroyed then.

Bottom line, quibbles over specific Bible authorship may be interesting to some folk but it really doesn't matter to Christians who the original writer was; it was all God breathed.

[cainttype]

You seem more interested in Wiki, and less interested in people...
The views of people concerning Biblical text was, and is, the purpose of this thread. Admittedly, these threads often take on a life of their own and end up in strange places.

“Christians accept that God is the author of the New Testament.
They also accept that men were inspired by God to put quill to parchment, preserving God’s word for mankind.”

Once you grasp the reality of that quote, it doesn't matter who anyone thinks the transcribers were... The words are the only thing that is important to them.
What can’t be “proven”, is that the words of those books are inaccurate.

[dtknowles]

"You seem more interested in Wiki, and less interested in people..."

Wiki is people. It is a community or did you not know that?

Tim

[cainttype]

"You seem more interested in Wiki, and less interested in people..."

Wiki is people. It is a community or did you not know that?

Tim

Wiki is a community that does not verify any of the info it allows to be posted, so any fool can say anything.. That is proven.
Wiki also has a lot of good info... So again, what is your point?

[Eddie Southgate]

In my mind it is real and not open to debate . I am probably not a good Christian but I am a Christian and as such every word in the bible regardless of version is just exactly that ,,,,,The Word . It is the most important instructional manual ever written and is unfortunately the one least read by those who need to read it the most . That is all I have to say in the matter .

Eddie

[dtknowles]

Wiki is a community that does not verify any of the info it allows to be posted, so any fool can say anything.. That is proven.
Wiki also has a lot of good info... So again, what is your point?

It is vigorous fact checked, you don't seem to know about Wikipedia. What I posted referenced sources, check them.

[cainttype]

It is vigorous fact checked, you don't seem to know about Wikipedia. What I posted referenced sources, check them.

I can only suggest you RE-read post #256... It appears you are intent on arguing with yourself, because I stated clearly the consensus on the authors of the books of The New Testament.
So for the third time... What is your point?

“IF” WIKI is being “vigorously” fact checked, it is a NEW thing.
WIKI has long accepted contributions without verification, so a better policy would be a GOOD thing.
I use WIKi quite often, but wouldn’t claim it as my “source”... That would be kinda lazy, intellectually, and seems to forego actually offering an honest opinion on the original subject matter.

[dtknowles]

I can only suggest you RE-read post #256... It appears you are intent on arguing with yourself, because I stated clearly the consensus on the authors of the books of The New Testament.
So for the third time... What is your point?

“IF” WIKI is being “vigorously” fact checked, it is a NEW thing.
WIKI has long accepted contributions without verification, so a better policy would be a GOOD thing.
I use WIKi quite often, but wouldn’t claim it as my “source”... That would be kinda lazy, intellectually, and seems to forego actually offering an honest opinion on the original subject matter.

Unverified Wiki posts are noted to be so.

Tim

[cainttype]

Unverified Wiki posts are noted to be so.

Tim

It appears we finally agree...IF WIKI verified posts prior to posting you would never have seen any disclaimer banner (which is not automatically applied, but used for suspicious posts or when someone objects to the UN-verified info but hasn’t supplied evidence supporting their point of view).
WIKI does NOT “verify” information BEFORE it is posted, although they may refuse to allow a post to be published because it’s obviously false.
WIKI’s “verification process”, or lack thereof, is simply challenges bought by readers to posted information where the challenger offers contradictory information to correct or disprove something ALREADY posted by WIKI. That’s a far cry from “vigorous” fact-checking by WIKI’s admins prior to throwing it out there.
That is why WIKI is never used by anyone with any journalistic integrity as a “solid source”.

WIKI is a valuable reference resource because of the amount of information it has archived, and much of it is good and accurate.

Here’s a good example:
“In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.”

I’d consider that accurate.

This thread is dedicated to personal views on Biblical texts.
I have zero interest in anyone’s views on WIKI, so I’m bored with that subject and will no longer entertain it.