MidSouth Shooters SupplyTitan ReloadingRotoMetals2Wideners
Inline FabricationLee PrecisionRepackboxADvertise here

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 356

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

  1. #241
    Boolit Man
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    75
    1st off, you have to remember that the Bible is one of the most heavily re-edited pieces of literature the world has ever known. King James was looking for a political screed to calm unruly subjects: you think the monks he hired to compile a new bible didn't know which side their bread was buttered on? The OT is pretty much all myth [those parts not devoted to record-keeping, like Deuteronomy's "begats"] to answer "where did we come from?" and provide cohesion to a semi-nomadic and frequently invaded culture. The New Testament is composed of individual gospels, and like any collection of eye-witness testimonies, most of one disagrees with another's. And let's not forget that a HUGE collection of gospels were knowingly excluded [look up the Council of Nicea somewhere in the 300s? iirc, & realize that anything that didn't support the official party line got written out of history in the interest of consolidating the nascent political hegemony of the Church...] And then of course, there's the little aspect that not *everyone* even agrees upon the divinity of the carpenter from Nazareth. So what *do* the major religions agree upon? Well, Jesus is a prophet nearly as important as their favorite misogynistic pederast to the Moslems, and when Zen Buddhists have been read the Christ's teachings they agree that he sounds like someone who has achieved satori [which is usually translated as "enlightenment."] I don't require divinity, nor do I have faith in pie in the sky in the sweet by & by: his teachings are a recipe for heaven on earth, not a ticket to some heaven we only get to see after our ticket gets punched. If more people who claim to believe in him actually lived the life he taught, there'd be a lot more people who'd listen to his message. Just sayin'.

  2. #242
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    2,069
    [QUOTE=Surculus;4736159]

    Interesting screed but you have so many factual errors it's hard to take you serious.

    1st off, you have to remember that the Bible is one of the most heavily re-edited pieces of literature the world has ever known.
    Bible "edited"? Do you mean it's so often been translated into other languages or changed to keep up with English word meaning changes over time? Like, I assume everyone knows the original word "gay" has no application to its meaning today. There are many other words and a LOT of English grammar, some of which mandated changes in the KJV-AV Bible just to keep up. But there is nothing nefarious about it, save the corrupted "New World Translation", and some few false books supposedly "correcting" the Bible by adding false supports for cult doctrines.

    King James was looking for a political screed to calm unruly subjects: you think the monks he hired to compile a new bible didn't know which side their bread was buttered on?
    Monks are low level Roman Catholic leaders. They don't translate or edit anything and there were NO monks in the KJV translation teams. Most of the KJV translators were Calvinists, hard opposed to many RC doctrines. And they didn't by any means "compile" a new Bible; they simply completed the works of previous translators into English from the latin Bibles then in use by the RCC.

    The OT is pretty much all myth [those parts not devoted to record-keeping, like Deuteronomy's "begats"] to answer "where did we come from?" and provide cohesion to a semi-nomadic and frequently invaded culture.
    Myth? I won't even ask for your justification of that one.

    I will note that much of the Old Testament is a historical record of the whole Hebrew nation from Adam to about 400 years before the first coming of Jesus, as the son of man. Family lineage was/is important to Hebrews so, yes, the Bible does include important genealogies. But not in Deuteronomy. Maybe you meant in 1st Chronicles or N.T. Matthew? Anyway, this isn't a fuzzy math class, if you want to post facts then you need to know the facts.

    The New Testament is composed of individual gospels,
    The N.T has 27 books. Just as points of fact, only the first four are gospels. Two were written by the Lord's disciples (Matthew and John), the other two were not (Mark and Luke).

    ... and like any collection of eye-witness testimonies, most of one disagrees with another's.
    Most eye-witness accounts differ because each one sees and hears some things but not everything. And some observers pay more attention to some facts than others. The differences don't mean the witnesses "disagree", it simply means we need to get all the views we can in order to get a better view of an event.

    And let's not forget that a HUGE collection of gospels were knowingly excluded [look up the Council of Nicea somewhere in the 300s? iirc, & realize that anything that didn't support the official party line got written out of history in the interest of consolidating the nascent political hegemony of the Church...
    A "huge" collection of "gospels" were "knowingly" discarded by the Nicean council? Those men knew what they were doing and, yes, they eliminated a number of redundant and clearly erroneous books.

    Again, I won't ask for justification of you claiming a "huge" number of proposed books were blocked from inclusion in the canon of N.T. books but we have no valid reason to suggest those men were trying to distort anything. In fact, the Nicean record shows they were very careful about what they accepted as spiritual writings; I like that.

    There was no "official party line" or "political hegemony of the Church" at that time, each congregation was independent and they mostly remained so for a few hundred years more.

    And then of course, there's the little aspect that not *everyone* even agrees upon the divinity of the carpenter from Nazareth.
    And Stalin is still dead.

    Maybe you could name a single organization of any kind, anywhere in the world, that has no differences of opinion? And tell us what your obvious point tells anyone?

    I don't require divinity, nor do I have faith in pie in the sky
    Alright, so now we know you don't require divinity nor do you have pie on the sky faith. BUT ...... ??

    If more people who claim to believe in him actually lived the life he taught, there'd be a lot more people who'd listen to his message. Just sayin'.
    Just saying? Well, okay. But, I say if more people who claim to love the USA would respect our history and flag a lot more people would respect our history and flag. Seems not everyone can be trusted to live what they say, can they? But recognizing that truth doesn't mean everything they say is invalid does it?
    Last edited by 1hole; 09-30-2019 at 08:29 PM.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by 1hole View Post

    Interesting screed but you have so many factual errors it's hard to take you serious.



    Bible "edited"? Do you mean it's so often been translated into other languages or changed to keep up with English word meaning changes over time? Like, I assume everyone knows the original word "gay" has no application to its meaning today. There are many other words and a LOT of English grammar, some of which mandated changes in the KJV-AV Bible just to keep up. But there is nothing nefarious about it, save the corrupted "New World Translation", and some few false books supposedly "correcting" the Bible by adding false supports for cult doctrines.



    Monks are low level Roman Catholic leaders. They don't translate
    or edit anything and there were NO monks in the KJV translation teams. Most of the KJV translators were Calvinists, hard opposed to RC doctrines. And they didn't by any means "compile" a new Bible; they simply completed the works of previous translators into English from the latin Bibles then in use by the RCC.



    Myth? I won't even ask for your justification of that one.

    I will note that much of the Old Testament is a historical record of the whole Hebrew nation from Adam to about 400 years before the first coming of Jesus, as the son of man. Family lineage was/is important to Hebrews so, yes, the Bible does include important genealogies. But not in Deuteronomy. Maybe you meant in 1st Chronicles or N.T. Matthew? Anyway, this isn't a fuzzy math class, if you want to post facts then you need to know the facts.



    The N.T has 27 books. Just as points of fact, only the first four are gospels. Two were written by the Lord's disciples (Matthew and John), the other two were not (Mark and Luke).



    Most eye-witness accounts differ because each one sees and hears some things but not everything. And some observers pay more attention to some facts than others. The differences don't mean the witnesses "disagree", it simply means we need to get all the views we can in order to get a better view of an event.



    A "huge" collection of "gospels" were "knowingly" discarded by the Nicean council? Those men knew what they were doing and, yes, they eliminated a number of redundant and clearly erroneous books.

    Again, I won't ask for justification of you claiming a "huge" number of proposed books were blocked from inclusion in the canon of N.T. books but we have no valid reason to suggest those men were trying to distort anything. In fact, the Nicean record shows they were very careful about what they accepted as spiritual writings; I like that.

    There was no "official party line" or "political hegemony of the Church" at that time, each congregation was independent and they mostly remained so for a few hundred years more.



    And Stalin is still dead.

    Maybe you could name a single organization of any kind, anywhere in the world, that has no differences of opinion? And tell us what your obvious point tells anyone?



    Alright, so now we know you don't require divinity nor do you have pie on the sky faith. BUT ...... ??



    Just saying? Well, okay. But, I say if more people who claim to love the USA would respect our history and flag a lot more people would respect our history and flag. Seems not everyone can be trusted to live what they say, can they? But recognizing that truth doesn't mean everything they say is invalid does it?
    Well done, 1hole.

  4. #244
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    732
    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’...”

  5. #245
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    2,069
    Schwartz, no offence was intended.



    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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”. 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.
    Roger that.

    I'm no fan of most Roman Catholic doctrines but I am a fan of truth. Truth is, a lot of incorrect things are said about the RCC.

    First, there was NO governing church establishment from Rome or anywhere else for something like 2-3 hundred years after Jesus' death but the New Testament books were written in the first part of that early time period. ALL books were hand written copies then.

    The various congregations would get a copy of Mark's gospel and make copies for its own use and for further distribution to other congregations. Thus, each church would eventually get other copies of the same book. This effectively insured that any spurious changes would be detected (and destroyed) fairly quickly. Thus, no sneaky (nonexistent at th time) RCC power structure could possibly have made any effective changes in those widely hand copied texts.

    Next, for accuracy, we should also know that later RCC popes and councils DID slowly pick up a few of the books that had been kept out of the canon. The RCC called them the "lost books" of the Bible and used them to support their errors. (Those books weren't "lost", they were rejected by a very large council called to establish the proper canon.) And, of necessity, they had to suddenly establish many "church traditions" to support what isn't in their superflouis Bible additions. But none of that could have started until about 400 AD, long after any meaningful New Testament text changes could have been made.
    Last edited by 1hole; 10-01-2019 at 11:05 AM.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by 1hole View Post
    Schwartz, no offence was intended.
    None was taken.

    I was actually expressing an admiration of your command of the subject, so I apologize if my brevity in commentary was seen as anything other than that.

    We, sir, are good.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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’...”
    Yours is a perspective that, despite my study of apologetics, I have failed to develop in my recent revisit of the topic so I learned something new today. Thanks.
    Last edited by The Schwartz; 10-01-2019 at 03:06 PM.

  8. #248
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,448
    All this talk of God punishing us while we're still on earth troubles me. I don't think that's the proper and actual case, or the manner in which it should be seen and believed. Sure, we do indeed do things, even the best among us, that constitute sins or shortcomings. And yes, things do indeed happen that make us "pay the price" for our misdeeds. However, to see this as a simple cause-effect relationship, is, I believe, rather short-sighted and based on our own assumptions, without serious deliberation on the matter.

    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 wont 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!

    We so often assume a cause-effect relationship when we see sin and "punishment" occur in sequence. But if we simply read more, explored deeper, and came to understand more of how God REALLY works, and why He does what He does, we discover that He's even more regal, more majestic, and more loving and in control than we'd ever suspected!

    Yes, the "wages of sin is death." Of course it is. What else could it be? But God is always watching to find ways to edify us, and bring us closer to him, and increase our understanding of him, IF .... only we simply THINK about things, and don't just adopt knee-jerk reactions as the explanations to what God is doing. Far, far too easy to run ourselves astray when we do that. 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!

  9. #249
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    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.
    Last edited by 1hole; 10-02-2019 at 06:41 PM.

  10. #250
    Boolit Mold
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Minnrsota
    Posts
    5
    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.

  11. #251
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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
    Last edited by dtknowles; 10-04-2019 at 12:52 PM.
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  12. #252
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    732
    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.

  13. #253
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  14. #254
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    732
    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.

  15. #255
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  16. #256
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    732
    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.

  17. #257
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  18. #258
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by dtknowles View Post
    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.

  19. #259
    Boolit Master
    dtknowles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Southeast Louisiana
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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
    Words are weapons sharper than knives - INXS

    The pen is mightier than the sword - Edward Bulwer-Lytton

    The tongue is mightier than the blade - Euripides

  20. #260
    Boolit Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South Western NC
    Posts
    2,069
    Quote Originally Posted by cainttype View Post
    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.

Page 13 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415161718 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Abbreviations used in Reloading

BP Bronze Point IMR Improved Military Rifle PTD Pointed
BR Bench Rest M Magnum RN Round Nose
BT Boat Tail PL Power-Lokt SP Soft Point
C Compressed Charge PR Primer SPCL Soft Point "Core-Lokt"
HP Hollow Point PSPCL Pointed Soft Point "Core Lokt" C.O.L. Cartridge Overall Length
PSP Pointed Soft Point Spz Spitzer Point SBT Spitzer Boat Tail
LRN Lead Round Nose LWC Lead Wad Cutter LSWC Lead Semi Wad Cutter
GC Gas Check