The Bible

[Lineman101]

[i] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

You are not far from the Kingdom of God my friend.

[mossy]

Actually that can be argued against. The preincarnate Christ walked the earth long before buddha was a twinkle in his creators eyes

From the very beginning, great point colossians323!

just like the Buddhas around from the beginning. Gautama Buddha was not the first or the last Buddha. He was the one responsible for showing humans the path.

[mr2ndamendment]

No disrespect to you, but the historicity of the scriptures is very solid. Your HS class on the Bible as Lit was taught by a HS teacher (limited education and knowledge on the topic), with an agenda. The level of scrutiny applied to the study of ancient texts is astounding, performed by people with far greater education and experience than your HS teacher. I know, that is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacious argument; but the fact is, the accuracy has been checked and rechecked, and rechecked multiple times by people who are experts in ancient literature, geography, geology, archaeology, etc. The evidence in support of the historicity is excellent and rivals that of any ancient literature.

You might want to check out John W Montgomery's History and Christianity for more info on the topic.

http://www.amazon.com/History-Christ.../dp/087123890X

Find me the geologist who actually believes the Earth is 5,700-10,000 years old. I know not everyone is a Young Earth Creationist here, but it's a widely-held belief among believers is in not?

My high school professor was actually a devout Catholic. He was not the be-all-end-all source of my information, he was just the spark that started the fire for me to go out on my own to learn more. Having a BA in History does not by any means indicate I'm the ultimate authority on all-things history. It just means I've studied quite a bit about various civilizations and I have at least a basic understanding of human societies. Those things prove valuable in this kind of context.

In red, I could point out more issues with your statement but this should suffice for now.

The discussion I created revolves around whether the Bible is fully intact as advertised. We're trying to prove or disprove the Bible's very legitimacy were we not? How is quoting from the source in question doing anything helpful to argue that the source is not in fact unreliable? It's like we've put a criminal on trial and when asked by the judge if he committed the crime or not, he answers "no I did not" and then he's free to go.

Yes, the Bible has been translated into dozens of languages, and is still being actively translated today into various languages. That does not imply any inaccuracy.

Can we just take a moment to think about what you just said? Ever play a game of "telephone?" You know, the game where you have 20 people lined up and something is told to the person at the head of the line. The first guy in line whispers the message to the next guy, and then that guy whispers the message to the next guy. By the time the guy at the end hears the message, it may not be the same as when it started. The only difference is this game of "telephone" happened over many hundreds of years between people of many different languages with potential motives to change the message.

Languages are not all equal, they have different words with different meanings -sometimes the syntax is completely different. Throughout the ages and the times, a word may mean something but several hundred years later that same word may mean something else. Just translating one word incorrectly can change the meaning of a sentence entirely. Assuming every single team of translators were all fully-committed to translating the Bible with absolutely no bias, there is still a chance of errors. Assuming people are people -with biases and agendas -we realize the chances of something going wrong, whether accidental or intentional, start to stack up over the many hundreds of years, many languages, and many people involved in the process.

The Bible consists of 66 books, written by over 40 authors.

Depending who you ask.

...over more than a millenium, by folks from varying walks of life (e.g. kings, shepherds, fig picker, prophets, tax collector, doctor, fisherman, etc.) and during various empires' influence (Egyptian, Hittite, Babylonian, Persian, Roman, etc.), yet these 66 books perfectly agree with one another. Don't believe me? Then I post a challenge: please present me with an actual contradiction in the Bible.

I was going to post stuff here but I don't have the time -you can get started here if you're interested:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

and here:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

and here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/19/an-incredible-interactive-chart-of-biblical-contradictions/

and here:

http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

We can go at this all day, but I think we should question the very ideals, principles, and documents that guide us and create the value systems we embrace. If you've done your actual and spiritual homework and you believe it is 100% correct, then that's your personal belief. That's why it's faith -it's a belief you have with God. It's not something you can chart on a diagram and transfer the knowledge to others -each person has to build it on their own for themselves.

I wish none of you any disrespect and you'd all be surprised to find out how I really am when it comes to spiritual matters. I know you're all good people and I respect your views -it's a "2nd kind of cool" I can't and won't argue with.

[colossians323]

just like the Buddhas around from the beginning. Gautama Buddha was not the first or the last Buddha. He was the one responsible for showing humans the path.

alpha and omega...................nothing else needs to be said on this

[hasserl]

just like the Buddhas around from the beginning. Gautama Buddha was not the first or the last Buddha. He was the one responsible for showing humans the path.

Source? Any corroborative evidence for the existence of any Buddha?

[RAMCLAP]

Can we just take a moment to think about what you just said? Ever play a game of "telephone?" You know, the game where you have 20 people lined up and something is told to the person at the head of the line. The first guy in line whispers the message to the next guy, and then that guy whispers the message to the next guy. By the time the guy at the end hears the message, it may not be the same as when it started. The only difference is this game of "telephone" happened over many hundreds of years between people of many different languages with potential motives to change the message.

Languages are not all equal, they have different words with different meanings -sometimes the syntax is completely different. Throughout the ages and the times, a word may mean something but several hundred years later that same word may mean something else. Just translating one word incorrectly can change the meaning of a sentence entirely. Assuming every single team of translators were all fully-committed to translating the Bible with absolutely no bias, there is still a chance of errors. Assuming people are people -with biases and agendas -we realize the chances of something going wrong, whether accidental or intentional, start to stack up over the many hundreds of years, many languages, and many people involved in the process.

This is highly inaccurate. The NIV and the New Geneva and most others are copied directly from the Greek. Not from other copies of English translations. This argument comes up all the time as though it is fact. It simply is untrue.

[Just Dave]

Mr 2A man

The discussion I created revolves around whether the Bible is fully intact as advertised. We're trying to prove or disprove the Bible's very legitimacy were we not? How is quoting from the source in question doing anything helpful to argue that the source is not in fact unreliable? It's like we've put a criminal on trial and when asked by the judge if he committed the crime or not, he answers "no I did not" and then he's free to go.

Did you read my link that I had posted? It's from the previous page on this thread.

I'll post it below.

[Just Dave]

People always make claims that the Bible has been corrupted or edited.

In order to call something corrupted one must first have the correct standard in which to measure that corruption with.
If corrupted what standard does a person have to make that claim?
Where did they get this standard from?
What evidence do they have backing up this standard as being authentic?

If edited what was edited?
What evidence can the skeptic point to showing the areas where the editing took place?
What copies to they have to show this?

On the other side of the coin we have New Testament manuscripts out of the first/second century, unchanged copies of the Old Testament going back to the 7th century and the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate the 1st advent of Christ by 200-300 years.

Mr 2A man, pay special attention to the bold.

[Lineman101]

While we do know that language changes, as it pertains to the Bible, there is the art and science of Textual Criticism that deals with these issues. While there may be copyist errors in the manuscripts, not all the manuscripts have the same errors in the same place. And with thousands of known manuscripts, along with Textual Criticism, we know that what we have is consistent with the original letters. So the "telephone game" argument doesn't work.

[Just Dave]

While we do know that language changes, as it pertains to the Bible, there is the art and science of Textual Criticism that deals with these issues. While there may be copyist errors in the manuscripts, not all the manuscripts have the same errors in the same place. And with thousands of known manuscripts, along with Textual Criticism, we know that what we have is consistent with the original letters. So the "telephone game" argument doesn't work.

Exactly, the Bible was written through generations, not spoken down through generations.

[Lineman101]

just like the Buddhas around from the beginning. Gautama Buddha was not the first or the last Buddha. He was the one responsible for showing humans the path.

Hi mossy,
I would also ask for a source. I don't see any evidence for Buddha before about 600BC. Granted, the Human Potential message has been around a long time. Maybe Buddha just turned the Human Potential message into an organized religion? They are closely related...

[colossians323]

Hi mossy,
I would also ask for a source. I don't see any evidence for Buddha before about 600BC. Granted, the Human Potential message has been around a long time. Maybe Buddha just turned the Human Potential message into an organized religion? They are closely related...

He won't be able to.

[Just Dave]

He won't be able to.

Nothing against Mr 2A man but his arguments fall short in reason and logic.

This argument alone is full of logical fallacies.

I look at the Bible not as a book or even two separate books -I look at it like a library of books. Sparing the entire lecture, these are the important things we know about it. We know that the Old Testament started as the spoken word, passed around the campfire and down the family line for hundreds of years before anyone bothered to write it down and start canonizing it. Between just the first five books of the Old Testament (the writings of Moses), we see at least several different writing styles present at various times. From a historical/linguistic perspective, it's clear it was written by several authors at the least, and we find it hard to understand how Moses can write about his own death.

How can you know this?

If a conversation were just spoken how could anyone today claim to know about this apart from the parties involved in the conversation at time it took place?

If the words were just spoken there would be absolutely no record of the conversation ever taking place in the first place.

So how could a conversation spoken by someone thousands of years ago with no record of it taking place be known today?
How could anyone claim that these conversations took place to begin with?

[hasserl]

Find me the geologist who actually believes the Earth is 5,700-10,000 years old. I know not everyone is a Young Earth Creationist here, but it's a widely-held belief among believers is in not?

Straw man argument. The topic is not the age of the earth, the topic is the historicity of the Bible.

But to answer your question, here are 4 that a simple google search turned up:

http://www.liberty.edu/academics/healthsciences/biology-chemistry/?PID=11778

http://creationwiki.org/Andrew_Snelling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Morris

http://creationwiki.org/Steve_Austin

Note, my theology is not dependent on young earth creationism, but I also do not hold fast to old earth theories either. My faith has room for either, and I look only for true scientific evidences. At this point, people far more learned than I (and I suspect you) in geology are on both sides of the issue. Neither one can prove their position positively, they only hold it as their best interpretation of the evidences they see at this time. And if they are intellectually honest, they are open to other possibilities and interpretations of the data, as any true scientist would be.

The same goes for theologians.

[hasserl]

Can we just take a moment to think about what you just said? Ever play a game of "telephone?" You know, the game where you have 20 people lined up and something is told to the person at the head of the line. The first guy in line whispers the message to the next guy, and then that guy whispers the message to the next guy. By the time the guy at the end hears the message, it may not be the same as when it started. The only difference is this game of "telephone" happened over many hundreds of years between people of many different languages with potential motives to change the message.

Languages are not all equal, they have different words with different meanings -sometimes the syntax is completely different. Throughout the ages and the times, a word may mean something but several hundred years later that same word may mean something else. Just translating one word incorrectly can change the meaning of a sentence entirely. Assuming every single team of translators were all fully-committed to translating the Bible with absolutely no bias, there is still a chance of errors. Assuming people are people -with biases and agendas -we realize the chances of something going wrong, whether accidental or intentional, start to stack up over the many hundreds of years, many languages, and many people involved in the process.

This is highly inaccurate. The NIV and the New Geneva and most others are copied directly from the Greek. Not from other copies of English translations. This argument comes up all the time as though it is fact. It simply is untrue.

I agree. The other HUGE mistake in this often repeated analogy is that writings and translations ARE NOT DONE IN SECRET!!!!! Duh! Nobody is hiding behind closed doors crafting a new Bible, then releasing it to a public who has no knowledge of a previous Bible at all. Versions and translations are subjected to intense internal scrutiny among the Christian community itself, which has an intense desire to see the Word preserved in its entirety and uncorrupted by biases and prejudices. Again, we have ancient manuscripts upon which new translations can be checked and verified for accuracy. The description above given by Mr2A is very ignorant of these basic truths.