Since we know that the Gospels were written many years after Jesus's death, and the Old Testament written and influenced by rulers, and the original gospels were kicked out by the Council of Nicea in the fourth century, just how much credit can we give the bible as a credible historical source, since it was obviously altered to suit the political needs of a Country that wanted to keep control of its people?
Constantine was never particularly pious towards his own Gods and he seen how Christianity was spreading so he did the wisest thing he could do to maintain the unity of the Empire - Christianise it. He could now control the way people thought by telling them what to worship. It's no coincidence the Church turned into a male-dominated church initially ruled by the Empire. He threw out the major feminist preachings of Christ (He married Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene was a discible (In the Gospels altered by the Council Mary was changed into John, and John was called the discible Jesus loved. Jesus told John while he was dying on the cross that Mary was to be his mother, because Mary was already Johns (Mary Magdalene's) mother. He argued for an end to the poor treatment of women etc...
How can we continue to worship something we don't know the full truth of when we know it was changed for political reasons?
(And I haven't even gotten into the Arians)
_____
Your Resident sceptic
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Don't we already have a thread about this? Wasn't it your thread, in fact?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
The other thread diverted off course. I want this thread to dispute the supposed truths all Christians seem to think are in their bible.
The minute we all realise that organised Religion has destroyed the message of Jesus is the minute we can begin to change.
The minute we all realise that organised Religion has destroyed the message of Jesus is the minute we can begin to change.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I think it's probably going to end up the same way the other did but hey, more power to you...
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I don't mind a reiterated thread, if that's what you want. And you're not the only Resident Sceptic in the Garden.
There's a lot of material on the web, and even more in the library. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcse_his.htm is a good summary of the books available. The one I found most useful is Albert Schweitzer's "The Quest of the Historical Jesus", written in 1906. I don't think I can usefully summarise its conclusions here. Reading it might be a good move, if you haven't already.
There's a lot of material on the web, and even more in the library. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcse_his.htm is a good summary of the books available. The one I found most useful is Albert Schweitzer's "The Quest of the Historical Jesus", written in 1906. I don't think I can usefully summarise its conclusions here. Reading it might be a good move, if you haven't already.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I'll take a look Spot... Money situation's a bit tight though I'll see if the library has it 
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I can see copies on www.abebooks.com from US$7 plus postage.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: He [Jesus] married Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene was a discible (In the Gospels altered by the Council Mary was changed into John, and John was called the discible Jesus loved. Jesus told John while he was dying on the cross that Mary was to be his mother, because Mary was already Johns (Mary Magdalene's) mother. Garbage, nonsense and tripe.
Not necessarily in that order.
Not necessarily in that order.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
It's no coincidence the Church turned into a male-dominated church initially ruled by the Empire. He threw out the major feminist preachings of Christ (He married Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene was a discible (In the Gospels altered by the Council Mary was changed into John, and John was called the discible Jesus loved. Jesus told John while he was dying on the cross that Mary was to be his mother, because Mary was already Johns (Mary Magdalene's) mother. He argued for an end to the poor treatment of women etc...
While I have come across this theory in "The Da Vinci Code", I have not otherwise seen any evidence. What source are you using that verifies these statements?
At least I feel certain that the English translation is as faithful as it could be. King James had the Catholics and the Protestants watching each other for mistakes, errors, and heresies.
The minute we all realise that organised Religion has destroyed the message of Jesus is the minute we can begin to change.
This is something I believe myself. It is my contention also that the Roman Catholic Church was a political tool. Since I first read the Bible at the age of 8, I could not see the essence of Jesus's teachings being the true spiritual force of the Church.
While I have come across this theory in "The Da Vinci Code", I have not otherwise seen any evidence. What source are you using that verifies these statements?
At least I feel certain that the English translation is as faithful as it could be. King James had the Catholics and the Protestants watching each other for mistakes, errors, and heresies.
The minute we all realise that organised Religion has destroyed the message of Jesus is the minute we can begin to change.
This is something I believe myself. It is my contention also that the Roman Catholic Church was a political tool. Since I first read the Bible at the age of 8, I could not see the essence of Jesus's teachings being the true spiritual force of the Church.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen wrote: Garbage, nonsense and tripe. Not necessarily in that order.That sounds a tad confrontational, Bronwen - we do try to keep the peace here at all times.
It would certainly help if Gaius were to provide references for his information, though, so that we can check the background - I've looked briefly, but I can't find an obvious source for the information you challenge.
Gaius, are you suggesting that the words from the cross were equivalent to "Mary, you're to look after your mother-in-law", and that this would have appeared in a lost proto-gospel only to be subsequently edited to the current form?
It would certainly help if Gaius were to provide references for his information, though, so that we can check the background - I've looked briefly, but I can't find an obvious source for the information you challenge.
Gaius, are you suggesting that the words from the cross were equivalent to "Mary, you're to look after your mother-in-law", and that this would have appeared in a lost proto-gospel only to be subsequently edited to the current form?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
chonsigirl wrote: Here is an online copy.That's startlingly competent - the book's still in copyright in the UK, and it appears on the web as an "early christian text"? The world's a strange place!
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I did like your Abe book reference, I order from them alot..................Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
My apologies gentlemen and women, I allowed myself to indulge in a conspiracy theory. I, if you believe it or not, have never read the Da Vinci Code and whenever people hear me come up with the theory I get called a copy-cat.
Disregard my comment on Jesus and Mary Magdalene (It's unscholory to make a point without backup. All I have is the ramblings of a Masonist to use.)
Disregard my comment on Jesus and Mary Magdalene (It's unscholory to make a point without backup. All I have is the ramblings of a Masonist to use.)
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: My apologies gentlemen and women, I allowed myself to indulge in a conspiracy theory. I, if you believe it or not, have never read the Da Vinci Code and whenever people hear me come up with the theory I get called a copy-cat.
Disregard my comment on Jesus and Mary Magdalene (It's unscholory to make a point without backup. All I have is the ramblings of a Masonist to use.)
I do not have a copy, neither have I read the book. Apparently, Laurence Gardener also make similar claims in Blood of The Grail Kings. If it is anything like his latter work, The Genesis of The Grail Kings, then his argument is based on alternative interpretations of various archaelogical finds. Some of these artefacts do not have an obvious religious connection.
Disregard my comment on Jesus and Mary Magdalene (It's unscholory to make a point without backup. All I have is the ramblings of a Masonist to use.)
I do not have a copy, neither have I read the book. Apparently, Laurence Gardener also make similar claims in Blood of The Grail Kings. If it is anything like his latter work, The Genesis of The Grail Kings, then his argument is based on alternative interpretations of various archaelogical finds. Some of these artefacts do not have an obvious religious connection.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
chonsigirl wrote: Here is an online copy.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/
That's a very interesting reference. I will have to set aside a weekend to study these.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/
That's a very interesting reference. I will have to set aside a weekend to study these.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
The epic of Gilgamesh, the earliest record of the great flood (explore). The bible is a political treatise built to unify a subjugated populace uder rome. The testament on the mount, minus the miracle, is worth reading. Jesus was a che guevera, a voice for the underclass and down trodden the high jacking of the message and the struggle only remains as a testament to human greed and avarice. Look at the papal bull of Leo (can't remember) regarding welfare states (ie: communism) and recently, ask yourself what would Jesus say about millions dying of Aids would he council contraception. Now this affliction only (without some medication providing improvement in the quality and the extention of life for many years) kills the poor. Where is GOD where is dogma.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Just look at the Vatican City nowadays. St Peters Basilica was built on the backs of Europes poor. What would Jesus had said to that?
If Jesus were to descend from heaven (Or wherever you believe he is) He would weep at the sight of what all the different Churches have done to world.
In fairness to ourselves, we have come a long from the Inquisition as a collective group of people but this has only been because of the brave efforts of the traditional liberals to seperate Church and State and allow individual freedom.
If Jesus were to descend from heaven (Or wherever you believe he is) He would weep at the sight of what all the different Churches have done to world.
In fairness to ourselves, we have come a long from the Inquisition as a collective group of people but this has only been because of the brave efforts of the traditional liberals to seperate Church and State and allow individual freedom.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
If you're not happy, you're not poor.:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
The Bible as a source of historical evidence is decidedly very poor. The Bible is a book composed of myth, legend, folk tale, short story poetry, fiction, theology and a few smatterings of history spread throughout. "The Bible and the Common Reader" by Mary Chase. Borg, Crossan, Spong, Gordon and a host of others.
This is not to denigrate the validity of the Bible. Something doesn't have to be historically true to present profound truths.
Shalom
Ted:-6
This is not to denigrate the validity of the Bible. Something doesn't have to be historically true to present profound truths.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Precisely Ted, but aren't you angry that the Bible was altered for political means many times in its history and that the 'profound truths' have changed throughout its history. For all we know Jesus himself was homosexual, but we'll never know the answer to that because of the political changes made.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: And when that happens you'll know for sure wont you!
No I won't. Nor will you. It's hard to know what's happening when you are being excreted through the rear end of an earthworm.
What did Joshua say? "As for me and My house, we will serve the Lord"yeah I think that's it!
You think that's it? Aren't you sure that's what Joshua said? Or is what he said just myth, legend, folk tale, short story poetry, or fiction?
No I won't. Nor will you. It's hard to know what's happening when you are being excreted through the rear end of an earthworm.
What did Joshua say? "As for me and My house, we will serve the Lord"yeah I think that's it!
You think that's it? Aren't you sure that's what Joshua said? Or is what he said just myth, legend, folk tale, short story poetry, or fiction?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: I'm laughing my hiney off at all of you guys taken to shots at a book that has stood the test of time and will continue to stand, long after your all dead.Good Lord... I had no idea the Da Vinci Code was so popular! 
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: Precisely Ted, but aren't you angry that the Bible was altered for political means many times in its history and that the 'profound truths' have changed throughout its history. For all we know Jesus himself was homosexual, but we'll never know the answer to that because of the political changes made.Gaius, this is obviously an obsession with you, yet you refuse to provide documentation.
While the various denominations may argue tooth and nail over Biblical matters, one thing they have in common is their respect for the integrity of the actual Biblical text. One can argue that translations by Catholic scholars have a Catholic bias, those by Protestant scholars have a Protestant bias, and in older translations this may be supportable - barely, but the differences are SLIGHT. (The only exception to this that I'm aware of is the sect commonly known as Jehovah's Witnesses, whose translation IS seriously compromised in order to adapt the Bible to their rather bizarre doctrines.)
Most Bible scholars and translators are extremely dilligent about retaining the original meaning as closely as possible without regard to sectarian bias, and nowadays nearly all new translations are the result of interdenoninational scholarship.
I challenge you to present evidence of 'political changes...many times in its history' from RELIABLE sources, not unsupported 'conspiracy' material. Please be SPECIFIC. Fish or cut bait. Put up or shut up. Tuches auf'm Tisch.
While the various denominations may argue tooth and nail over Biblical matters, one thing they have in common is their respect for the integrity of the actual Biblical text. One can argue that translations by Catholic scholars have a Catholic bias, those by Protestant scholars have a Protestant bias, and in older translations this may be supportable - barely, but the differences are SLIGHT. (The only exception to this that I'm aware of is the sect commonly known as Jehovah's Witnesses, whose translation IS seriously compromised in order to adapt the Bible to their rather bizarre doctrines.)
Most Bible scholars and translators are extremely dilligent about retaining the original meaning as closely as possible without regard to sectarian bias, and nowadays nearly all new translations are the result of interdenoninational scholarship.
I challenge you to present evidence of 'political changes...many times in its history' from RELIABLE sources, not unsupported 'conspiracy' material. Please be SPECIFIC. Fish or cut bait. Put up or shut up. Tuches auf'm Tisch.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
These two threads have made for some very interesting reading so far. And sometimes even funny, too, though I don't know if I'd be able to explain how without making it look like I was taking sides when I'd prefer to remain on the sidelines. But now I think I should step in a bit further and say Bronwen has a point here.
Though I'm not really religious, I'm no stranger to the Bible and I've never seen any really telling differences in the texts of different versions of it. And I've seen quite a few, ranging from the New International Version to the King James Bible to the vaunted Douey-Reims. Considering the differences in the agendas of the people who commissioned these various versions, I'd think there would be some much clearer conflicts between them if it had been common practice to alter the Bible to suit one's own political purposes.
A lot of people (and I do mean a lot, I've heard this all before) simply assume that the Bible can't possibly have made it 2000 years without being chewed all up and twisted around in the process. While there has clearly been a lot of contention between different denominations over the correct interpretation of different parts of the Bible, I've never seen anything at all to convince me that something has gone majorly wrong with the text itself. Nothing. It's not that I've been unwilling to hear arguments against the authenticity of the Bible, it's just that in all fairness I can't write any of it off as a sham unless someone can offer some kind of evidence that it really is - and the best people can usually do is say "Well isn't it obvious?" It is to them, I guess.
So you don't believe in the Bible. Fine. Nobody's making you. Not here, at least. I don't see what the big deal is. So Christians do believe in the Bible. Even though that means they have to trust that the people who have maintained the texts over all these centuries were honest and knew what they were doing. Does this mean they're idiots? When you walk into a building, does that mean you're an idiot because you have no way of knowing for absolute sure that the architecht and the builders knew what they were doing and did a careful job and it won't collapse on top of you at any moment?
Though I'm not really religious, I'm no stranger to the Bible and I've never seen any really telling differences in the texts of different versions of it. And I've seen quite a few, ranging from the New International Version to the King James Bible to the vaunted Douey-Reims. Considering the differences in the agendas of the people who commissioned these various versions, I'd think there would be some much clearer conflicts between them if it had been common practice to alter the Bible to suit one's own political purposes.
A lot of people (and I do mean a lot, I've heard this all before) simply assume that the Bible can't possibly have made it 2000 years without being chewed all up and twisted around in the process. While there has clearly been a lot of contention between different denominations over the correct interpretation of different parts of the Bible, I've never seen anything at all to convince me that something has gone majorly wrong with the text itself. Nothing. It's not that I've been unwilling to hear arguments against the authenticity of the Bible, it's just that in all fairness I can't write any of it off as a sham unless someone can offer some kind of evidence that it really is - and the best people can usually do is say "Well isn't it obvious?" It is to them, I guess.
So you don't believe in the Bible. Fine. Nobody's making you. Not here, at least. I don't see what the big deal is. So Christians do believe in the Bible. Even though that means they have to trust that the people who have maintained the texts over all these centuries were honest and knew what they were doing. Does this mean they're idiots? When you walk into a building, does that mean you're an idiot because you have no way of knowing for absolute sure that the architecht and the builders knew what they were doing and did a careful job and it won't collapse on top of you at any moment?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
This is the last time I'm saying this. I'm not even referring to edits made on the bible in the last 1500 years. I'm referring to edits made at the Council of Nicea (325), where the Bishops of the Early church met and decided which Gospels went in an which went out, all under the watchful eye of Rome.
I take it we aren't naieve and realise Rome was not a super Liberal place. The Empire needed unity. It needed to be united under an authoritarian, patriarchal faith with Rome at its centre. Many bishops disagreed. Many were Arians. Quite frankly I choose their judgement over ours because they were alive much closer to the time of Jesus and had the true gospels to deal with.
I'm sure the Bible has changed little since then, because from an authoritarian point of view the Bible was perfect. It encouraged timidity among the flock, so as not to rise up, encouraged Charity, so no Welfare nuisances for the Empire and was generall a nice state. It's just that the Bible encouraged a patriarch, and that Patriarch was the Empire.
I'll direct you to Wikipedia's take on the matter, although I'm not entirely satisfied with it (It doesn't even mention the gospels!) I appreciate that you do want to read online accounts so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
"Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."
I take it we aren't naieve and realise Rome was not a super Liberal place. The Empire needed unity. It needed to be united under an authoritarian, patriarchal faith with Rome at its centre. Many bishops disagreed. Many were Arians. Quite frankly I choose their judgement over ours because they were alive much closer to the time of Jesus and had the true gospels to deal with.
I'm sure the Bible has changed little since then, because from an authoritarian point of view the Bible was perfect. It encouraged timidity among the flock, so as not to rise up, encouraged Charity, so no Welfare nuisances for the Empire and was generall a nice state. It's just that the Bible encouraged a patriarch, and that Patriarch was the Empire.
I'll direct you to Wikipedia's take on the matter, although I'm not entirely satisfied with it (It doesn't even mention the gospels!) I appreciate that you do want to read online accounts so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
"Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Blackjack wrote: A lot of people (and I do mean a lot, I've heard this all before) simply assume that the Bible can't possibly have made it 2000 years without being chewed all up and twisted around in the process.I doubt if anyone here has meant to suggest that differences in translation have resulted in multiple variant meanings, either within the old or new testament.
To take the text of the old testament first, there is a Hebrew original which fed into a Greek "Septuagint" translation around the time of Christ. Neither exists perfectly - there might be fifty full or partial copies surviving from within 800 years of the translation (I'm guessing the number but I'm close to the spirit of the argument, I could look it up if you want precision). There's the odd word here or there that have been mangled by copyists, but nothing to get excited about. 20th century finds in waste-dumps or buried libraries in the Middle East have given fresh copies of very early versions, to help untangle those.
Looking at the text of the new testament, the Greek original text became a Latin "Jerome" text around 600AD. Again there's the odd confusion through copyist error, but nothing to write home about. Most of the variation is in translations to national languages subsequent to the Reformation. Like you, I have little problem with any of the translations into English other than esthetic shuddering once we pass 1950 or so.
The question of historical accuracy arises from two separate issues. Firstly, many more than four gospels existed by 300-500AD, of which only four were selected into the new testament that you read in the bible after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its State religion. The others were violently suppressed, though many are still available. The content of the suppressed gospels differ markedly in tone, spirit and content when compared to those you read in the New Testament, though several may be claimed to have dated back to roughly the same time of composition as the others.
Within the four gospels themselves, none (if you include the Acts of the Apostles as part of Luke's Gospel) predate in composition any of the remainder of the new testament. They are all written by a generation of believers who were born after the events described. They are all written by people who had material (oral or written) handed down to them by contemporaries of the Apostles and of their followers. Books like Schweitzer's, mentioned above, consist of comparisons between the texts of just the four canonical gospels, attempting to find consistent core passages that haven't been expanded on by the gospel writers themselves. That is the traditional meaning of the search for the historical Jesus - unearthing original statements from under the editorialising of the final writers. Whether it's worth doing is questionable, but it's certainly an interesting exercise and in my opinion it provides insight.
I hope you'll excuse what I recognise to be approximations in what I've said here - it shortened what would otherwise become tedious in this environment.
To take the text of the old testament first, there is a Hebrew original which fed into a Greek "Septuagint" translation around the time of Christ. Neither exists perfectly - there might be fifty full or partial copies surviving from within 800 years of the translation (I'm guessing the number but I'm close to the spirit of the argument, I could look it up if you want precision). There's the odd word here or there that have been mangled by copyists, but nothing to get excited about. 20th century finds in waste-dumps or buried libraries in the Middle East have given fresh copies of very early versions, to help untangle those.
Looking at the text of the new testament, the Greek original text became a Latin "Jerome" text around 600AD. Again there's the odd confusion through copyist error, but nothing to write home about. Most of the variation is in translations to national languages subsequent to the Reformation. Like you, I have little problem with any of the translations into English other than esthetic shuddering once we pass 1950 or so.
The question of historical accuracy arises from two separate issues. Firstly, many more than four gospels existed by 300-500AD, of which only four were selected into the new testament that you read in the bible after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as its State religion. The others were violently suppressed, though many are still available. The content of the suppressed gospels differ markedly in tone, spirit and content when compared to those you read in the New Testament, though several may be claimed to have dated back to roughly the same time of composition as the others.
Within the four gospels themselves, none (if you include the Acts of the Apostles as part of Luke's Gospel) predate in composition any of the remainder of the new testament. They are all written by a generation of believers who were born after the events described. They are all written by people who had material (oral or written) handed down to them by contemporaries of the Apostles and of their followers. Books like Schweitzer's, mentioned above, consist of comparisons between the texts of just the four canonical gospels, attempting to find consistent core passages that haven't been expanded on by the gospel writers themselves. That is the traditional meaning of the search for the historical Jesus - unearthing original statements from under the editorialising of the final writers. Whether it's worth doing is questionable, but it's certainly an interesting exercise and in my opinion it provides insight.
I hope you'll excuse what I recognise to be approximations in what I've said here - it shortened what would otherwise become tedious in this environment.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: Yes Im absolutely sure Joshua said that, In fact I can almsot see his face and body languge when he did, the sun hitting at his back, shouting with a righteous and powerful voice.I have a similar reaction to reading Gone With The Wind, where Rhett tells Scarlett that frankly he doesn't give a damn. It's equally dramatic and believable. I have no faith that it happened, though.
You might believe, through faith, that the words of Joshua are exactly recorded by God in His book. Either this is because oral tradition carried the exact words across a thousand years until the writer of Exodus first wrote them in literary form, or it's because the writer of Exodus who first wrote them in literary form was divinely inspired by God into writing the truth.
The text you read is an amalgamation of several versions which predate the final accepted copy of Exodus which you read in the bible. Passages from some of these unamalgamated versions have been dug up which pre-date the composition of the "final" version - the one that ended up being translated into the accepted Christian bible.
It is, of course, still the Very Word of God if the amalgamators of the several versions were themselves divinely inspired to get it right. But it does, at the least, require several stages of divine inspiration.
You might believe, through faith, that the words of Joshua are exactly recorded by God in His book. Either this is because oral tradition carried the exact words across a thousand years until the writer of Exodus first wrote them in literary form, or it's because the writer of Exodus who first wrote them in literary form was divinely inspired by God into writing the truth.
The text you read is an amalgamation of several versions which predate the final accepted copy of Exodus which you read in the bible. Passages from some of these unamalgamated versions have been dug up which pre-date the composition of the "final" version - the one that ended up being translated into the accepted Christian bible.
It is, of course, still the Very Word of God if the amalgamators of the several versions were themselves divinely inspired to get it right. But it does, at the least, require several stages of divine inspiration.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
The only important message that I can derive from the New Testament is one of total love. If a person subscribes to the love that Jesus preached, and expressed in his two commandments, then that person will have nothing to worry about in the long run.
One day, maybe, full proof will be unearthed as to the method by which the transcripts were edited. Until then, all debate is hampered by lack of evidence.
One day, maybe, full proof will be unearthed as to the method by which the transcripts were edited. Until then, all debate is hampered by lack of evidence.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: Howdy Spot! I wish you a warm welcome! :)That's downright neighbourly of you, Far Rider. I'm grateful for your kind words.
We don't need another mountain. What the world needs now is love, sweet love, it's the only thing that there's just too little of.
We don't need another mountain. What the world needs now is love, sweet love, it's the only thing that there's just too little of.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius: As far as I had known, the first Council of Nicea was held strictly to address the issue of Arianism, which I understood to be one of those disputes over the interpretation what was already considered by both sides to be authoritative rather than a disagreement over what was authoritative and what wasn't. Like you said, there's no mention of any dispute over the validity of any texts in that Wikipedia article. And I've been looking because I'm very curious but so far I haven't found any mention of the texts that eventually came to be known as "apocryphal" in connection with Arianism anywhere else. Please show me where you got this from, otherwise I still don't see what Constantine's presence at the council has to do with the Bible.
Spot: My understanding had been that the Bible was not considered a finished product (and the final decision made which texts were to be included in the New Testament and which weren't) until the Council of Trent in 1545, quite some time after Constantine's conversion. Though I'm open to correction on this matter as well.
Spot: My understanding had been that the Bible was not considered a finished product (and the final decision made which texts were to be included in the New Testament and which weren't) until the Council of Trent in 1545, quite some time after Constantine's conversion. Though I'm open to correction on this matter as well.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Blackjack wrote: I've been looking because I'm very curious but so far I haven't found any mention of the texts that eventually came to be known as "apocryphal" in connection with Arianism anywhere else. Please show me where you got this from, otherwise I still don't see what Constantine's presence at the council has to do with the Bible.If you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon you might agree that it's a rather complicated tale. Yes, Trent finally decided the issue of the Apocrypha as far as the Roman Catholic church was concerned.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
That's a lot to read..... 
Be back in a bit.
Be back in a bit.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: WHY does it make so much difference to you folks who choose not to belive the Bible?I have problems with "belief". I have no such problems with "faith". I have no grounds for belief, I have every ground for faith. As for my interest in the Bible, it's the greatest and most interesting book by far that I've ever read. More effort has been put in by more people to produce it than any other book in history. It is a source of inspiration, teaching, history and guidance. Where does belief come into this?
My social history, my personal and family history, have Christianity very much at their heart. When I see the consequences of Christian fundamentalism on taking the Bible to be the literal word of God, I feel excluded from the religion of my forebears, I feel I am denied my spiritual heritage, I feel compelled to try to demonstrate that there are alternative ways of interpreting the Christian faith other than through intransigent moral absolutism. One consequence of this is that I am reluctant to claim any longer to be a member of the Christian Church, simply because so many fundamentalists claim that I obviously can't be one on account of my views. I have to live with that.
My social history, my personal and family history, have Christianity very much at their heart. When I see the consequences of Christian fundamentalism on taking the Bible to be the literal word of God, I feel excluded from the religion of my forebears, I feel I am denied my spiritual heritage, I feel compelled to try to demonstrate that there are alternative ways of interpreting the Christian faith other than through intransigent moral absolutism. One consequence of this is that I am reluctant to claim any longer to be a member of the Christian Church, simply because so many fundamentalists claim that I obviously can't be one on account of my views. I have to live with that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
ArnoldLayne wrote: Ok silly question. Shouldnt I start at the begining ?I'd do it that way, if you want a second opinion. From the beginning. Choose a translation you feel comfortable with. Buy an exercise book and make a sentence or two note each time you read a bit further, or you'll forget what you thought about it. By the time you've finished, if you've paid attention, you'll have a stack of places where you were totally baffled, and a stack more where you thought it was a good read. By then, you'll have a better idea of whether you want to ask anyone about it. At least you'll not be asking without a degree of preparation, and you'll have read an exciting book.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I've heard snippets, read a passage or two and been told it is a great story all in all, so maybe I should take the trouble in reading the whole book
I've been trying to read it all through since I was a boy. So far, I have not succeeded.
I have started again, much as Spot suggested, making notes as I go. But I know it's going to take me a long time to get through it.
I wish you luck with it, Arnold, should you rise to the challenge.
I've been trying to read it all through since I was a boy. So far, I have not succeeded.
I have started again, much as Spot suggested, making notes as I go. But I know it's going to take me a long time to get through it.
I wish you luck with it, Arnold, should you rise to the challenge.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Far Rider wrote: ahahah I think you just called me wormshit!
Strange conclusion to come to Far Rider. It said you will be wormshit. So will I, and so will everyone else.
He's saying... I will believe despite the naysayers and fools who choose to call themselves wormshit.
Don't you think that Joshua, obviously a righteous man in your opinion, could save us all a lot of time, effort and keyboard wear and tear by coming back and confirming there is an afterlife?
Joshua rising from the dead to reassure us that we will not spend enternity passing through the intestines of a bunch of worms is not such a big deal if you believe the bible.
If he does not, I must assume the idea of a Christian afterlife is as invalid as that of any other religion, and we will all be worm food after we die.
Anyway Far Rider, why do you look forward to an afterlife where you will be roasting at a temperature close to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit? I know this is true, because the Bible tells me so.
Strange conclusion to come to Far Rider. It said you will be wormshit. So will I, and so will everyone else.
He's saying... I will believe despite the naysayers and fools who choose to call themselves wormshit.
Don't you think that Joshua, obviously a righteous man in your opinion, could save us all a lot of time, effort and keyboard wear and tear by coming back and confirming there is an afterlife?
Joshua rising from the dead to reassure us that we will not spend enternity passing through the intestines of a bunch of worms is not such a big deal if you believe the bible.
If he does not, I must assume the idea of a Christian afterlife is as invalid as that of any other religion, and we will all be worm food after we die.
Anyway Far Rider, why do you look forward to an afterlife where you will be roasting at a temperature close to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit? I know this is true, because the Bible tells me so.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Gaius wrote: The other thread diverted off course. I want this thread to dispute the supposed truths all Christians seem to think are in their bible.
The minute we all realise that organised Religion has destroyed the message of Jesus is the minute we can begin to change.
you can't change an entire belief system. no where in the Koran does it say that a person of faith should strap a bomb to his chest and get on a bus in Jerusalem, but they do.
the thing that got lost along the way, is that the Gospels are one person's intrepretation of what Jesus of Nazerath said. they took what He said and put it their won words. what i sould call a "nutshell" version.
The minute we all realise that organised Religion has destroyed the message of Jesus is the minute we can begin to change.
you can't change an entire belief system. no where in the Koran does it say that a person of faith should strap a bomb to his chest and get on a bus in Jerusalem, but they do.
the thing that got lost along the way, is that the Gospels are one person's intrepretation of what Jesus of Nazerath said. they took what He said and put it their won words. what i sould call a "nutshell" version.
Get your mind out of the gutter - it's blocking my view
Mind like a steel trap - Rusty and Illegal in 37 states.