The One True Religion

[Matt Greatorex]

Matt, Just a curious question. How much have you studied on the Bible, it's origin, it's authors and historical studies of it?

Formal study? Very little, to be honest. Casual reading? A bit, on and off. What articles/books etc. I have read suggest that non-believers have one set of ideas about it's origins and accuracy, religious people have an entirely different set. Since I fall into the former category, I've probably tended to read more pointing out the 'lack of proof' than the other way round (in the same way that many believers will have read more articles 'proving' the bible's history and accuracy).

The first New Testament was published some time from 52 to 100 AD, as I understand it? Partly in Greek and partly in Aramaic.

As I understand it, the whole bible (new and old testament) is a compilation of a lot of pieces, by a lot of different people, written over a lengthy period of time. The period appears to vary, based on who wrote the article the information is contained within, as - obviously - does the writer's opinion on how accurate the writings are. According to at least one Christian website I read (sorry, a while ago, so I have no idea on the link) it's the end result of hundreds of revisions and translatons, which doesn't instill me with any confidence, for the reasons I gave earlier relating to human fallibility.

 

[KalelGmoon]

also say we go with the site RIch posted, then that says the first of the new testament books was written 10 years or so after the crusifiction (sp) in 42 AD. how much would have been misremembered and been forgotten, elaborated on or out and out changed?

The earlier post was from a text book and a few docs on the natl geo channel, discovery etc that I have watched over the last decade or so. You have to take alot of the dates we are given anymore with a grain of salt, I have watched docs that have given the dates of the Gospels as having been written in the late 100's AD and other where they say they were written in the 50' and 60's AD. We all also need to realize these things were put to papyrus almost 2 millenia before any of us were born, so there is really no concrete way to pin down the actual date of publication, unless one of you lot has a time machine and isnt sharing

 

[ShaneMan]

Formal study? Very little, to be honest. Casual reading? A bit, on and off. What articles/books etc. I have read suggest that non-believers have one set of ideas about it's origins and accuracy, religious people have an entirely different set. Since I fall into the former category, I've probably tended to read more pointing out the 'lack of proof' than the other way round (in the same way that many believers will have read more articles 'proving' the bible's history and accuracy).

The first New Testament was published some time from 52 to 100 AD, as I understand it? Partly in Greek and partly in Aramaic.

As I understand it, the whole bible (new and old testament) is a compilation of a lot of pieces, by a lot of different people, written over a lengthy period of time. The period appears to vary, based on who wrote the article the information is contained within, as - obviously - does the writer's opinion on how accurate the writings are. According to at least one Christian website I read (sorry, a while ago, so I have no idea on the link) it's the end result of hundreds of revisions and translatons, which doesn't instill me with any confidence, for the reasons I gave earlier relating to human fallibility.

Thanks for your answer Matt. I asked because you do appear, to me any way, as a person who researches and finds answers for yourself. With that being said I was going to let you know that there are books written by very educated, intelligent men, some who started out to disprove the Bible, that have some very interesting arguements on the validity of the Bible. If you ever wanted to dive in and check out points made from the other side of the arguement.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Thanks for your answer Matt. I asked because you do appear, to me any way, as a person who researches and finds answers for yourself. With that being said I was going to let you know that there are books written by very educated, intelligent men, some who started out to disprove the Bible, that have some very interesting arguements on the validity of the Bible. If you ever wanted to dive in and check out points made from the other side of the arguement.

Thanks for that. If you want to name a couple, I may give them a look. The only time I really get to just sit and read is on the train, but I find I can get through a book a week that way. I'm alternating between fiction/easy reading and titles I may learn something from (keeps my brain from both overloading and getting flabby). Those might make it into one of the fiction weeks (kidding ).

 

[ShaneMan]

also say we go with the site RIch posted, then that says the first of the new testament books was written 10 years or so after the crusifiction (sp) in 42 AD. how much would have been misremembered and been forgotten, elaborated on or out and out changed?

The earlier post was from a text book and a few docs on the natl geo channel, discovery etc that I have watched over the last decade or so. You have to take alot of the dates we are given anymore with a grain of salt, I have watched docs that have given the dates of the Gospels as having been written in the late 100's AD and other where they say they were written in the 50' and 60's AD. We all also need to realize these things were put to papyrus almost 2 millenia before any of us were born, so there is really no concrete way to pin down the actual date of publication, unless one of you lot has a time machine and isnt sharing

Don't know if this will make a difference to anyone or not, but when these letters, poems, laws and etc., that make up the Bible, where received, a process began. There were men, called scribes, who's job it was to take the original copy and begin to copy it (over and over again), just as it was written. This process has gone of forever, so stating that men trying to write down what had been repeated to them over centuries is not really accurate. As each generate went by they had copies of these documents. When the dead sea scrolls where finally found, in the 60's (I think), scholars checked the original manuscript found to the copies that had been used to translate the Bible and found 7 errors. 5 of the errors were punctuation. I would say that is pretty dog gone good since the dead sea scrolls contained some of the oldest books in the Bible.

 

[ShaneMan]

Thanks for that. If you want to name a couple, I may give them a look. The only time I really get to just sit and read is on the train, but I find I can get through a book a week that way. I'm alternating between fiction/easy reading and titles I may learn something from (keeps my brain from both overloading and getting flabby). Those might make it into one of the fiction weeks (kidding ).

Give me a little time to check into some titles and authors. See if I can't load up your fiction weeks. (that was funny by the way) A book that do remember, but it really doesn't deal with just the subject of the authenticity of the Bible, but does cover many Christian beliefs is "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mc Dowell. You may find that an interesting read.

 

[Rich]

Don't know if this will make a difference to anyone or not, but when these letters, poems, laws and etc., that make up the Bible, where received, a process began. There were men, called scribes, who's job it was to take the original copy and begin to copy it (over and over again), just as it was written. This process has gone of forever, so stating that men trying to write down what had been repeated to them over centuries is not really accurate. As each generate went by they had copies of these documents. When the dead sea scrolls where finally found, in the 60's (I think), scholars checked the original manuscript found to the copies that had been used to translate the Bible and found 7 errors. 5 of the errors were punctuation. I would say that is pretty dog gone good since the dead sea scrolls contained some of the oldest books in the Bible.

It's still hearsay

 

[ShaneMan]

It's still hearsay

Thanks for keeping an open mind Rich. It's easy to make an accusation. Doesn't take any thought power. No research. Just words. From there you put some one on the defense of having to defend words that are said that could contain little or no truth. You need to come to America and run for office you would make a good American politican.

 

[KenHigg]

Thanks for keeping an open mind Rich. It's easy to make an accusation. Doesn't take any thought power. No research. Just words. From there you put some one on the defense of having to defend words that are said that could contain little or no truth. You need to come to America and run for office you would make a good American politican.

Would his hearsay thing about the Bible be like his hearsay knowledge of the US?

 

[Rich]

Would his hearsay thing about the Bible be like his hearsay knowledge of the US?

There is a difference between modern communications and translated stories that were stories to start with. Tell me why nothing of note has been added to the bible in nigh on 2,000 years?

 

[ColinEssex]

You need to come to America and run for office you would make a good American politican.

Rich couldn't do that, he has morals and scruples.

Col

 

[KalelGmoon]

Morals? you mean Rich has those neat paintings on walls? thats great I always wanted one of those. ((sorry trying to lighten the mood a bit))

 

[KenHigg]

There is a difference between modern communications and translated stories that were stories to start with. Tell me why nothing of note has been added to the bible in nigh on 2,000 years?

Maybe the cost of distributing the addendums would be cost prohibitive

 

[ColinEssex]

Maybe the cost of distributing the addendums would be cost prohibitive

It would be classed as junk mail so gets a cheaper rate anyway

Col

 

[Rich]

Morals? you mean Rich has those neat paintings on walls? thats great I always wanted one of those. ((sorry trying to lighten the mood a bit))

There are one or two here who'd like to have my head on their wall

 

[jsanders]

Tell me why nothing of note has been added to the bible in nigh on 2,000 years?

Your own King James made substantial "upgrades" in the translation from Greek.

The Mormons (Church of Later Day Saints) certainly have added a few to their's as well.

 

[ColinEssex]

There are one or two here who'd like to have my head on their wall

Well they've certainly got the guns to do it and they like the thrill of killing things

Col

 

[Rich]

Your own King James made substantial "upgrades" in the translation from Greek.

The Mormons (Church of Later Day Saints) certainly have added a few to their's as well.

But no new messages from god

 

[Rich]

Well they've certainly got the guns to do it and they like the thrill of killing things

Col

Yes they and god have something in common, perhaps if they worshiped Satan instead

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Maybe the cost of distributing the addendums would be cost prohibitive

I remember an episode of a sitcom some years ago, where the main characters were talking and you could hear the TV in the background. It was set in the future and the guy on screen was saying someting along the lines of

"...the discovery of a new page for the Bible has caused controversy amongst church leaders. The page is believed to have come from the start of the text and reads 'To Helen, with love. This book and all characters portrayed in it are fictional. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental'."

Made me laugh, anyway.