Why Trust the Bible?

by Mad Sweeney 69 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    This thread is so tainted with "Perry." But I will go there.

    There is no "prophecy" come true in the Bible outside of the Bible itself. (Perry will go find some list of obscure Bible references and secular sources that the scriptures could be forced to fit.) It is against the grain of the idea of this thread to suggest thousands of prophecies already fulfilled when the vast vast vast majority of them would be fulfilled "according to the Bible" itself and the rest "according to interpretation." I mean, some woman has bruised a snake in the head and some snake has bruised a woman in the heel, but that's not prophecy. But we have not established any facts that a virgin or unmarried maiden even (depends on your interpretation) gave birth to the messiah and that was indeed prophecied long beforehand. If that wasn't established, then we cannot take for granted the scores of messianic "prophecies" that someone like Perry would include, such as the soldiers casting lots over his clothing.

    It seemed important for the first or second century writers to indicate that their messiah fulfilled prophecies, but writing a sequel to a fiction and using more fiction is what good writing is all about. It doesn't mean the first writings were "prophetic."

    And if you want to insist that the Bible is not corrupted, which Bible is that? Not the NWT, but are you referring to some other "Protestant" Bible or the one used in Ethiopia or the Catholic Bible or do we have to go to the original texts which don't exist? Which books are canonical? Which are not? Who decides? What doctrinal gymnastics do you have to apply to make some doctrine correct?

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    I love when my "last word" stands unchallenged for 8 hours. Everyone knows I am right.

  • Perry
    Perry

    OTWO,

    All been covered many times as you well know. But at least you were right for 8 hours

  • Perry
    Perry

    Wow,

    My last post stood unchallenged for 10 hours after OTWO 's stood for 8 hours!

    And if you want to insist that the Bible is not corrupted, which Bible is that? Not the NWT, but are you referring to some other "Protestant" Bible or the one used in Ethiopia or the Catholic Bible or do we have to go to the original texts which don't exist?

    OTWO, we have complete new testaments that go backto 150 AD, and some think may even be original.

    If you can find something wrong with my research on my website at www.wordfamine.com ; let me know. Otherwise, the evidence show the reliability of the bible in most every conceivable way.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Not gunna waste my time trying to say what's wrong with your website. You won't listen anyway.

    New Testament documents that were probably written in the second century (or later):
    Gospel of Matthew
    Gospel of Mark
    Gospel of Luke
    Gospel of John
    Gospel of Mary
    Gospel of Thomas
    Gospel of Truth
    Gospel of Phillip
    Gospel of Judas
    The Secret Book of James

    There are loads more. Loads more. So if some of the originals survive and were written as early as 150 AD, okay. Not much of a prophecy to predict the destruction of Jerusalem 80 years after the fact.
    Which ones belong in the canon? Why do you say that? Who are you to decide? And why didn't the final editors who excluded so many of them make sure that the gospels that stayed even agreed with each other?

  • Perry
    Perry
    Not gunna waste my time trying to say what's wrong with your website. You won't listen anyway.

    Sure I would. I would love to talk about it at length with you.

    Not much of a prophecy to predict the destruction of Jerusalem 80 years after the fact.

    So where's the first century record of the whistle blowers exposing a fraud this huge. Consider:

    To historically show that these predictions existed before 70 AD, look first to where these predictions are found in good detail in the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke was written before Luke’s other work “Acts of the Apostles”, and this is key in knowing if Jesus’ predictions as found in Luke 19:41-44 and 21:5-24 are real. The Gospel of Luke is presented in the first sentence of Acts, which presents a review of Luke’s Gospel (Acts 1:1-4). Acts is significant because it concludes with the Apostle Paul under house arrest (Acts 28:30-31) in about 60-62 AD before his death in AD 67.

    If Acts was written after 70, then why did Luke not reveal what happened to Paul in trial and even his death? If Acts ended with Paul’s death and even Peter’s, then the dating of Acts could have been after the desolation of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, but this is not the case though James’ and Stephen’s deaths are recorded. It is very evident that Acts was written before AD 70. Acts ends with mentioning Paul’s house arrest lasting two years implying knowledge of Paul’s release and nothing further (28:30). Luke does not tell what happened in Paul’s trials in Rome when the rest of the book has covered Paul’s trials in detail.

    The fact that Acts ends without resolution concerning Paul’s trials and without mentioning his death is very important in showing that Acts was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and so the predictions in Luke’s earlier writing of the Gospel of Luke would have been before the event of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Along with all of this, Acts presents an optimistic view of the government of Rome, which would have changed by the Neronian persecution to come in AD 64-65. This also helps affirm the existence of Jesus’ predictions prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

    One more evidence is that Paul who died in AD 67 quotes the Gospel of Luke calling it Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18, Luke 10:7). Luke must have been written before Paul’s death in 67 AD. Knowing Luke’s Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, see how with what detail Jesus predicted these events. Look at two passages of Jesus’ predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Luke 19:41-44 and in 21:5-24.

    In Luke 19:41-44, Jesus predicted:
    *The enemies of Jerusalem would build an embankment around it (19:43).
    *Jerusalem would be closed in on every side (19:43).
    *Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground with no stone upon stone (19:44).

    In Luke 21:5-24, Jesus predicted:
    *The buildings of the temple would be thrown down (21:5-6).
    *Hearing of wars along with nation actually rising against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (21:9-10).
    *There would be earthquakes, famines, and pestilences. (21:11)
    *Apostles and disciples would be around at the beginning of the signs of these things, and they would even be persecuted in the persecution to come before these signs came (21:12).
    *Some of these disciples would die before these signs came to pass (21:16).
    *Some of the disciples would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then desolation is near (21:20).
    *Many would die by sword or be taken captive unto all the nations (21:24).
    *Jerusalem would be trampled under foot by Gentiles (21:24).

    These events are confirmed mostly in Roman record written by the Jewish historian, Josephus, who was at the capture of Jerusalem. The predictions were fulfilled that the enemies of Jerusalem would build an embankment around it (19:43), and Jerusalem would be closed in on every side (19:43). The Jewish historian, Josephus, confirmed this truth in his history (War of the Jews, VI, 8.1). The Temple being thrown down and made desolate is confirmed by Josephus too (War of the Jews, VI, 4:7, 5:1-2, 6:1; VII, 1:1). Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground with not one stone upon another (19:44). The buildings of the temple would be thrown down (21:5-6). This was the greatest desolation that the world had known until this time (War of the Jews, VI 10:1, VII). Josephus presents clearly that the only parts of the city left were three towers while the rest of the city and the Temple were completely leveled.

    Article

    On the existence of Jesus

    Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

    Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

    Article

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff
    It seemed important for the first or second century writers to indicate that their messiah fulfilled prophecies, but writing a sequel to a fiction and using more fiction is what good writing is all about. It doesn't mean the first writings were "prophetic."

    Good point, OTWO. In 2000 years, the writings of some of our better fiction authors, by then translated into dozens of 'modern day' languages from 'archaic English', will be revered as 'prophecies', now fulfilled by their estimations. Hell, the future Perry may have an even larger list of fulfilled prophecies, and even deeper proof of the fulfillment thereof! The future 'Perry' and his ilk, will be debating with various skeptical and scientific logicians, and attempting with multitudes of words to somehow defeat those carefully schooled in archeology and disciplines that contradict his viewpoint with logic and rationale that he refuses to consider.

    There will always be the 'Perry' in the crowd, seeking to establish his hope of 'everlasting life' against all logical proof presented that those books were just fiction. The current Perry will just be dust in the wind, though he hoped to sit on a cloud and laugh at those who have shown him to be wrong repeatedly. He won't know it though - for possibly the only accurate words in his fictional book of choice were those that stated that 'the dead know nothing'. Besides, since heaven is not described by anyone who has ever seen it, the only realistic view of it, considering the God these people worship [child killer, demented vengeful deity who seeks retribution on many generations, approves of his people raping his enemies, etc], described by their 'Holy Writ' under discussion here - is likely to more closely resemble Dante's view of Inferno, than Perry's view of his reward. So those so disappointed at the time of death with nothingness forever, may in fact be more rewarded than they think.

    The future Perry may be looking to inherit castles invented by JK Rowling, but will be just as pious and hopeful. How sad! What a waste of life.

    Delusions are far more painful to observe from the outside than by those who have deluded themselves.

    Jeff

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    The lack of things written in one book proves the prophetic value of another book? That's rich.

    Acts leaves things out, so it must be written before those things happened?

    Well, if I want future generations to think my writings are prophetic, all I have to do is predict Barack Obama's presidency, claim that I wrote this all in 1988 or so, make no references to politics past President Reagan- never discuss the final collapse of the Soviet Union nor the Iraq War and the crazy stuff between G.W. Bush and A. Gore, certainly never mention Bill Clinton.

    No, sorry. Luke may well have been written by the same person who wrote Acts, and he/she/they may well have written Luke first, but there are also those that believe Acts borrowed from Josephus' writtings rather than Josephus borrowing from Acts and could easily have been written in the second century.

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    Careful OTWO - in 2000 years Perry the 94th may be worshiping you!

    Good point - all you have to do is back up 15 years and omit those years - how could anyone know?

    Jeff

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Also, the original ACTS is not available. Who's to say that it wasn't edited to make it look like it was written before events recorded in it?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit