Is the Bible Authentic? (page 4)

Leolaia

Peter addressed such issues in his letter too, when asked why the second coming hadn't happened yet

If it was Peter who wrote it, that is.

PSacramento

If it was Peter who wrote it, that is.

LOL!

Of course, I should have said the writer of 2Peter.

I think that there was certainly a very big desire for Jesus's return in that 1st generation of converts, the times being what they were and all that.

The issue is addressed in Acts and in the Gospel were Jesus himself is quoted as saying that NO ONE KNOWS the time and that it really isn't their concern, to not be so focussed on it because when it come, they won't see it coming until it is "too late".

Jesus said that the time would came indeed, but there isn't any indication that he hinted at it being "sooner rather than later".

Leolaia

Jesus said that the time would came indeed, but there isn't any indication that he hinted at it being "sooner rather than later".

I beg to differ, at least the synoptic gospels present him as indicating this (Matthew 10:23, 16:27-28, 24:34, Mark 8:38-9:1, 13:30, 14:62, Luke 21:32). John of Patmos too (Revelation 1:7, 22:7, 12).

Witness 007

It is 100% Authentic....I was having a drink with Santa and his helpers after Christmas and he said it was regardless of what that "bastard Easter Bunny" says.

If you hold the bible near a Smurf it melts....enough said.

VoidEater

1. Do you believe the bible is the authentic word of God or do you believe it is a hoax?

It's not an either/or proposition to me. I do not believe any writing is "the authentic word of God" nor do I believe the Bible in particular is a "hoax" (e.g., part of an intentional plan to fool people - though certain groups and individuals have used it as a hoax). I think there are some lovely parts in it - and some travesties.

2. Why do you feel one way or the other?

I have no evidence that the Bible is The Inspired Word of God (nor any that God actually exists). There are both older and newer "sacred" texts, that I hold in equal respect.Why should I believe in this text and not any other? In any other? Why should I join a bandwagon that only a third of the world's population is on? Especially when amongst themselves they have such disagreement on the meaning or application of the text?

3. How sure are you of your belief on a scale of 1 - 10?

How sure am I that the Bible is not God's Inspired Word? A perfect 10.

4. How would you reply to the Watchtower's list of evidence that they claim proves that the Bible is authentic. In particular:

- Scientific Accurarcy

What scientific accuracy? That the world is a flat circle, that hares or coneys chew cud, that the entire world was covered in flood waters for nearly a year...? I think the Bible accurately reflects information available to the writers, but Jules Verne was more prophetic (submarines, TV...).

- Historical and Archeological Accuracy

Also debatable, just check out this site. There's some accuracy, certainly, as verified by other sources (see Gentile Times Revisited, for example), but it is hardly a "one accurate source."

- Fulfillment of Prophecies

I think you will find, upon scholarly research, that some verses have been altered to provide fulfillment, while others are so broad as to be as useful as a horoscope. And, as always, the victors write the history books.

- Candor of Bible Writers

Hmm...that can mean just about anything. How can you judge the candor of "Moses" writing about events in Genesis? Why doesn't Moses admit that much of the Garden of Eden's props duplicate or reimagine older myths? When Paul speaks about the wrongness of men being "soft cloth", why couldn't he be more explicit about what he meant? If God really had specific laws for us beyond the ten commandments, whye hasn't he been more explicit about them - and why go through a prophet system when it would be so much more useful if He manifested in an unambiguous way?

What do you mean by candor of the writers?

Band on the Run

Paul only wrote a few epistles attribute to him. The ones that come immediately to mind are Romans and the Corinthians. Once you read Romans carefully in one session, his argument style and writing mannerisms become clear. Looking back I wonder how I ever believed he wrote the Timothys. The theology is markedly different. I despised Paul as a Witness. He was full of niggardly mannerisms. The verse in Timothy about drinking a bit of wine for your stomach made me go bonkers. It is not an important point -- even if Paul wrote it, who cares?

Christianity today is Pauline. Jesus formed no new religion. The apostolic group led by James, Jesus' brother, were too closely aligned with Judaism to survive and grow. I've studied it myself and with various commentaries. My opinion of Paul has changed to one of great admiration. It is sad how his basic beliefs were distorted into the opposite of what he was saying. Paul's epistles pre-date the gospels by many years. It is the purest form to find the earliest Christian creeds and liturgical prayers.

The dispute with the Jerusalem group and the suppression of Gnostic Christians sheds much light on Paul's views. I believe there were sociological and historical reasons for the survival of Paul's form. I've studied the Gnostics at university and over the years. It reminds me that what becomes orthodoxy is primarily a political decision rather than a decision of merit.

My favorite gospel is John with the introductory Logos poem. My favorite epistle is where Paul writes that no one, no instrumentality from this earth or beyond, can separate us from the love of Christ Jesus. Another favorite is the fools for Christ scripture. They speak to my inner soul. Not bad for an author I used to spit on the ground to indicate my disdain.

Joey Jo-Jo

What about my experiences that no one wants to talk about, I agree with everyone here especially leavingwt, but what about all the weird stuff that happened in my youth, not just me but other people also saw with me things that science can not explain? Im not saying that this proof that the bible is true but there is something else than suffering from psychosis we do not know because we can not see it. Just because the bible has been debunked does not mean you can call yourself an atheist after all they are only limited to what they know(and lot of it is pseudoscience), the same with religion.

moshe

Paradox- that could be a problem. Why would God inspire a book that has built in paradoxes?

-http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/199170/1/No-Virgina-God-doesnt-use-Paradoxes

Band on the Run

Why not? I doubt that the authors believed they were writing literal truth. Many different people trying their best to come close to a concept of God over thousands of years. The problem arises only if you view the Bible from a fundamentalist perspective. I think fundamentalists are a minority of Christians. Karen Armstrong's book on the axial religions showed that within a short time period very different formulations of God. god arise. Basically, culture contains those formulations to this day.

I was shocked to learn that the Bible was in a raw form until the canonization conferences which were controversial. The scriptures in Jesus day did not contain the entire canon we now call Hebrew scriptures. I had no idea that other gospels just as legitimate existed. Maybe the Witnesses never actively said it did not but it was a closely held secret. The less miraculous the more I see the Holy Spirit working in our lives every day.

The scholarship is clear for the most part. It should not be such a closely guarded secret. With the Witnesses, legitimacy is hard b/c they don't believe in the great councils. It was a mess long before Constantine. Acts proves that. The great debates on Christology further illuminate the process. A plethera of Christian thought existed with no one claiming genuine legitimacy. Jesus did not establish Christianity. I assume if he wanted to do so, he could have issued edicts and creeds. He could have written a theological statement that was coherent instead of puzzling.

PSacramento

beg to differ, at least the synoptic gospels present him as indicating this (Matthew 10:23, 16:27-28, 24:34, Mark 8:38-9:1, 13:30, 14:62, Luke 21:32). John of Patmos too (Revelation 1:7, 22:7, 12).

Matthew 10:23 referes to the preaching being done and while the son of man coming CAN seem to mean that he will come before the preaching in Isreael would be completed, the context of the whole verse doesn't even mention a second coming at all since it doesn't mention Jesus death at all.

Matthew 16:27-28 does indeed seem to allude that soem would not die before they saw the "son of man" in his glory, but since this is followed by the transfiguration it may seem to be referencing that event and not the second coming.

Matthew 24:34 is a higly debated one with generation being translated as "race" by some, but I agree thatit could have been taken as a "sooner rather than later".

Thing is, and not to go over every single example you gave, IF Jesus said that and was wrong ( which he would have been) it would be accepotabel since Jesus himself said that HE DIDN'T know the time of the end, only His Father knew.

Is the Bible Authentic?

Share this