The Bible: same now as then?

agent2863

A few reasons we can know that we have the same Bible that was used by early Christians are as follows: In 1611 King James ordered that the Bible be put into the language of the people. The earliest manuscripts they had at the time were, for the Old Testament about 8th century AD, and for the New Testament, about 11th century AD. In 1947 in the caves in Qumran above the Dead Sea, there were discovered over 200 clay jars in over 200 caves, scrolls, which made up the entire Old Testament. These scrolls were dated from 200BC to 100BC. By comparison, with translations of today there is an accuracy rate of 99.999%. The small % of inaccuracies dealing only with things like commas, etc.. Nothing related to theology at all. In the last 100 years through modern archeology, there have been found, 3500 complete manuscripts of the New Testament from the first 3 centuries, and 5700 portions. One of these portions, being the Gospel of John, which can be found in the British Museum in London, has been dated as belonging to the 1st century AD. The New Testament we have today has been found to have an accuracy rate of 99.9%. Again, any differences are mainly due to few grammatical inconsistencies, nothing, which affects the theology aspects. The Bible is actually one most well documented works we have today if not the most

battman

Hi Agent,

Your argument sounds good to me!! I am a salesman and I
tend to believe whatever I hear and esp so what I read.
Can be a serious fault for sure. That is why I love this
board. Tuff to slack off here, esp. with a 'tude, more so
with a spurious argument.

Many many of the posters here are able to intellgently
dissect an argument find its valid points and of course
its fallacies. I always have had some doubts but wanted so
badly to believe. As you will read below it seems to me that
bible truths and esp. scriptual proofs just go 'round and
'round. IMHO for many of the scriptures quoted as "proof" of an
argument I can quote a scripture with an different/opposing
viewpoint. Help. (trying to open my semi closed brain)

I am just beginning to figure out for myself what
I can relie on and after some serious study I
discovered the more I studied the more confused
I became. Some of these arguments can go on
forever with an equal amount of "scriptual
proofs" on each side of the deabte when actually
there may be a third, or more, perfectly sane
explanation.

This is known as "Hobson's Choice Fallacy"
in logical thinking. Enter 'fallacy faq's'
into any search engine for a complete discussion
of all the retorical fallacy of which the CC of J W
makes extensive use,. Hobson's Choice is to present
your argument as either it's black or it's white.
Rarely true as so much of life is a wide expanse of grey,
but given in an emotional case seems very powerful. I fell
for this toooooo many times. I just wanted to believe!!!

I received "new lite" when I was doing a word for
word comparison of, WT literature, Emphatic Diaglott (E.D.)
vs. Kingdom Interlinear. I was studying in Act 20:20 and
discovered that the exact same greek word was rendered
as (big) houses in the E.D. and then rendered as "house to house"
in the K.I.

At that moment the little boy pulled his finger out of the dike and
I was washed away. One tiny, tiny flaw and it all tumbles down.

Further study showed that the K.I. "house to house" definition came
from the, are you ready for this?, are you sure?? really sure???

The despictable, error riddled, blah, blah, blah King James version.
God I hate when that happens!!!! I mentioned this to an elder,
fromer Bethei lite, and his retort was that "even the WT used to publish
the KJ version". no s..., but he didn't answer the question, of course.

So why does the "org"," society", etc. continue to "promote" this
blaaatant falsehood. "follow the money dummy, follow the money"

In the "United" book the Tower teaches me that the NT is written
primarily for the "annointed/144k, FDS (fem deordant spay) so Paul's
words were to them stating that he Paul taught them "pubikly",
in their temples and in their (big) houses ie: meeting halls. This is
almost universally accepted by mature/serious (genuine) bible
scholars. Not "door to door" rendering. (follow de $$$$$$).
Advertize (sell), Advertize (sell), Advertize (sell) the organization.

The WT used to
teach pubiclly up to 1975. They had real public lectures, records and
even radio broadcasts. All long gone, they have gone underground
even tho most people know them as d2d peeps that is not where the
growth comes from, its from networking almost exclusively. Another
poster was trying to compare the WT to a real corp. No way!!!
A real business would dump d2d business model ie: Fuller Brush, and adopt
the new "no cost/super efficient" media of the "net". Why not????
(just follow the $$$$$$$$$.)

So on one hand (black side) the NT is for the r&f as a "motovational stick" d2d ($$$$$$)
but (the white side) only written to the FDS when its time to go to H................

This is not Hobson's Choice (black vs white).
Another explanation came to me from a reading of the introduction of
both w4w interlinear translations that
states clearly that due to 300 - 400 years of missing continuity, hundreds
of slightly differing versions, hundreds of differing translations and of couse
human (see above ex) bias/agendas and that ole imperfection thing then
what we have today is an SWAG work. (Scientific Wild A.. Guess).

I forgot to mention the WT editors credit Jah for a "little help" on their work.
Jah does little jobs? I guess no job is too big or too small.

battman
of the washed (away) or (up) class
but not of the job class

agent2863

Hi Battman, (now where have I heard that name before. Hmmmm) I guess my post came out sounding a little stiff. Not meant as an argument though, just some info i had. And definitely not a case for 'King James only'. That was just kinda a starting point for my little history lesson. I prefer the New American Standard myself, although there are lots of good translations. (New World Translation not being one them) Seee ya!

JAVA

agent,

I believe in the holy writings of Java. I just finished writing it today after coming down from Mount Coffee. As a result, I'm certain the accuracy rate is 100%! Spell-check found no errors. I drink from the cup of Java, and it stimulates me. I hold the cup of Java, and it warms me. Java's aroma fills me with wonder and expectation.

Java is not a jealous God, and doesn't mind hearing worshipers calling Her by many names. Java does not require human sacrifice, and will not murder the first-born of an entire nation to show Her power. She keeps me alert in dangerous traffic, and Awake! when attending boring conferences. I get excited grinding Java's beans; She is the Berry of Life! -- amen

--JAVA

counting time at the Coffee Shop

Francois

Sorry, but the Dead Sea Scrolls to which you refer, are not copies of the Old Testament. Neither have they all been examined. They were kept in virtual isolation for decades and only a very few of them have ever been opened - due to their incredible fragility - much less examined.

This accuracy rate you talk about is made up of smoke and mirrors.

You must have gotten this information from a JW or other Fundy.

Nice try, though.

agent2863

My wife is a worshiper of Java. And I'm sure she would enjoy a pilgrimage to Mt. Coffee. She's tried to convert me, but it's just not for me. Maybe I should be glad she has Java, or I might find out about armegedeon first hand!

agent2863

Hi Francoise. I checked it out a little deeper & you were right. It wasn't what I was led to believe. Although some of the text in the scrolls confirm parts of the O.T., it's not as major as was claimed. Big boofoo on my part. See ya!

battman

Hello agentperson,
thanks for your reply. I try to
keep an open mind, which I
often find very difficult. So
my reply to your original was
a good "vent" for me. Keep
the dialogue going it helps us
all to "stay awake". In that
regard I am a faithful follower
of Miss Java Goddess. YES.

battman
of the caffeine class

JAVA

battman & agent,

Glad you took the Java thing in the spirit of fun, which is how I hoped it would be taken. I also wanted to illustrate the "so what" factor.

Lets say the Bible or any religious holy book is 75, 85, or 99.99999% accurate from the original. Even if that was true...so what? It doesn't prove God inspired, wrote or influenced the writings just because the writer(s) said it. As seen in my little Java post, I introduced a goddest, pointed out Her assets, and why She should be worshipped. When it's all is said and done the "so what" factor must enter into the reasoning. If that doesn't happen, we are setting ourselves up for any con (even well intentioned cons) that comes along.

I better get back to my Goddness; She gets a little cold if I leave Her alone.

--JAVA

counting time at the Coffee Shop

The Bible: same now as then?

--JAVA

--JAVA

Share this