DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?

by Terry 79 Replies latest jw friends

Terry

The oldest manuscripts are not considered the most reliable.
There are no "autograph" texts. None.
There are no "original" manuscripts.
No two manuscripts agree.
The Bible as we know it only came together in the form it now holds because certain men decided it should do so.
Neither Jesus nor his apostles or disciples carried bibles.
The Apostle Paul didn't carry a bible and none of his letters were in any of the scrolls considered Holy Scripture at the time he was preaching and forming Christian theology as it is now understood to be.
Largely, what the Bible IS TODAY, is the result of certain men with certain agendas who had the authority to make their project happen. They also had the power to destroy writings which did not agree with their agenda. Any who disagreed with the conclusions of these powerful men, in the case of the Councils convened by Constantine, were harried, persecuted and abused by the majority.
Did you know these councils and their orthodoxy constantly shifted from one extreme to another? One day Arius might be on top and soon after Athanasius might be considered afoul of the "truth" of doctrine. Or, the reverse!
And yet, the men who attended important policy meetings invoked by the Christian Emperor (self-styled) were often devout men scarred from persecution and lamed or blinded by their righteous stand against impure Roman policy. THEY COULDN'T AGREE with each other!
How could their differences of opinion be reconciled? Only by force; only by decree; only by the certitude of Authority.
Largely, what non-Catholic believers in Christianity hold to be the inerrent word of Divine Authority is the result of the Catholic bishops and their representations.
The Synod of Laodecia and the ratification by the Synod of Carthage gave us the final form of what is held today in the hands of millions of Christians.
Among the many many struggles, arguments, opinions and battles that took place to establish an orthodoxy concering which writings were to be included and excluded it was never a clear-cut case of proof; only assertions that flew about. It is all guesswork and politics.
The majority of Christians for a thousand years could not even read the Bible! They either did what they were told by Priests and Bishops or they exchanged opinions about what scripture was purported to say. It was a totem; a magic book and a supernatural icon.
Until the Bible was translated into language the average person could read and understand the Dark Ages held mankind in the grip of supernatural awe and fear of invisible forces and mysterious laws unknown.
Soon after, however, men began to question authority of scripture. (At their peril!)
The so-called Age of Enlightenment followed fast upon the ability of men to think for themselves at last. The Age of Reason, the Renaissance and the Age of Science brought mankind into a new era of advancement, longer lives, understanding of what health consisted of and how to protect themselves from contagions. Labor saving devices gave men leisure time to read and learn and develop their minds once chained to the drudgery of a workaday labor.
The Protestant Reformation split off the power of the single institution of Catholicism. The Catholic and Byzantine Church had been the only authority to rule the minds of men until that time.
Confident Protestants brought science to bear upon scripture, so confident were they that it would stand all tests of purity and holiness.
The Church launched its own strikeforce of intellectuals to meet the onslaught.
Both branches of Christianity reeled from the blows of what followed!
It soon became clear it had all been a tissue of fabrications as to the integrity of the texts!
The Documentary Hypothesis soon followed and earnest research by archaeologists and semanticists began to unravel the tangled skein that was once the terra firma of belief.
Today we have thousands of Bible Scholars tripping over each other on both sides of many issues of what constitutes the ACTUAL word of God.
The Jesus Seminar on the one hand and the hardcore inerrency specialists on the other in a tug of war over the same issues: Who really was Jesus? What is the true messege of Christianity? What is the mind of God as revealed in various holy texts. How can we know what we believe is true.
The matters are not settled matters at all!
It is a matter that is beset by opinions just as it was in the 3rd Century with blasts of savage hubris on both sides.
The words are in dispute. The texts cannot prove what they purport to prove because the words and the texts cannot be established.
We only have the insistence of experts from a certain persuasion who will shake his finger in your face in his classroom and inculcate future theologians with a fixed point of view.
The battle continues.
DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?
Check_Your_Premises

Good stuff Terry.
You ignorant heathen slut.
Just kidding. Glad to see you still have that chip on your shoulder.
I have been making quite a bit of difficulty for people lately by pointing out that if an argument does not follow directly from its premise statements it cannot be said to be true or false, only likely or unlikely.
I guess "how long have you been in the likely" just doesn't roll off the tongue.
BrendaCloutier

Nicely lambasted. Add a little more garlic and you've got a masterpiece!
jaffacake

Terry,
Wow, that book has really hurt you!
Interesting assertions. Please see earlier threads.
sonnyboy

Indeed.
And these stupid fundamentalists and zelots buy into it hook, line, and stinker.
the_classicist

What a long rant again, since you keep repeating the same things over and over, namely this:
No two manuscripts agree.
I would like to ask this again, "I would also like to ask, are there any disputed parts/readings in the New Testament manuscripts that involve doctrine? (there's only one I can think of off the top of my head, that is when a scribe changed a part from "the boy's father and mother marvelled," to "Joesph and his mother marvelled."). And thanks to modern manuscriptology, we are able to correct these scribal abbherations."
From what I heard, not taking into account orthographical differences, the differences are very small and a lot of them are "Christ" added to "Jesus." Most of the disputed verses are usually taken out and some of them, such as the Comma Ioanneum, which was prominent in the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, have been taken out (the Greek never had it in the first place).
Largely, what the Bible IS TODAY, is the result of certain men with certain agendas who had the authority to make their project happen. They also had the power to destroy writings which did not agree with their agenda. Any who disagreed with the conclusions of these powerful men, in the case of the Councils convened by Constantine, were harried, persecuted and abused by the majority.
The only Council I know of that Constantine convened was the Council of Nicene, and considering he was closet Arian (remember how he was all ready to force the Church to un-excommunicate Arius, before Arius' death?) I don't think he forced his views on any of the councils, unless you can prove so without hearsay and conjecture.
Did you know these councils and their orthodoxy constantly shifted from one extreme to another? One day Arius might be on top and soon after Athanasius might be considered afoul of the "truth" of doctrine. ; ; Or, the reverse!
And yet, the men who attended important policy meetings invoked by the Christian Emperor (self-styled) were often devout men scarred from persecution and lamed or blinded by their righteous stand against impure Roman policy. ; THEY COULDN'T AGREE with each other!
At the Council of Nicene, only 5 bishops voted against it because of the word "homousion," which sort of means "consubstantial." They wanted to use a different, but similar word.
How could their differences of opinion be reconciled? ; Only by force; only by decree; only by the certitude of Authority.
It's called the Conciliar movement.
Largely, what non-Catholic believers in Christianity hold to be the inerrent word of Divine Authority is the result of the Catholic bishops and their representations.
The Synod of Laodecia and the ratification by the Synod of Carthage gave us the final form of what is held today in the hands of millions of Christians.
Actually, the Third Council of Carthage included books that the Protestants took out during the Reformation. There was also the Council of Rome and the Decretum Gelasianum (which is of doubtful authenticity, but the canon in it was confirmed by a later Roman bishop). Same canon in both councils. St. Augustine also provides a canon of scripture in De Doctrina Christiana, which was the same as all those councils. Now the Church in the East has a slightly different canon in the Old Testament, for they typically included books such as 3 Maccabees and Psalm 151. The only ecumenical council to officially issue a decree on the canon was the Council of Trent.
The majority of Christians for a thousand years could not even read the Bible! They either did what they were told by Priests and Bishops or they exchanged opinions about what scripture was purported to say. It was a totem; a magic book and a supernatural icon.
Until the Bible was translated into language the average person could read and understand the Dark Ages held mankind in the grip of supernatural awe and fear of invisible forces and mysterious laws unknown.
That's very nice, but suggest you read a book by Regine Pernoud called "Pour en finir avec le Moyen Age," which breaks many stereotypes about the Dark Ages. You also ignore the fact that the Dark Age economy could not afford to teach everyone to read, this wasn't even possible until the Victorian Age and the Industrial Revolution. What an anachronisitic standard you set.
The Protestant Reformation split off the power of the single institution of Catholicism. The Catholic and Byzantine Church had been the only authority to rule the minds of men until that time.
Only the Western World was effected by the Protestant Reformation. The Eastern Church had not such thing. It's interesting to note that King Charles I suggested a union between the Orthodox and the Anglicans, but the Orthodox turned it down because they could recognize that the doctrine of sola scirptura was a recent invention.
It soon became clear it had all been a tissue of fabrications as to the integrity of the texts!
Yes, there were many scribal abbherations, but due to the pioneers of biblical study, we are able to reconstruct a most reliable critical text.
The Documentary Hypothesis soon followed and earnest research by archaeologists and semanticists began to unravel the tangled skein that was once the terra firma of belief.
Today we have thousands of Bible Scholars tripping over each other on both sides of many issues of what constitutes the ACTUAL word of God.
Ah, yes, modern Biblical research, which is, in many aspects, significantly flawed. For example, take Q. There is no proof that Q ever, ever existed, but they act as if it were a sure thing because some scholar hypothesized it. I also read a paper, which dealt with how the verse "Do not give what is holy to dogs," was used within the context of the Eucharist in the Didache. Now the application of that verse to the Eucharist is different from the context it was used in the Bible. The scholar then went on to conclude that Matthew was simply inventing something more elaborate from Q. Now this never takes into account that the author of the Didache was purposely taking Matthew out of context, and applying symbolism to fit his own situation (i.e, holy=eucharist, dogs=unbaptised), which is the simplest answer and as we know, the simplest answer is usually the best one. Indeed we see the Church fathers putting their own interpretations to many verses of the Gospel where the context does not fit it, but since these are produced later, no one concludes that Matthew took Q out of context because of it.
The Jesus Seminar on the one hand and the hardcore inerrency specialists on the other in a tug of war over the same issues: Who really was Jesus? What is the true messege of Christianity? What is the mind of God as revealed in various holy texts. How can we know what we believe is true.
The Jesus seminar is mainly revisionist history and it's based on the a priori assumption that miraculous things cannot happen.
LittleToe

An amusing, albeit biased whistlestop tour through biblical history.
The only thing I'm curious about is which theological seminary you attended and had a finger wagged in your face?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that this was also the product of your overwrought imagination
in a new york bethel minute

You ignorant heathen slut.
hahaha LMFCO!
kls

You ignorant heathen slut.
Just kidding.

No he's not,,,,,lol
William Penwell

Good read and it is much of what I have gathered by reading over years. The Bible is the biggest scam perpetuated on the human race and yet people to this day are still gullible to believe all the BS.
Will

DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?

Share this