DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?

by Terry 79 Replies latest jw friends

Honesty

I ask lots of questions and seldom venture an opinion one way or another. (For one thing, it isn't allowed as a bookstore policy; so, I save it for JWD :)
T

I only have two questions, if I may.
Terry, has there ever been a time when you acknowledged that, along with the rest of mankind, you are a sinner and believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and took on the wrath of God that was intended for you at Calvary?
Are you ready and willing to accept Christ as your personal savior and allow Him into your heart?
BlackSwan of Memphis

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.

This was the essence of what I wanted to post in that other thread…. (forgot title…sorry)last night.
Basically, Terry when you brought up that wonderful point… All Scripture is inspired of god…. The key point is really made here.
What scripture?
He (Paul) was referring to Hebrew scripture. That which is constituted Greek Scripture or the New Testament was, as you have beautifully explained was pulled together by men.
Whatever they did NOT like was not included. There were so many texts that were discounted because it did not have their approval. If said texts did not agree with what they believed to be true, it was not inspired and left out. It was all a matter of popular opinion.
What if the picture of Jesus that is painted for us by the Gospel writers is the exact opposite of who this man really was?
How do you know? You have no evidence to show otherwise.
Who decided what should or should not be included in the holy writings? Men who claimed to have been led by god.
Anyone, (as we all have learned) can say they are speaking for god and are inspired by god. All that would need to be done is to write something that the majority will agree with. And that’s what was done.
Perhaps the most inspired of writings were that which we have never been able to read. It has already been decided for us.
Sounds like another group of “inspired” people that I know of.
From what I have read, there was a cut off time. If it wasn’t written within the 1 st century, then it was discounted. I don’t remember reading ANYWHERE in the Old Testament about there being a reasonable time period for a writing to be considered holy (that is if this were the rule by which the texts were measured. Yet again, another man made decision.)
So, why then do we not see those texts? Because quite simply, the councils didn’t like them. Doesn’t mean they weren’t inspired texts. It means that MEN didn’t like ‘em and if the Council didn’t like ‘em or agree with ‘em, well, then therefore god does not either.
Anyone, absolutely anyone can say that it was because of god that these special writings were preserved.
Well, if we go with that line of thinking, what about the Egyptian Book of the Dead? What about the teachings of Buddha?
Just because any said person doesn’t agree with these writings, does not make them un-divine.
I’m Not saying that I have some grand divine gift to say that the Bible is Not from a divine source. What I am saying, is that we examined so very carefully the WTBS and have come to the conclusion that it is not the sole channel of God.
So, what I think is most interesting about Terry’s thread is that it makes us take such a serious look at the bible and consider all possibilities.
Peace and blessings
BlackSwan
p.s. hope this makes some sense. Long, long day at work.
Amazing1914

Hi Terry,
The following takes your points one by one. My comments follow the repeating of your claims. I agree with soe of your assertions and others are very wrong historically or use absurd logic. Other claims ignore the times and culture of the day. I welcome a response. 1. Credibility of manuscript affects its reliability. Age helps but is not the most important. 2. Why should there be "autograph" texts? That was never practiced by Bible writers from Moses onward. 3. There are manuscripts that are close to the originals. There are virtually no original New World translations from the 1950s anywhere. And that is only 50 years ago. So, I do not see the issue here. 4. You claim that no two manuscripts agree. What is your source for this? 5. You stated that the Bible as we know it only came together in the form it now holds because certain men decided it should do so. The Bible as we know it was largely compiled by the Roman Catholic Church. The basis they used is the basis that governs all western Bibles. The Eastern Orthodox Catholic uses basically the same Bible, but recognizes that it contains errors. 6. It is a pointless argument to talk about Jesus and his apostles or disciples not carrying bibles. They didn't drive cars either. So what. They didn't even carry scrolls with them, as scrolls were maintained by the scribes at the temple and synagogues. Paper and printing machines were not available to make Bibles a common feasible product. 7. You state that the Apostle Paul didn't carry a bible. Same response as above. 8. You state that none of Paul's 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. So what. His letters were later determined to be canonical by the Catholic Church. 9. You state that the Bible today is the result of certain men with certain agendas who had the authority to make their project happen. What agenda? What evidence do you have for this claim? The Bible was compiled and decided upon by Church scholars. So what. Men were used to write the Bible too. 10. You claim that these men 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. Again, what evidence do you have for this absurd claim. You need to read history. You will discover that the Bible is a products of time, not a few men in Constantines day. Furthermore, the non-canonical books are still retained at the vatican, and were NOT destoryed. 11. You aksed, "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!" This too is an absurd claim. Arius was given a fair hearing as were others who had various theories which conflicted with long accepted teachings. The Ecumenical Councils were far different than that painted by the conspiracy theorists like Russell and others ignorant of history. 12. You also say that 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!" The first ecumenical council in 325 did involve Constantine, but it was not as you claim. Where si your evidence? 13. You claim, "How could their differences of opinion be reconciled? Only by force; only by decree; only by the certitude of Authority." What is your source, you evidence for this claim? 14. You continue by saying, "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." True. However, the Bible was not delcared inerrant until a Roman Catholic Pope did so centuries after its split with Eastern Orthodox Catholicism. Orthodoxy and the Roman Church accept the Bible as having some errors prior to their schism in 1054 a.d. The Eastern Orthodox still holds that the Bible contains some errors as the Church always did from its inception. 15. You stated that "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." Would you please cite a few references for this? I have other sources that this is not so. I want to compare these sources and then respond. 16. You stated that 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. What evidence do you have for politics? What guesswork? What criteria can you cite that was used to compile the Bible? Do you have any idea? 17. You stated that 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. This claim is misleading on your part. They did not have printing presses. So, the Bible had to be painstakenly copied by hand. So, the few copies were held by church scholars and teachers. The rest was found in letters and oral tradition as had been done since the time of Moses. So what? Why imply all this conspiratorial crap. People were also largely illiterate because schools were not plentiful. Life was hard, people did not live long, so getting food and surviving were higher on their personal agenda. Actually, the Church did a fairly good job leading the people ... that is ... until Roman Catholicism became too powerful and arrogant. But, the Orthodox Catholic did not go this route. Once Rome was slapped down hard, it eventually moderated and became a rational religion. But this has little to do with the Bible. 18. You stated that 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. What is so special about this. This would have happened anyway because science was so little understood and was so far behind what we have today. People living all over the world in various non-Christian religions were even more superstitious and ignorant. 19. You stated that soon after, however, men began to question authority of scripture. (At their peril!) The real questioning and higher criticism came into vogue in the 19th century. As a result, numb-nuts like Miller, Russell, and Joseph Smith emerged with cock-eyed theories and led people into serious problems. The Bible had some problems and contains things with which I find troubling, but by and large it is a good and important work ... and serves Christians fairly well. 20. You stated that 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. Yep, I guess so. 21. You continued, "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." Actually, there were many splits and schisms along the way. There were far eastern Christians who split long before the schism of 1054 between Rome and Constantinople. There are also various African Christian branchs that are not part of mainline Catholicism or Orthodoxy. So your claim lacks historical merit. There were also protestant-like groups before Luther, but these were small and had little effect. 22. You stated that confident Protestants brought science to bear upon scripture, so confident were they that it would stand all tests of purity and holiness. Would you please cite some credible references for this claim? 23. You contiued, "The Church launched its own strikeforce of intellectuals to meet the onslaught." Again, please cite some credible source references. 24. You said that both branches of Christianity reeled from the blows of what followed! Please cite some credible source references. 25. You claims that it soon became clear it had all been a tissue of fabrications as to the integrity of the texts! Please cite credible source references. 26. You continued, "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." PLease cite credible references for this. 27. You continued, "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." References please. 28. You said that 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. Please cite credible references for what this is all about. 29. You say that, "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." Please cite some references for this, and expand on what you are taling about. 30. You ask in conclusion, "DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?" Some of your statements have some merit, others are wrong or absurd. I fail to see your entire point. Perhaps breaking up your post into shorter parts with source references and a logical flow might help the discussion. I am not saying that you are completely wrong, or lack some good issues, but rather, that your presentation seems rather disjointed historically.
Thanks, Jim W.
inquirer

Hi Terry,
Thinker said --
Good stuff on the bible. When I read the title of your post I thought that maybe you had stumbled onto some of the more interesting things I have found inside the bible.

For example, did you know sex toys are mentioned in the bible? Eze. 16:17

Did you know the phrase "hung like a horse" comes from the bible? Eze. 23:20

Did you know that all-important prophet Isaiah walked around naked for 3 years because God told him to? Isa. 20:3

Did you know the words "watchtower will become a wasteland" is in the bible? Isa 32:14 (NIV)

Take care,

thinker
Wow! thanks for telling us all this!

NEVER KNEW!
Terry

I only have two questions, if I may.
Terry, has there ever been a time when you acknowledged that, along with the rest of mankind, you are a sinner and believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins and took on the wrath of God that was intended for you at Calvary?
Are you ready and willing to accept Christ as your personal savior and allow Him into your heart

1. Have I acknowledged that I am a sinner?
I was taught from the time I was a little kid that I am worthless unless I utter the magic word: Jesus. I was instructed carefully that I have no value unless I empty myself of "self" and live for others. I was informed I came out of my mother's womb offensive to god because an ancient ancestor misbehaved. Even though God has eternity, all the wisdom and power and glory that has ever existed he can find time out of his busy schedule to condemn me to a few miserable years of struggle because I am related to Adam. But, his mercy knows no bounds because we can puzzle our way out off his shit-list by dancing His version of the Hokey-Pokey and raising our hands in surrender to his awesome judgement by figuring out which of the thousands of phoney religions competing against one another is the True one and then selling ourself out to it as a slave. (God is big on slavery.)
2.If God didn't spare the innocent (his son) why would he spare me? Should I trust myself to his sense of JUSTICE? His hand is ready to strike down man or beast while whining about how nobody appreciates him. I think this Superior Being needs a bit of therapy in rehab more than he needs my feeble exclamations of "holy holy holy."
Let me offer you a clue:
I am an individual. I think for myself. I am part of a species that has crawled from the muck and aimed at the stars. I am man and make no apology to you or to the effigy of myth held dear in the imagination of the weak-minded who crawl on their belly to appease the deity of thunder and blood.
Mankind once tasted the lash of your brave Elohim and cowered in shame at the superstitious mention of His mythical name. They learned to slit the throats of innocent animals to buy protection from the priestly racket of religious forgiveness in the empty sham of obesiance and propitiations.
But, the Dark Ages are passed and the past is past. Humanity has a better choice than having the heel of dark imagination on their neck and a trembling fear of destruction marked on each day's calendar as they scan the clouds for his Majesty's awful return.
I offer nothing to this empty sky. The uncoiling surrender in your gut is indoctrinated fear and the love you profess for that executed shaman jesus is a misplaced. The hour glass is emptying of your sand as well as mine. How you spend each second of "now" is what your life is and ALL it will ever be. Waste it if you wish; but, leave me out of your fool's paradise.
The mafia offered the protection racket to fearful store keepers on threat of reprisal if they didn't pay. What you offer me is no different. Except, even those who pay the Don Jehovah his blood money suffer the same calamity as the scoffers and strong-minded who see through the conman's game. There is no protection from this tiny life we own.
Why would I waste it on your small and shallow creed?
I am man. I create my own life. I own myself. I am no one's slave!
Terry
Terry

Dear Amazing 1914,

It would be, however, very rude of me to just blow it all off. After all, I raised the question in my Heading, did I not?

Okay, but, that is my point too, after all. Credibility has to be established. There is only consensus here in the face of equal opinions otherwise. The matter of credibility is not SETTLED.
Read this just for the fun of it and get an idea of how other religions view the contradictions of the unsettled scriptures:
http://islamway.com/english/images/library/contradictions.htm

. Why should there be "autograph" texts? That was never practiced by Bible writers from Moses onward
All an autograph text means is that it is the VERY text written by the author. In other words, it is the primary source. Surely you see there logically must be a PRIMARY source from which the copies were made, right?

There are manuscripts that are close to the originals. There are virtually no original New World translations from the 1950s anywhere. And that is only 50 years ago. So, I do not see the issue here
To know something is "close to the original" you must have the original to compare. Logically, it follows that NOT having the original means you cannot determine what is CLOSE and what isn't.

You claim that no two manuscripts agree. What is your source for this?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm Note the words: "Unfortunately no two of these manuscripts represent to us quite the same text"
As I mentioned, I work in the religion and philosophy section of a bookstore and have many technical books at my disposal that I can take home and read and study. The consensus by all scholars is that no two manuscripts agree. Citing just one source that I have on my table here:
D.A.Carson The King James Debate (A plea for realism) I suggest you check his credentials.

Points: 5,6,7
I don't see anything to reply to here.

. You state that none of Paul's 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. So what. His letters were later determined to be canonical by the Catholic Church.
Okay. So? I am not Catholic; are you?

. You state that the Bible today is the result of certain men with certain agendas who had the authority to make their project happen. What agenda? What evidence do you have for this claim? The Bible was compiled and decided upon by Church scholars. So what. Men were used to write the Bible too.
Hard for me to believe you can't see this one yourself. I've explained it. If the Catholic Scholars did a fine job we should all be Catholic, should we not? If they were doing the best they could as humans; that is no assurance to me. The church historian, Eusebius, wrote at great length about his entire matter. I'm too tired to copy and paste long passages. Go to your public library some lazy summer day and nab a copy of his CHRONICLE.

Point 10
Please do a bit of reading about the history of this era. Start with Eusebius and branch out from there.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

Point 11
Are you shooting from the hip here? Surely, you jest.

Point 12 and 13
Read first and then we'll discuss: (Columbia education site)

Constantine did play an important role at the Council. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that he played an key part in calming, convincing, and bringing all to agreement on contested points. The account of Eusebius fairly glows in regard to the Emperor, and he is portrayed as a key figure. It is nowhere suggested, however, that he was permitted to vote with the bishops nor that he used any form of force to obtain an outcome.

It may be that the eloquence and glory of the Emperor had sway with some, however it should be remembered that he did eventually (years after the Council) support the Arian party. A few years after the Council of Nicea, Arius discovered a new way to interpret the word "homoousius" that agreed with his doctrines. He then asked to be readmitted to communion, but the Church refused. Arius then appealed to the Emperor. Emperor Constantine's favorite sister, Constantia, on her deathbed, implored Constantine to support Arius and he did so

etc.

Read:http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/coun8.html
I'll come back to the rest later. I'm tired. It is 11:15 and I'm bound for bed.
Thanks for your response. More later.
Terry
the_classicist

11. You aksed, "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!" This too is an absurd claim. Arius was given a fair hearing as were others who had various theories which conflicted with long accepted teachings. The Ecumenical Councils were far different than that painted by the conspiracy theorists like Russell and others ignorant of history.

Terry, don't discount what he says. Arius, I believe, was allowed to speak at the Council. Nestorius was allowed to speak before the Council of Chalcedon, but he chose to run away Eastward and go where his ideas were supported. Both sides had their supporters. Mind you, the Reformers weren't invited to the Council of Trent, but they wouldn't have wanted to have anything to do with "Papish" Councils anyway.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm Note the words: "Unfortunately no two of these manuscripts represent to us quite the same text"
That's true, but the differences aren't substantially huge.
nicolaou

Wow!
I tried to find a pithy part of Terry's post to quote but really, you just have to re-read the whole damned thing! Best thing I've read for ages.
1. Have I acknowledged that I am a sinner?
I was taught from the time I was a little kid that I am worthless unless I utter the magic word: Jesus. I was instructed carefully that I have no value unless I empty myself of "self" and live for others. I was informed I came out of my mother's womb offensive to god because an ancient ancestor misbehaved. Even though God has eternity, all the wisdom and power and glory that has ever existed he can find time out of his busy schedule to condemn me to a few miserable years of struggle because I am related to Adam. But, his mercy knows no bounds because we can puzzle our way out off his shit-list by dancing His version of the Hokey-Pokey and raising our hands in surrender to his awesome judgement by figuring out which of the thousands of phoney religions competing against one another is the True one and then selling ourself out to it as a slave. (God is big on slavery.)
2.If God didn't spare the innocent (his son) why would he spare me? Should I trust myself to his sense of JUSTICE? His hand is ready to strike down man or beast while whining about how nobody appreciates him. I think this Superior Being needs a bit of therapy in rehab more than he needs my feeble exclamations of "holy holy holy."
Let me offer you a clue:
I am an individual. I think for myself. I am part of a species that has crawled from the muck and aimed at the stars. I am man and make no apology to you or to the effigy of myth held dear in the imagination of the weak-minded who crawl on their belly to appease the deity of thunder and blood.
Mankind once tasted the lash of your brave Elohim and cowered in shame at the superstitious mention of His mythical name. They learned to slit the throats of innocent animals to buy protection from the priestly racket of religious forgiveness in the empty sham of obesiance and propitiations.
But, the Dark Ages are passed and the past is past. Humanity has a better choice than having the heel of dark imagination on their neck and a trembling fear of destruction marked on each day's calendar as they scan the clouds for his Majesty's awful return.
I offer nothing to this empty sky. The uncoiling surrender in your gut is indoctrinated fear and the love you profess for that executed shaman jesus is a misplaced. The hour glass is emptying of your sand as well as mine. How you spend each second of "now" is what your life is and ALL it will ever be. Waste it if you wish; but, leave me out of your fool's paradise.
The mafia offered the protection racket to fearful store keepers on threat of reprisal if they didn't pay. What you offer me is no different. Except, even those who pay the Don Jehovah his blood money suffer the same calamity as the scoffers and strong-minded who see through the conman's game. There is no protection from this tiny life we own.
Why would I waste it on your small and shallow creed?
I am man. I create my own life. I own myself. I am no one's slave!
Terry
Amen!
Testify brother!
GetBusyLiving

Terry =
GBL
Stress Free

Excellent post Terry.
After researching the history of the bible for the past five years, I have come to the same conclusion as yourself . Its a shame that more people don't put in the effort and research the origins of the bible and christianity, they would be surprised. The Dead Sea Scrolls also help to shed a lot of light on the history of the bible. Isn't it amazing how the religions write off the so called Gnostic books, yet the bible quotes from these books in a number of places. An example of this is how the bible book of Jude blantantly quotes from the Gnostic book of Enoch, which if you have read it is quite bizarre, yet the churches including the jw's do not acknowledge it. So if it is good enough for Jude to quote from, why isn't it in the bible canon? Answer , because once again this book did not fit in with the teachings of the church. Also what about the Gnostic book "The Revelation of Peter" this book was originally chosen to be the finial book in the bible canon in place of the current book of Revelation that we now have. However, "The Revelation of Peter" had a softer viewpoint on hell, again not suiting the churches teaching of eternal torment in hell, so they dropped it in favour of the book of Revelation we have today.
After all is said and done the bible was put together and used to instill fear into people allowing the religious and political leaders at the time to control the people, this has continued to be exploited up to our time.
Nevertheless, everyone is entitled to there opinion, thats what makes this discussion board so great. If believing in the bible and the ransom gives you hope and keeps you going day after day well thats great. As for me even though I believe the bible is just another history book, a bad one at that, written by men and not inspired by God. Meantime I still hope that there is more to life then just our short pitiful existence now, however, I no longer worry about the future I just enjoy each day of life as it comes.

DID YOU KNOW THIS about the BIBLE?

Wow! thanks for telling us all this!

NEVER KNEW!

Share this