Biblical records

[Sanity personified]

I have a slight issue with Christians over the bible. Some have asked how I can doubt that God exists when the bible has such clear records of miracles. They say that these opostles lived with Jebus for years and they witnessedd many miraculous events.

1. The healing of the sick through mere touch is encountered many times within the bible as reported by the first-hand accounts of the opostles.

2. The walking on water and feeding on the masses and many ther things were witnessed first hand by the iopostles.

3. Jesus WAS dead, they claim there to be overwhelming evidence of this, and he DID come back to life after 2 days they claim.

4. Finally they asked me why the opostes would have followed Jebus had there been any dubt to his divinity, and Jebus himself in claiming to be God was either, lying, delusional of reallly was the son of God.

Please help as I am freaking out with this. My sanity is being tested here. :mad:

I will likely not be back on line for nearly 72 hours after this post.

[gruber]

Its funny and sad how they say that everything in their book, that has been rewritten several times, is 100% true.

[Kosmos]

Given that many parts of the bible were written over 100 years after the alleged events, that the bible has been translated, edited, and re-printed, many many times over.

The bible is very deffinitely not a collection of eye witness accounts, it is a collection of hearsay and fiction woven into a badly constructed conflicting tale.

The only thing remarkable about it is that people are still pushing it as written fact.

[Vangelis]

I have a slight issue with Christians over the bible. Some have asked how I can doubt that God exists when the bible has such clear records of miracles. They say that these opostles lived with Jebus for years and they witnessedd many miraculous events.

1. The healing of the sick through mere touch is encountered many times within the bible as reported by the first-hand accounts of the opostles.

2. The walking on water and feeding on the masses and many ther things were witnessed first hand by the iopostles.

3. Jesus WAS dead, they claim there to be overwhelming evidence of this, and he DID come back to life after 2 days they claim.

4. Finally they asked me why the opostes would have followed Jebus had there been any dubt to his divinity, and Jebus himself in claiming to be God was either, lying, delusional of reallly was the son of God.

Please help as I am freaking out with this. My sanity is being tested here. :mad:

I will likely not be back on line for nearly 72 hours after this post.

For something to be "fact" it needs to be provable. To be provable, the claim much be observable, testable and repeatable. Ask them to show you someone that can perform any of these "miracles" and and to repeat them in front of you in a clinical experiment. I'd especially like to see someone come back from the dead after 3 days (not 3 minutes).

And when they say "there is overwhelming evidence", ask for it. Biblical eye-witness accounts are meaningless. There are no other accounts.

If christ is the only one who is supposed to be capable of these "miracles" then, where is he? For someone who was supposed to reappear at 100CE, 1,000CE and 2,000CE he is conspicuous in his absence. When will they give up? If the year was 10,000CE and he still had not appeared would xtians then give up? What about 100,000CE or 1,000,000CE???

[askegg]

The Bible is a collection of stories from unknown authors, copied initially by illiterate scribes who either made genuine errors, or included margin notes made by others, or rewrote the texts to "make it clearer", or changed the text to suit their theology, or tried to clarified obvious contradictions (and other changes) for at least 1500 years until the printing press was released. On top of this consider the various language translations involved, and different interpretations of the words used, and you have a decent picture of how the Bible was formed.

There is no point arguing over what the words MEAN if we have no idea what the words ARE, and since we do not have the original texts we can never really know.

Read Bart D. Ehramn's book "Misquoting Jesus".

[ugu80]

Ahhh. If they're scribes, I don't think they would be illiterate. Sorry to be pedantic.

[askegg]

Actually, in earlier times scribes were considered people who could simply copy the symbols. They may not have any idea what the symbols meant, let alone be able to read or interpret them.

There is also evidence to suggest that "literate" meant being able to sign your own name. This says nothing about being able to write letters, words, or construct sentences.

It only until later that "professional" scribes were employed, but these were not much better and committed literally thousands of errors (either deliberate or not) in the transcription of the texts.

All this aside, without empirical evidence of the stories contained within there is no reason to suspect the Bible is any more accurate than Homer's Odyssey; and no one in modern times believes Perseus cut the head of the Medusa.

[ugu80]

[quote=askegg;71570]Actually, in earlier times scribes were considered people who could simply copy the symbols. They may not have any idea what the symbols meant, let alone be able to read or interpret them.



Are you rationalising your statment. I can find no evidence of this. I can find only references to scribes, or scriveners, performing a function due to their literacy. I think you may be confused with an amanuensis.

[askegg]

From page 39 of Bart Ehramn's book:


The example that illustrates the problem of defining literacy in*
volves an Egyptian scribe called Petaus, from the village of Karanis in
upper Egypt. As often happened, Petaus was assigned to duties in a
different village, Ptolemais Hormou, where he was given oversight
of financial and agricultural affairs. In the year 184 C.E., Petaus had
to respond to some complaints about another village scribe from
Ptolemais Hormou, a man named Ischyrion, who had been assigned
somewhere else to undertake responsibilities as a scribe. The villagers
under Ischyrion's jurisdiction were upset that Ischyrion could not fulfill his obligations, because, they charged, he was "illiterate." In deal*
ing with the dispute Petaus argued that Ischyrion wasn't illiterate at
all, because he had actually signed his name to a range of official doc*
uments. In other words, for Petaus "literacy" meant simply the ability
to sign one's name.

Petaus himself had trouble doing much more than that. As it turns
out, we have a scrap of papyrus on which Petaus practiced his writing,
on which he wrote, twelve times over, the words (in Greek) that he
had to sign on official documents: "I Petaus, the village scribe, have
submitted this." What is odd is that he copied the words correctly the
first four times, but the fifth time he left off the first letter of the final
word, and for the remaining seven times he continued to leave off the
letter, indicating that he was not writing words that he knew how to
write but was merely copying the preceding line. He evidently couldn't
read even the simple words he was putting on the page. And he was
the official local scribe!"

There is much more too. All referenced to supporting evidence, if your so interested.

[askegg]

Sigh. Not ALL the scribes were illiterate - only some (most? all?) that transcribed the original texts. Later "professional" scribes were employed. To be sure they were better, but they added wholly different classes of errors to the transcription of the texts. Again, there is no point arguing over the meaning when we are not even sure about the words.

(wow - you have be be really clear what you say around here, people take you literally)

[Biblical Historian]

An interesting argument is by a leading papyrologist Roger Bagnall in his latest book Early Christian Books in Egypt. He argues that many of the dates of our surving papyri are too early. Rather than being dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries many should be dated later. He believes that the need/desire to date the biblical papyri early is due to the desire to fill the gaps. Because we know so little about these two centuries, many pushed for an early date to fill the void.

In relation to Petaus, he was an administrative scribe, overseeing the financial and agricultural administaration of a village. Interesting though, is that Petaus himself did not need to write as he himself had scribes and secretaries who prepared and copied documents. Paul had a secretary and there is other surviving literature that show the same. Not all called "scribes" were scribes as we would think. Throughout the Roman Empire varaious officials received the "scribe" title as it was prestigoius. This definitly was the case in Egypt. This stems back from Pharaonic times. There were various levels of literacy amongst scribes. Tasks of a scribe also determined literacy. For example was the scribe a literay scribe or an administrative scribe? Most were literate, but various degrees did exist. Most Christian scribes were from the more well-to-do class, most probably being pagan converts to Christianity and who knew how to read and write, but unlikely professional. Even Ehrman makes the case the Christian scribes were the literate from the congregation. Bur as he also points out, that does not mean they were all compotent.

[Loki]

Strikes me if lepers were suddenly well and the blind suddenly sighted and the dead suddenly not dead someone would have noticed.

This would have been noticed by the people running the town and would have been noted as rather a peculiar and interesting occurence. Instead the only record is in a book written at least third hand a long time after the fact, now thats peculiar.

"Spare a shekel for an old ex-leper?"

[Brad]

3. Jesus WAS dead, they claim there to be overwhelming evidence of this, and he DID come back to life after 2 days they claim.

I was challanged by one idiot at Rapture Ready (posting there is quite an experience) to explain the fact that Jesus was seen by more than 500 people after the Resurrection.

Now that's a lot of people. But the only fact that's available is the fact that Paul says this in Corinthians 1:15:

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep

There is no other reference to this anywhere. No corroborating evidence what-so-fucking-ever. These are the sort of facts that we're meant to accept at face value.

Watch a plane fly into a building in real time and people will say - nope, didn't happen. But a single snippet of scripture 2,000 years old, originally credited to someone who had never met the person being referred to, that has been transcribed, translated and copied umpteen times, is meant to be taken literally. As gospel, as it were.

[kanook]

I have a slight issue with Christians over the bible. Some have asked how I can doubt that God exists when the bible has such clear records of miracles. They say that these opostles lived with Jebus for years and they witnessedd many miraculous events.

1. The healing of the sick through mere touch is encountered many times within the bible as reported by the first-hand accounts of the opostles.

2. The walking on water and feeding on the masses and many ther things were witnessed first hand by the iopostles.

3. Jesus WAS dead, they claim there to be overwhelming evidence of this, and he DID come back to life after 2 days they claim.

4. Finally they asked me why the opostes would have followed Jebus had there been any dubt to his divinity, and Jebus himself in claiming to be God was either, lying, delusional of reallly was the son of God.

Please help as I am freaking out with this. My sanity is being tested here. :mad:

I will likely not be back on line for nearly 72 hours after this post.


As has been mentioned, nobody who wrote the letters and gospels or any part of the bible actually met a person called Jesus, none of them were around during this alleged period.

The parts of the bible were written and changed for specific reasons. The early church knew that by word of mouth and recorded actual true history that certain events happened in the past. Details like who was Pontius Pilate, they knew he was Equestrian procurator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_governor) of the Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire) province of Judaea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iudaea_Province) from AD 26–36, this they knew. The early Christians then simply slotted their made up story about a pretend God into their knowledge of the past, This worked perfectly for them at that time.

The fact that important parts of the bible dont even match, the Gospels contradict eachother about vital elements of their religion, And a detailed study of the time line of that period , with the knowledge we have of actual real people around during this time has shown that all the bibles details about this Jesus fellow dont match the true timeline. There is a reason why important days in the Christian Calender share these days with sects from the past, as they slotted their stories into the historical timeline they borrowed certain days, this would make it easier to convert others to the early christian church, they could still have a celebration on the same day they celebrated for their previous beliefs.

There is a reason why you dont see these supposed miracles happening today, that is because Miracles are a crock! The miracles in the bible where simply made up stories, no one witnessed these miracles, and as mentioned on this thread if a bloke had the ability to heal lepers, heal the blind and raise the dead, then I am pretty sure this would have been big news in the recorded history of the time, but there is no mention.

Any religious people who say ,because its in the bible its true, have no idea about the origins of the bible and its history. My own Brother In Law, who is a christian, once said he didnt understand why Non-Christians celebrated Christmas? This is the type of statement you can expect from Christians who have failed to learn true history instead or made up history. If he did his homework he would find out that Christians are the last people who should be celebrating Dec 25th , for it has nothing to do with Jesus, or the Christian Church.

[Fearless]

Excuse my ignorance here as I really don't know the origins of this damn book, but I have a question or two I really wouldn't mind clearing up as mother dearest is SO convinced that her bible is the true bible... of course :rolleyes:

As I have said many times she is SDA and follows the King James Bible (to the T). When she is describing its origins she talks of 4 blokes (Matthew, Luke, John and the other fellow) walking their separate ways and basically ended up writing separate stories. When compared, all four almost match entirely thus proving the words came from something divine. Is this sounding roughly correct according to religious belief?

When I asked how you could prove such things, she states that much of these scriptures do exist and are kept behind glass displays somewhere (she can't remember), the proof is all there apparently. This is what convinces her. Where would this be (Egypt maybe?)? Does anyone know what she might referring to?

I am trying to find a timeline or tree that shows the history if 'the bible' before and after the King James. My wife has asked me how, if she insists that hers is the right book do other religions justify their own book and the proof of origin? Or is is basically a matter of interpretation? If so, is there a definitive book from where these interpretations split?

I found this huge image which gives a pretty comprehensive view of history but It is a little alien to me. I can see points in time, but not the splits and books. So much, unless I just don't know how to read it.

http://www.addtoyourlearning.com/ppt/FP-BIBLE-HISTORY.jpg

Looking at some of the major religions today, can anyone give a brief or tell me where I might find something (a noob could understand) as to what bibles came from where? Do they all connect somewhere? (excluding the nuttier religions/cults/sects etc that base belief on a scifi novel for example)

A few people even from other religions have said the SDA's do follow the original book but I am not really sure what that means as I had seen a diagram once of at least 6 different sources of that book. It's all very confusing.

I even started looking at YouTube but the doco's are long and when I looked at the username of the title "Who wrote the bible - History channel" it was uploaded by user IslamStudios so I stopped watching as I can't trust a possibly biased production.

I know this makes me look terribly green but you sometimes need to ask.. many people who I have asked don't know either.

Cheers

[askegg]

Excuse my ignorance here as I really don't know the origins of this damn book, but I have a question or two I really wouldn't mind clearing up as mother dearest is SO convinced that her bible is the true bible... of course :rolleyes:

Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" or watch my video which tries to summarise the book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgsTRrrs47s

[Fearless]

Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" or watch my video which tries to summarise the book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgsTRrrs47s

Thank you, I will do... I'll laugh if I wrote all that and most of the answers you can reply to in just two lines ;)

Cheers

[askegg]

Well, that's only part 1. I hope to have part 2 up later tonight.

[Podo]

). When she is describing its origins she talks of 4 blokes (Matthew, Luke, John and the other fellow) walking their separate ways and basically ended up writing separate stories. When compared, all four almost match entirely thus proving the words came from something divine. Is this sounding roughly correct according to religious belief?



Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are said to be the olny books in the bible written by followers of jesus during his lifetime. There is howerver a general feeling that only one of them actually was (if any) and the rest where copies / translations / updates / retellings done years afterwards.

The crucal point is, if these 4 where supposedly there with jesus, why is it 3 of the 4 cant agree on the last words of jesus, or the details of the resurection.. both pretty important points in his life.

I think its like most biblical stories,, they are presented as "the truth of jesus" but when researched are usually the combination of a number of stories that dont agree. Such as the star of bethlehem and the birth. Only two stories discuss this, and they disagree with each other.

Another point is. The King James version.. Doesnt the name give a hint ? Why did a king need his own version ?

[Fearless]

Another point is. The King James version.. Doesnt the name give a hint ? Why did a king need his own version ?

To suit his own lifestyle? His own desires? His own infidelities? Wouldn't be the first King to do so.

Thanks for that reply :)

askegg, I will be watching that vid again and will await the next installment (you have been busy!) good quality vid by the way. (What apps do you use out of interest?)

[Podo]

To suit his own lifestyle? His own desires? His own infidelities? Wouldn't be the first King to do so.

Thanks for that reply :)



Exactly, so what does that say about the credibility of said book ??

Not much Im afraid

[askegg]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are said to be the olny books in the bible written by followers of jesus during his lifetime.

Not quite. I think the earliest record is 60 years after the death of Jesus. Given the very low life expectancy at the time (probably around 30), this is not a single generation either.

[askegg]

... good quality vid by the way. (What apps do you use out of interest?)

Thank you :)

I use Final Cut Pro by Apple.

[Podo]

Not quite. I think the earliest record is 60 years after the death of Jesus. Given the very low life expectancy at the time (probably around 30), this is not a single generation either.

Correct, thats why my next sentence said ;

There is howerver a general feeling that only one of them actually was (if any) and the rest where copies / translations / updates / retellings done years afterwards.

I had a feeling nothing from teh bible was writen during his supposed lifetime, but I wasnt completly sure

[robertkd]

Oh fearless isn't the proof in the teachings of the mormons that proof beyond question was reviled and then bloody well lost damn it,... Joseph Smith was so careless with that new found scripture in gold lint :rolleyes: like most other subscribers the vagueness of history is a luxury to the lack of truth or evidence :cool:

Robert