Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How accurate is the bible?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 31 of 62 (121799)
07-04-2004 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
07-04-2004 7:00 AM


More circular reasoning.
Adam & Eve, Noah - mythical? The only reason there is no outside record of this is because it was so long ago. Before the flood!. Luckily God wrote down the beginning of the human race in Genesis. This goes also for Noah who played a huge part in the repopulation of mankind after the flood.
Moses - mythical?. No. He did pass down the codified set of laws, on Mt Sinai to the nation of Israel. Another man in the books of history.
Abraham - mythical?. The forefather of both the Jews and the Arabs, are you sure?. Seems like a denial of history in order to not believe in the Bible.
Joshua - The successor of Moses. The New Testament mentions his leading the Israelites into the promised land (Acts 7:45). Acts of course being the history of the early church.
David - David was the second and greatest king of Israel (1010-970BC). Whose dynasty ruled over Judah for over four hundred years.
Solomon - Solomon was the third and last king of united Israel, and reigned for 40years (970-930BC). He wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon, Psalms 72 & 127 and over one thousand songs. Very much a man of history.
You do realise that the only evidence that you have that any of these people actually lived is in the Bible? You constantly use the Bible to prove the Bible, this is circular reasoning.
You should be asking yourself why there is no evidence outside of the Bible that any of these people existed.
Oh, and 24 000 copies of a fairytale still makes it a fairytale.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 7:00 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 7:19 AM Brian has replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 62 (121802)
07-04-2004 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Brian
07-04-2004 7:06 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
hahaha. Well if thats your attitude of history then you will never know what happened. The Bible IS that history of the no-extra biblical accounts. Barely anything else surived due to the Bible being the only one cherished and accepted widely the most. Why do you think that is?. Because it was some stories some guy wrote?. No definately not. Because they were inspired. And without error. Circular reasoning???. So the manuscripts of other ancient texts arent circular? Why because its some guy not a religion?. You people are mighty confused if you believe the Bible is no historically accurate. If you think its because there is no other source of it happening then you just answered your own question. Gods word is the only source of all of history right from the beginning. And no archaeological discovery has ever disproved the Bible as being historical. And frequently approved it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 07-04-2004 7:06 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Kapyong, posted 07-04-2004 8:11 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 36 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2004 8:28 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 40 by Brian, posted 07-05-2004 4:43 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 33 of 62 (121806)
07-04-2004 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
07-04-2004 7:00 AM


Almeyda argues Little Red Book true ! ;-)
Greetings almeyda,
I see Brian has discussed the OT.
I see you didn't even pretend to have any evidence for the OT myths, you just repeated your myths as if that made them true.
"There are more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the NT. Adding over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions we have around 24,000 copies of portions of the NT in existence. "
Firstly - so what?
We have MILLIONS of copies of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, dating the very YEAR he wrote it - according to your argument, that must make it one of the most true books ever.
Sorry,
the NUMBER of copies of a book says NOTHING about is accuracy, or veracity, at all.
Why do you think it does?
Secondly,
if you are trying to claim the NT is transmitted accurately from the days of Jesus, that too is false -
How many MSS from 1st century? None.
How many MSS from 2nd century? One fragment of a few verses.
How many MSS from 3rd century? A few, only 2 with more than a chapter.
Notably, every single MSS varies from all others (except tiny scraps.)
The NT is neither true, nor textually reliable.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 7:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 34 of 62 (121809)
07-04-2004 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by almeyda
07-04-2004 7:19 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
Greetings all,
"hahaha. Well if thats your attitude of history then you will never know what happened. "
Well,
Brian's attitude seems to involve studying the evidence and forming the best conclusion there-from.
Your attitude seems to mean believing what an old book of tales says, ignoring contrary evidence.
"The Bible IS that history of the no-extra biblical accounts. "
Hmm.. its not clear if you understand the issue.
Early Biblical events are NOT found in external records, which DO exist.
What is YOUR explanation for that?
"Barely anything else surived due to the Bible being the only one cherished and accepted widely the most"
Nonsense.
There is a great deal of WRITTEN HISTORICAL evidence, even from 2nd millenium BC (e.g. the Amarna letters.)
This historical evidence does NOT confirm the Bible stories, and is often in direct contadiction (along with the archeological evidence.)
"Why do you think that is?. Because it was some stories some guy wrote?. No definately not. Because they were inspired. And without error."
Hmm..
So, your argument for the Bible being true is to claim "the Bible is inspired and without error".
But you don't seem to realise this is circular reasoning?
Bizarre.
"You people are mighty confused if you believe the Bible is no historically accurate."
You are confused.
You have BELIEF in the Bible.
We form a view based on the historical evidence.
The historical evidence shows that the Bible is largely myth, not history.
"Gods word is the only source of all of history right from the beginning."
I see.
You believe there are no historians? History somehow magically comes from God straight into our history books?
"And no archaeological discovery has ever disproved the Bible as being historical. And frequently approved it. "
Rubbish.
The flood is proven to be not historical.
The tower of Babel is proven to be not historical.
The Exodus is proven to be not historical.
The stories of Moses are proven to be not historical.
The stories of Joshua are proven to be not historical.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 7:19 AM almeyda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 35 of 62 (121811)
07-04-2004 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
07-04-2004 7:00 AM


Adam & Eve, Noah - mythical? The only reason there is no outside record of this is because it was so long ago. Before the flood!. Luckily God wrote down the beginning of the human race in Genesis.
now there's an educated opinion. your faith in a book known to be historically inaccurate is hardly a representation of it's historical accuracy. it's nice that you believe it, but the question is: did it happen? and did the people who wrote it even believe it happened? or is it abstract allegory? (and god didn't write the bible)
This goes also for Noah who played a huge part in the repopulation of mankind after the flood.
the epic of gilgamesh, a babylonian epic poem, predates genesis by about a thousand years and contains a flood story much like noah's. the hebrews lived in babylon around the earliest dates we have for genesis. 2+2=?
Abraham - mythical?. The forefather of both the Jews and the Arabs, are you sure?. Seems like a denial of history in order to not believe in the Bible.
but the question is if there is any record of him?
Joshua - The successor of Moses. The New Testament mentions his leading the Israelites into the promised land (Acts 7:45). Acts of course being the history of the early church.
uhh, the book of joshua would be better evidence of his existance than something written at least a thousand years after his death.
David - David was the second and greatest king of Israel (1010-970BC). Whose dynasty ruled over Judah for over four hundred years.
ding ding! the only one we have ANY independ evidence of! and it's rather minimal, just a vague reference on a stone to someone being of the family of david, dating around the time he was said to rule israel.
Solomon - Solomon was the third and last king of united Israel, and reigned for 40years (970-930BC). He wrote Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Solomon, Psalms 72 & 127 and over one thousand songs. Very much a man of history.
attributed authorship does not equate to existance. besides, i thought god wrote the bible? or is that just genesis?
Iliad by Homer is second with just 643 manuscripts that still survive. To deny the historicity of the NT is to throw away all classical antiquity as no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically.
no one is claiming that achilles really existed. in fact, for years, no one even claimed that the trojan war really happened, or that TROY even existed. until they found it, destroyed by war. archaeological evidence suggests that it didn't happen the same way as homer recorded, and that it was not one long war of ten years that lead to its downfall, but a bunch of little ones that eventually wore away enough defenses.
the situation is similar with the bible. places and trace evidence has been found, but suggest things happened a little differently. sometimes, a lot differently. however, there is a lot more evidence for the trojan wars than say, the hebrew exodus.
if the bible is a literal account, well, the god had another, achilles, who was impervious to attack and could not be killed, except with an arrow to the heel.
The number of manuscripts, of early translations, and of quotations from it from the oldest writers of the church is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.
this is a mistaken viewm, common to christians. the new testament is not ONE book, but about 5 (luke and acts were probably one book), and a collection of letters that make no historical claims. luke states in the opening that it is an attempt to reconcile the many gospels floating around.
we've found probably about three times the number of gospel accounts contained in the nt, some of them fragments. the mroe interesting ones, you may have heard of: thomas and magdalene. a staggering realization will come to you if you read them carefully. none of the gospels line up perfectly. many are copied off the same source. some, are just really, really out there. with good reading skills and a little bit of thought, it's quite obvious the gospels were written as propaganda devices, not historical records. i mean, just read them, and think about it for a second.
The Bible contains history like no other. From the beginning of the humanrace all the way to Jesus and early church history.
flavius josephus is far more reputable. well, except for the parts forged by christians. his work is what a history should look like. the bible looks like a tradition, not a factual account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 7:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 36 of 62 (121813)
07-04-2004 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by almeyda
07-04-2004 7:19 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
So the manuscripts of other ancient texts arent circular? Why because its some guy not a religion?.
if "some guy" has multiple confriming outside texts, no, it's not circular at all. and "outside" means they recorded it independently, not copied the source in question.
no one is claiming the epic of gilgamesh or the iliad happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 7:19 AM almeyda has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 37 of 62 (121824)
07-04-2004 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by almeyda
07-04-2004 7:00 AM


The Bible contains history like no other. From the beginning of the humanrace all the way to Jesus and early church history.
For is it not written in the Book of Jasher?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 7:00 AM almeyda has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 62 (121830)
07-04-2004 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by arachnophilia
07-04-2004 2:47 AM


Briefly, a good rule of thumb is the later chronologically the less unreliable - but of course that is only a starting point. Everything before Judges is close to worthless as a reliable historical source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2004 2:47 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by arachnophilia, posted 07-04-2004 7:51 PM PaulK has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 62 (121915)
07-04-2004 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
07-04-2004 11:58 AM


Briefly, a good rule of thumb is the later chronologically the less unreliable
excluding the new testament.
Everything before Judges is close to worthless as a reliable historical source.
i kind of figured the line would be around there somewhere. i used to draw it between genesis and exodus, but after reading some on the matter...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2004 11:58 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 40 of 62 (122031)
07-05-2004 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by almeyda
07-04-2004 7:19 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
hahaha. Well if thats your attitude of history then you will never know what happened.
In historical research no historian will ever claim that we know for certain that anything happened, that isn’t how ‘history’ works. Anyway, to take one source as being completely accurate and not using anything at all to support that one source wouldn’t pass a primary school class test. The only people who think that the Bible is one hundred percent accurate, and who use the Bible to ‘prove’ the Bible, are 5 year old children and people who have newly converted to Christianity as the result of some kind of personal experience. I am not sure which one you are, for all I know you may be both.
The Bible IS that history of the no-extra biblical accounts.
What on earth are you on about here?
Barely anything else surived due to the Bible being the only one cherished and accepted widely the most.
More complete ignorance. Are you saying that the tens of thousands of Egyptian texts that are in museums and universities don’t exist, or the Ebla tablets, the Alalakh tablets, the Nuzi tablets, the Amarna letters, or the Vedas, or the tripitaka? All these texts are much older than the Bible, which is relatively young if we include the New Testament.
Why do you think that is?.
Why do you think it is, because you are probably the only person on the planet that believes this. Maybe you should actually try reading a history book sometime, then compare it to the some Bible passages, say Joshua 1-12 and Judges chapter one, then note the differences.
Because it was some stories some guy wrote?.
Not ‘some guy’ but schools of ‘guys’. You don’t think that the authors were unaware of each others work do you, or that certain authors, such as the chronicler, didn’t simply copy and/or rework extant texts do you?
No definately not. Because they were inspired. And without error. Circular reasoning???.
If you are using the Bible as an historical source then the Bible has a very poor track record. From Genesis to Judges almost everything in it has either been disproved or no reasonable evidence has been presented that would make us consider that there is a possibility that these events happened.
So the manuscripts of other ancient texts arent circular?
The manuscripts aren’t circular, the Bible isn’t circular, it is the fruitloops who employ circular reasoning. If we applied your approach to the Bible to every book of faith there is then they would all be true!
You people are mighty confused if you believe the Bible is no historically accurate.
Some parts of it could be called accurate, some parts have external evidence to support them. However, the primary history books of the Bible have been proven to be a collection of folk tales, ancient myths and outright propaganda. One of my favourite sayings is that ‘anyone who think that the Bible is 100% accurate simply hasn’t studied the Bible’.
If you think its because there is no other source of it happening then you just answered your own question.
A large amount of the events mentioned in the Bible, if true, would HAVE to leave at least a ‘fingerprint’ in the archaeological record, most of the epic events are invisible. When a source is as consistently inaccurate as the Bible has been shown to be then we need to start rethinking the way in which we read it. That 70 people can become 2 and a half million in 430 years, as the Bible claims, is impossible, so we need to reinterpret what the text in the Bible is actually saying. The same goes for the majority of the primary history books of the Bible.
Gods word is the only source of all of history right from the beginning.
God’s word is a fairly young ‘history’ book, there are hundreds of thousands of older texts. If you think that the Bible is the oldest book that attempts to outline how the universe and life originated then you are in severe denial, or severe ignorance.
And no archaeological discovery has ever disproved the Bible as being historical.
LOL, this fantasy was abandoned about 70 years ago. For example, why were Jericho and Ai uninhabited when the Bible claims Joshua was conquering them, how could the Israelites encounter the Edomites and the Moabites on the Exodus if there were no Edomites and Moabites in that area for at least 150 years after the Bible’s dating, why s there no evidence of a settlement at Kadesh-barnea before the 11th century BCE, why does the archaeological evidence form Palestine contradict the conquest narratives?
And frequently approved it.
Such as?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by almeyda, posted 07-04-2004 7:19 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 07-12-2004 3:39 AM Brian has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 41 of 62 (123884)
07-12-2004 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Brian
07-05-2004 4:43 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
I Have heard both sides of this discussion/debate on biblical accuracy, and while I do respect the overall sanity and credentials of guys like Brian, from what I know of him that is, I find it interesting how casually you assert what you do as known facts. Allow me to quote what others (not 5 year olds or new believers, by the way) and their comments FOR THE RECORD:
Q: Why do you trust the Old Testament?
A: Both scripture and archaeology indicate there are no significant changes in our copies today for at least five reasons:
God promised to preserve His word in Isaiah 55:10-11; 59:21; 1 Peter 1:24-25, Matthew 24:35. We can trust God.
Jesus and the New Testament confirmed the Old Testament scriptures in Matthew 19:4; 22:32,37; 39; 23:35; Mark 10:3-6; Luke 2:23-24; 4:4; 11:51; 20:37; 24:27,44
Archaeological evidence: In the Septuagint, the Torah was translated into Greek around 400 B.C. The Dead Sea Scrolls were from about 250 B.C. to after the time of Christ, and we can compare them with our Bibles today. Aramaic Targums are translations made around the time of Jesus. The Dead Sea Scrolls are about 95,000 fragments from 867 manuscripts of the Old Testament and other writings. About 1/3 of the Dead Sea scrolls are manuscripts of the Old Testament according to The NIV Study Bible p.1432. Archaeology shows the Bible Jesus knew was preserved. The Nash Papyrus, dated 150 B.C., contains the Ten Commandments combined from Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-6:4f. In it the sixth and seventh commandments are reverses according to The Journey from Texts to Translations p.188.
At wadi Muraba'at/Murabba’at a Hebrew scroll (Mur.88) of ten of the twelve Minor Prophets is from c. 132 A.D. Small fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Isaiah were found in cave 2. See The Journey from Texts to Translations p.188-189 also says that all Muraba’at scrolls are virtually identical to the Massoretic text.
Early church writers, as early as 97/98 A.D., extensively referred to the Old Testament.
Jewish scribes, even though hostile to Christianity, preserved the same Old Testament found in every Protestant Bible today.
Was this guy wrong in his data?
NEXT:
Here's Menahem Mansoor, a professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He founded the Department of Hebrew and Semitic studies there and the Madison Biblical Archaeology Society. He says, "Biblical archaeology's greatest significance is that it has corroborated many historical records in the Bible. Biblical archaeology has failed to deter people who seek to validate religious concepts by archaeological finds. These people should not confuse fact with faith, history with tradition, or science with religion."
Another contributor makes a similar statement. His name is Israel Finkelstein, the co-director of excavations at Tel Megiddo and Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. He says, "The most obvious failure of archaeology has been the abuse of 'the old biblical archaeology' by semi-amateur archaeologists. I refer to the romantic days when a special breed of archaeologists roamed the Middle East with a spade in one hand and the Scriptures in the other. These were the times of desperate attempts to prove that the Bible was correct."
Another makes a similar statement. He talks about the problems of making religious assumptions based on the historical evidence of the Scriptures. But he also makes this interesting comment: "A fundamental question asked all over the world during the last few centuries is, Is the Bible true? Do the narratives related in it represent real events and are the figures mentioned there real people who lived and acted as the Biblical text tells us they did? In general, the evidence of material culture fits the Biblical account beginning with the period of the settlement of the tribes of Israel in the land of Canaan and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel. Hence, archaeological data are consistent with the view that at least this part of the Biblical account is, in general, true and historically based." This from David Ussishkin. He is the Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University.
Now, isn't this rather odd? These eminent scholars are saying, first of all, that archaeological evidence has demonstrated that the historical record of the Bible is reliable, by and large. But then they add a disclaimer. They warn us not draw religious conclusions from the fact that the Bible is historically accurate. Why not? This would be confusing history with religion. But isn't this precisely the point of the biblical narrative, that its religious claims are rooted in history?
Finally, read this article:
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 07-12-2004 02:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Brian, posted 07-05-2004 4:43 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2004 4:47 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 43 by arachnophilia, posted 07-12-2004 7:50 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-12-2004 10:46 AM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 62 (123889)
07-12-2004 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
07-12-2004 3:39 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
To deal with the first quote.
1) The scriptural quotations are not relevant to the archaeological findings.
(If they even apply - most of the Bible is NOT the Word of God in any literal sense).
2) He does not mention the variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text - or the significant varaiations found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The 400 BC date is wrong for the Septuagint - translation started in the early 3rd Century BC with the Torah with other books translated later, on a piecemeal basis. Early Christians used the Spetuagint rather than the Hebrew.
3) None of this says anythign about the transmission of the text prior to 300 BC.
To deal with the second source which you give no reference for, it seems that you have badly misunderstood it.
1) Mansur's quote for instance is taken out of context - presumably from here:
http://danenet.wicip.org/mbas/mena.html
What he means about confusing fact with faith is jumping to conclusions - associating archaeological finds with the Bible without adequate evidence. Mansur died in 2001
2) The quote from Finkelstein contains no validation at all - speaking of "...desperate attempts to prove that the Bible was correct". I note also that if this article is your source Page not found · Christianity Without the Religion/Plain Truth Ministries then you have further misrepresented Finkelstein by failing to recognise that "of archaeology" is not part of the original quote. If they think that Finkelstein believes that the Bible is largely accurate they are not familiar with his work (I suggest reading _The Bible Unearthed_ written by Finkelstein with Neil Asher Silberman).
3) The third is also largely critical - about the only thing he says is validated by archaeology is that there was a kingdom of Israel.
In short, with the possible exception of Mansur, they are NOT saying that the Bible is largely accurate - if anything the opposite. It is accurate only in the broad outline with many inaccuracies.
As for the final source I think it unlikely that Glueck has anything to say on the developments of the last thirty years. As the article says "Dr. Glueck died at age 70 in February 1971..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 07-12-2004 3:39 AM Phat has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 43 of 62 (123900)
07-12-2004 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
07-12-2004 3:39 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
In the Septuagint, the Torah was translated into Greek around 400 B.C. The Dead Sea Scrolls were from about 250 B.C. to after the time of Christ, and we can compare them with our Bibles today.
yeah, i'm doing that, and i'm missing at least a dozen whole books.
for instance, where'd the book of enoch go?
the documents that match biblical documents match well, but there are little changes here and there. but this is no suprise. no one in the archaeological world was at all impressed that the essenes could copy documents with reasonable precision. they were impressed with the other things they found, that didn't seem to make the cut for the bible.
Aramaic Targums are translations made around the time of Jesus
a good deal before, actually. and they vary a lot. some, uhh, even have a different name for god.
Archaeology shows the Bible Jesus knew was preserved.
this is heavily debatable. there are elements of jesus's teachings that seem drawn from earlier, non-biblical texts. depending on which jesus you believe in. the gnostic jesus's bible certainly wasn't preserved at all.
"Biblical archaeology's greatest significance is that it has corroborated many historical records in the Bible. Biblical archaeology has failed to deter people who seek to validate religious concepts by archaeological finds. These people should not confuse fact with faith, history with tradition, or science with religion."
not sure exactly what he's saying, but you shouldn't confuse faith with history. many events can't be corroborated at all -- like the exodus -- and the ones that can seem really, really different in reality. (sodom and gamorah destroyed by war).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 07-12-2004 3:39 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 62 (123920)
07-12-2004 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
07-12-2004 3:39 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
Book of Enoch.
Gospel of Peter. (You'd think his would get included since he is the "Rock on which the Church is founded")
Gospel of James.
Epistle of Barnabas.
The Story of Adam and Eve.
Where are these in the modern Bible? Why are they included in some Bibles but not in others?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 07-12-2004 3:39 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by arachnophilia, posted 07-12-2004 11:07 AM jar has replied
 Message 58 by PecosGeorge, posted 07-17-2004 4:02 PM jar has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 45 of 62 (123923)
07-12-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
07-12-2004 10:46 AM


Re: More circular reasoning.
here's a good chunk of various apocryphal literature: The Wesley Center Online: 404 Page Not Found
the site has breif summaries, and either links to or text of almost all of the extra-biblical goodies.
Gospel of Peter. (You'd think his would get included since he is the "Rock on which the Church is founded")
well, it's not like peter wrote it or anything. but it was attributed to him for a reason, and since his successor was stoned to death, ending the christian church in jerusalem, there's probably a good explaination of why this book didn't make it. they, uhh, just didn't fit with the majority view. so they were dubbed heretical, and left out.
The Story of Adam and Eve.
this one's a neat one. especially since the devil tricking eve is a recurrent theme. there's also the apocalypse of adam, the apocalypse of moses, jubilees, and a few other books that cover post-fall adam.
Book of Enoch.
enoch actually appears to be the origin of the fallen angel stories. it talks about the sons of god (angels) in genesis 6, and tell how they got a bunch of human females pregnant, and they gave birth to like 200 giants to started to devastate the earth. azazel ("the scapegoat") teaches men to wage war. since earth kind of got out of hand, god floods the earth, and casts azazel and co into a pit to be trapped until the end of the world (could be the beast in revelation, at least symbolically).
i wonder why the fundamentalists kind of downplay the "giants running rampant" bit of the flood story? anyhow, for what i've heard, the book sounds like it fits very well into the bible.
anyhow, i think someone should start an apocrypha and pseudepigrapha thread. this stuff can be interesting.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-12-2004 10:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-12-2004 10:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 07-12-2004 11:22 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024