Determining a book's truth.

Looking at your list, there are some things in there that can be tested, others that cannot. First, there is no evidence that God wrote the Bible and lots of evidence that God did not write it. Well some plagues we can know happened, there is evidence from many, many sources that confirm them. But if you mean things like the Exodus Story, there is tons of evidence that none of that happened as described in the Bible. Not really. It doesn't much matter if Jesus actually existed or not, the message can still be tested by reason and reality to see if it is valid.But remember, even if someday we came upon positive evidence that Jesus existed, say we find all the expense reports including a purchase of five loaves and two fishes and another entry for seven loaves and an a few little fishes, that still says nothing about Jesus divinity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry, no insinuations. We tend to get a spectrum of believers here who range from complete inerrancy for the Bible, through some errata but the rest is true, to a few who recognise the extent of contradictions, scribal error, but still find the book of value. While most have their particular dogma down pat, can quote chapter and verse to reinforce their points, they still tend to gloss over the more outrageous claims that are evident to readers who approach the Bible with a more detached outlook. IOW, they don`t read the Bible. Apologetics has a long and convoluted history. If one interpretation gets a tad jaded, they will deliver another. Or found a branch church. One would think an omnipotent God would be a little clearer with dictation.

Ps148 wrote: I’m not sure if the author means a general belief that people can be resurrected, or a belief that there will be a single time when all the dead are apocalyptically resurrected. I suspected the latter, but it’s just a minor quibble anyway. Do you otherwise agree that scholars have looked at this extensively, and that their consensus is that Daniel was NOT written when the author of Daniel claims it was? I’m not sure where this Gospel thing came from. I’m guessing it is in response the statement I made that the gospels disagree, and you are saying that this is the purpose for having four of them. The description you gave doesn’t really fit with the gospels we have. The synoptics are very similar, John is very different. Revelation was written well before the gospel canon was settled on, and your symbolism sounds pretty post- hoc (in the way Jar mentioned, not the way I mentioned).The symbolism you mentioned was invented by the early Catholic church, around the time that Irenaeus used the pagan idea of four principle directions to defend the idea of four gospels, and hence, is another example of putting in new things that aren’t in the Bible. Discussing the Gospels, their biases, their history, and the canon of four gospels is huge topic that deserves another thread. We may choose to do that sometime, but for now, we are discussing errors or discrepancies in the Bible, since you stated that there were exactly zero of them. We need to first finish discussing the ones from my earlier post (starting with this 3 or 6 cock crow twice one), then cover the others, then perhaps some more if we still need more, and only then go on to other topics like Pagan influences in the Gospel canon, or Catholic Tradition, or some such.OK, back to the cock crow thing. Now that I have a second, we can look again at what the Bible actually says.Mark 14 says: OK, that seems pretty clear - Jesus says before the cock crows twice, not before the cock crows once. In case there is any doubt, we can look at what is said to happen to fulfill the prophecy: Now, compare John, chap.s 13 &18: Jesus explicitly says that there must be three denials before the first cock crow. As before, in case there is any doubt about the prophecy, here is what John has written later to fulfill it: *Sigh* I hope it’s clear now why I say that inerrantists can only maintain their position by ignoring or changing what the Bible says. It’s not like this is the only example, we have plenty more to go through, both ones I've mentioned and more.Ps148, we discussed the 10 commandments thing - do we agree there that there is a contradiction, such that the Bible cannot be literally true?In addition to that, you have specified that you mean only the KJV. Being that other translations delete whole verses, add text, and change the meaning in places, I assume you also mean that only the KJV is inerrant, since making the KJV inerrant makes the others errant. But that’s probably a moot point, since we’ve found places in the KJV that appear to be errant - which only means that like Jar, a Christian must take the position of using reason and other information to learn God’s truths from the Bible. As before, this view, combined with a literalist approach, is saying that the holy spirit is incompetent. They don’t just “write about different aspects”, they often contradict each other. There are tons of other examples too, such as “which day did Jesus die?”, or “when was the fig tree cursed?”, or “when did Jesus clear the temple?”, or “how did Judas die?” and on and on. Remembering that these stories come to us through fallible humans allows one to maintain a good and holy view of the holy spirit, instead of blaming the holy spirit for the many problems that are unavoidable in the Bible. Maybe we should remember Mt 12:32.Well all for now. Have a fun day-EquinoxP. S. Is the tyre discussion still going? If it is, and is on another thread, then which thread is that? It seems to have been pretty well summarized as a failed prophecy, but if there is new information and it's being discussed, I don't know where that is. Thanks. Edited by Equinox, : typoEdited by Equinox, : added tyre thread request.

Just as an aside, Mark's "twice" is a nice little dramatic touch.Peter denies Jesus once and the cock crows. He has a warning, a second chance to do right. (In the movie, there would be a close-up of Peter hearing the cock crow and not putting two and two together - good acting required there.)Then he denies Jesus two more times and the cock crows again. This time he twigs.Drama, not history.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think there is probably a deeper meaning in why the cock crows twice in Mark, but at the moment I'm not sure what it is. Back to this in one second.Translationwise, I think the typical Bible, as in not a translation that is summaries of what people think it says (the Message etc), like the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NIV, ASV, CSV, and such, that is what I am going off of.Something curious to consider as well about translating things:
Some languages cannot express certain things in words. The Inuit tongue (Eskimos) only have two words for plants: they mean big vegetation, and small vegetation, as in trees and grass, while they have over 30 words for snow which can describe safe to walk on snow, ice, hard snow, etc.
The point of this seemingly random tangent is that somethings will be lost in translation. So we may miss some meanings of things. Such as the word for wife, is something to the extent of Kallah (apologies if I misspelt), and it is taken from the root meaning to make perfect. So when a man (like Adam) finds a wife, it completes the two:
Pro 18:22 He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD.To quickly summarize, the Bibles that include the normal 66 books.
But back on track: All scholars do not agree on things, I'm still looking into this, but according to Josephus, Alexander the Great was shown a prophecy about him when he came through, it was either Daniel, or Zechariah. So here would be evidence that it was written during his time at least. And if that is the case, it still predicted the division between his four generals.As for the Gospels, they focus on different aspects, and each writer attempted to do a certain thing. Matthew, I'm not sure, he emphasized Jesus' position as King, so he likely included more about his miracles and such, not completely sure though.
Mark is like the cliff notes gospel as it is a lot shorter, and it focuses on Jesus as he was a servant (washing disciples feet, healing the sick, showing him as being self-sacrificial etc).
Luke goes into the most historical detail, or at least detail in general.
John focuses on Jesus as the Son of God. And was written with a different purpose as it was depicting him differently. Differences include the only 8 signs, the few parables, and such.AS for the explanation of it, I can speculate, which if you wish I'll do, but for now I'll just say that the writers likely looked at it and saw the importance was Peter's denial. And so they neglected details such as the numbers. I'll let you know if I think of a more concrete answer.

quote:

---

I'm still looking into this, but according to Josephus, Alexander the Great was shown a prophecy about him when he came through, it was either Daniel, or Zechariah. So here would be evidence that it was written during his time at least. And if that is the case, it still predicted the division between his four generals.

---

Josephus was writing more than 400 years after the events. We can't even assume that the story is true, let alone that it refers to a specific book. It certainly isn't evidence that the Book of Daniel was written at that time. And any claim that the Book of Daniel predicted an event requires that the book was written before that event. There's stronh evidence that Daniel wasn't written until long after Alexander's Empire was divided.I've started a new topic on whether the Book of Daniel centres on the Greek or Roman Empires. I hope you'll be there to back up your claim that Daniel focusses on Rome.

My point with that statement was that a well known and respected historian supported the book of Daniel as being written when it was.

Josephus is well known but mainly respected for his work on more recent events and even then his work has to be carefully checked for bias. And yes, he was very pro-Jewish (being a Jew himself). His story is not nearly trustworthy enough to overthrow the weight of evidence that the Book of Daniel was written much later.

Ps148 wrote: OK, so now do we take each clear contradiction and say there must be some deeper meaning or symbolism? Think if I treated other texts this way. I could abolish the right to free speech, and say that the 1st amendment “must have some deeper meaning”, and so we can’t just read the words for what they say. Preposterous, you say? Yes. I agree.If the examples I’ve given are not clear contradictions, then what would qualify as a clear contradiction? Could not any contradiction simply be ignored by saying that there must be some deeper meaning? Similarly, think of applying this to the Qu’ran or some similar text from another religion. You could easily take any problem in those books (such as the line that says to fight non-Muslims), and use some similar deeper meaning argument to say that it is a good and harmless line, or even to find fulfilled prophecies in other passages. I don’t mean to make you feel bad, but it at least looks like you are playing favorites.Besides, doesn’t your “hidden meaning” explanation cause a worse problem? If the gospel is designed and given by the all perfect holy spirit, then why would a loving holy spirit make some of it’s meaning hidden from everyone, including Christians - especially if this meaning is the “good news which brings eternal life”? Doesn’t an apparently obvious problem like this make it likely that a person will fall away from Christianity, and thus be condemned to burn forever? Does that mean the Holy spirit did this intentionally to make some people fall away and be burned in Hell? Does that sound like a loving and competent Holy Spirit? Sure. That makes the inerrantist position even less rational, since it means that the Bible cannot be taken as the word of God unless you learn the original languages and then read it that way (like Muslims say about the Qu’ran). Even then, you’d be out of luck, since our original manuscripts of the Bible all differ about which words are used in the original languages. We have over 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and none of them agree with each other except for the tiniest fragments. Which one is right? No one knows. Um, that statement shows that you haven’t really looked into this much. Just looking at your list, the NIV has more text removed from it compared to the KJV as the entire books of 1st and 2nd peter, including some that change the meaning of the text. You know, if I considered any book the actual word of God, I’d be concerned if there were even jot or tittle changes to it - another reason why it seems that most Christians don’t seem to act as if they really believe the Bible is the word of God. Whaaaa? The “normal 66 books”? Some bibles have 66 books, others don’t. The majority of Christians the world over use Bibles that have 73 books, and other Bibles have more or less than this. It only seems “normal” to have 66 books because of who has taught you (or, more accurately, what they haven’t told you), and because of where you have grown up. It is true that most protestant bibles have 66 books, but calling that “normal” says something in itself. Please do find the actual words of Josephus (his works are online in full), because that sounds like it might be another cute Christian story. But if not, that really wouldn’t say much, since Josephus wasn’t born until 37 CE, and would be getting this story from a legend. Josephus is a good source for 1st century things, but as PaulK pointed out, but that doesn’t make the date of writing for Daniel any earlier - besides, are you saying that you know something that current scholars have missed? You’ve repeated this standard apologetic line before, and there doesn’t seem to be much to it, other glossing over the irreconcilable differences in the gospels. The writers of the 4 gospels in the Bible (as well as the writers of the other 20 or so gospels in existence) all had different biases because they were preaching different religions. The Gnostics had John’s gospel, and the Ebionite Christians had Matthew’s gospel. If you don’t know about the early Christianities, you’ll miss this information and think that the Gospels say the same thing. Of course, a pastor won’t tell you about the early Christianities, because it won’t help getting tithe’s out of you if you realize that Christianity evolved over time just as any other social institution.Mark’s gospel mainly portrays Jesus as the hidden messiah, since he wrote it early enough that no one had heard of Jesus, and he had to explain that fact.Mt wrote about a strong Jewish link (Jesus = Moses), because he’s from a group of Christians with a strong Jewish emphasis.Lk wrote to convince people that Jesus wasn’t just jewish, but for everyone, because whoevery wrote Luke was probably a Pauline Christian.John wrote to show (not just emphasize) that Jesus was divine, consistent with Gnostic Christians. Btw, it’s John, not Mark, who has Jesus washing the disciples feet. And there are exactly zero, not just “few” parables in John (despite the fact that Mark says that parables are ONLY way Jesus taught the people). Again, it don’t see any way the reconcile this statement with your idea that the Bible is inerrant and from the Holy Spirit. If it is ultimately authored by the Holy spirit, then are you saying the HS is neglectful? On the other hand, if the bible is ultimately authored by humans (and not the HS), then why insist that it’s inerrant - especially when there is such overwhelming evidence that it isn’t perfect? If it is motivated by the holy spirit, but written by humans who imperfectly got the information in there, then it is of course not inerrant.I’m sorry if this sounded harsh, it’s just that time and again I hear this “inerrant” business from people who, on further discussion, are ignorant of the most basic facts about the Bible and are mostly just repeating what they’ve been told. I understand that, that’s part of being human, especially being a young human, but it’s frustrating nonetheless.Please consider simply learning about the Bible, and not just from “Bible Study” or pastors. Those sources are terribly biased (often without their knowledge) and pretty much just teach how to selectively ignore and otherwise wring that particular church’s doctrine out of the Bible. One good place to start would be with a teaching company class that you can listen to while you drive. Here is one:The Great CoursesHave a fun day-EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : added "besides" paragraphEdited by Equinox, : -

I may be leaving soon, so at any time I may need to suddenly close this off. Advance apologies. I'll respond more fully later if such happens."Besides, doesn’t your “hidden meaning” explanation cause a worse problem? If the gospel is designed and given by the all perfect holy spirit, then why would a loving holy spirit make some of it’s meaning hidden from everyone, including Christians - especially if this meaning is the “good news which brings eternal life”? Doesn’t an apparently obvious problem like this make it likely that a person will fall away from Christianity, and thus be condemned to burn forever? Does that mean the Holy spirit did this intentionally to make some people fall away and be burned in Hell? Does that sound like a loving and competent Holy Spirit?" (Sorry, I don't know the finer details of forum work, so I don't use actual quote boxes. : )Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings is to search things out.The message of the gospel is on the surface, and the essentials can be found there, other details are still there underneath, and it is up to us to find it. What we are discussing is a detail that seems to contradict. Not a core fundamental. Its a paradox, but that means we can learn from it.As for the language point I made, reread what I said. Imagine if you had never heard of Japan, and somebody recited a hikaue (sp?) to you, you would wonder at why the structure was as it was. Or for a different example, if something that didn't fit anything you were used to, such as if you had never heard of dancing before, and music stated and people started dancing around, you would be quite perplexed as to why they did so. Im the same way, the gospel writers may be coming from backgrounds in which they use things such as metaphor, and possibly even plays on words to give meanings. Now, while I don't know if those statements are factual, it is the point I was trying to get across with the initial language point. And while this means we miss out on finer details, it doesn't mean the whole message is hid from us."Just looking at your list, the NIV has more text removed from it compared to the KJV as the entire books of 1st and 2nd peter, including some that change the meaning of the text." ?? Explain? Are you saying 1&2 Peter aren't in there? Because they are.The first Bible printed (as far as I know) was the KJV, and included 66 books. And then others have been added in afterwards.I'll try and find sources on Josephus. Short on time right now."are you saying that you know something that current scholars have missed?"
There are many numbers of scholars, some agree with what I have been saying, others with what you are saying, if it were otherwise, and the proof was that solid, it would have been taught to everyone and we wouldn't be having this discussion.Something I want to point out, the HS didn't control people when they wrote, it gave them knowledge of events that they may not have known otherwise, and helped them recall from their memories other events.Leaving. More later.

The first printed Bible was the Gutenberg Bible, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the movable type printing press. He printed a version of the Latin Vulgate bible in 1452.The King James Bible, one of the first English translations of the Bible, wasn't authored until the reign of King James of England, in about 1611.

Not only was the KJV not the first printed Bible, it was not the first English Language Bible. The KJV was a politically correct compromise Bible created to try to minimize the conflicts between the Anglicans (and a few other Protestant Sects) and The Roman Catholics in Great Britain.Before you go much further, you really need to learn just a little of the history of the Bible and all of the various versions (not translations but rather Canons) that exist.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for the correction.I in my mind knew that, but didn't piece it together. Sorry about that.Real quick:
"The KJV was a politically correct compromise Bible created to try to minimize the conflicts between the Anglicans (and a few other Protestant Sects) and The Roman Catholics in Great Britain."Are you sure about that? That would have increased conflicts, as the Church didn't want the common people to read the Bible on their own.We all must agree, there has been much corruption in the Catholic system. The Great Schism is evidence of that.
On the topic of corruption, it happened very quickly.Let me ask you all something, now I have a point I will attempt to prove in doing this, but what is (assuming God created this world and had a plan and such) the plan? Why?
Part of this plan involved Jesus. Why? What is his role? What did he come to do? Did he do it?I know these seem like basic questions, but they are important.
My next question, which I should probably wait for a reply for, but I'll go ahead and launch into it anyway.Jesus came and preached for three years. To the Jews. What did he preach? What was different than what the chosen people already knew?

One thing I want to say about translations/canons/whateveryouwantocallthem, if you were to ask someone, and I mean your everyday Joe, what the bible was, I don't think they would spew things out like "the latin vulgate" or "Milan's approved version", they would do a number of options:
1. look at you like, why are you asking this? Its like asking whats a horse
2. They don't know what a bible is and as such can't answer.
3. They would probably just say "its the bible" if asked for more specifics, you'd probably get an answer like "the kjv"Something I've noticed is that you don't find a whole lot of other kinds in everyday places. Sure, in a library or bookstore, more options are available, but when you see someone buying a bible they are getting one of two things: Either a translation in which it interprets for them (Message, etc), or a Bible (KJV etc). The KJV is one of the bestsellers in the world, and while that isn't because the Bible is so widely read, it means that rich churches buy them, and enough of them to keep them high on the list.Something mentioned earlier was not wanting one jot or tittle to be off of the holy word of God, and while that is undoubtedly the most desirable option, when translation is subject to translator interpretation of vowel marks that may or may not be present, it can lead to some trouble. That's why there are so often notes in margins and such that say "Or (insert other word here)".What is the end if one does not serve God? And then how is that fair? Is it fair to the native Americans who never had a chance? I think God gives everyone an opportunity somehow. Look at the book of Jonah, and there are some people that were warned to shape up and then not punished.God worked with more than just the Israelites:Amo 9:7 "Are you not like the Cushites to me, O people of Israel?" declares the LORD. "Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?I think everyone has a chance to come to God, they just have to not reject the opportunity.2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Nothing.What does that have to do with determining a book's truth?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC