Was the bible written by people thousands of years ago and was taken literaualy word for word, and over time we have grown intelligent enough to take it symbolicaly, or was it written symbolicaly and over time people have became dumb enough to belive it literaualy? It makes you think, because when I have spoken to freinds of mine who are Hindu or Budahhist, they don't truly belive that all the stories are 100 percent true, they belive that parts of the stories are based on history or legend and the other is mans way to explain the unknown, but most of all it is the message behind the story that is important and I belive that too. In my opinion who cares whether or not Jesus walked on water, Muhammed saw the angel Gabriel or if Budah found enlightment from mediating under a tree. Instead of people looking for scientific evidence to back their faith up or to prove religion false, instead we should focus on the message behind the stories.
You've chosen loaded words. You might consider "emptying your cup" before asking these questions. Excellent suggestion. I'm of the opinion, however, that eventually it does matter whether Jesus walked on water, etc., because eventually, I believe, these claims become a part of the message. It sure seems to me that the Apostles Paul and John considered these stories important, you know? How far can you push the message if you discard some of these stories? Ditto for Muhammed, etc. That's a very, very good question.
Loaded, to say the least, Aiki. It would be like him asking someone, "Does your wife know you're gay?" Since religion, in its essence, is about truth, then the truthfulness of the message is of utmost importance.
You're of course assuming that in thousands of years of government and church control, and with countless translations, that nothing has changed in the bible?
Bwhahahahahah! Oh your serious! Religion is about an ideal and an outlook, some of which are skewed beyong belief. Others quite pragmatic.
The Dei Verbum constitution (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith), presented in the Second Vatican Council, declared the following (rough translation from Italian): "The holy Mother Church [...] considers sacred and canonical all parts of both the Old and New Testament [...] as they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit [...] they have God as author [...] For the composition of the Sacred Texts, God chose and used men in possession of their mental and physical capacities so that, acting He in them and through them, they would write as true authors...." In short, the church claims that the Bible was written by God so every word that it says is true. Which, if any of you have read the Bible in depth, is clear BS.
Well I, for one, have no assumption, because I have done my homework on this topic. I know as a fact, not as an assumption, that the text of the Bible has not changed in any material way. In contrast to my confidence in that which I have studied, you are giving me the strong and clear impression that you have not done any study whatsoever on this particular topic but are operating purely upon incorrect assumptions. If I am incorrect, I sincerely apologize, and I hope that you will cite the authorities that you studied, because I most certainly would like to read them. Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah.
I'm pretty sure bible v1.0 wasn't in english. Ask any translator, as soon as you take a script and convert it to a new language, a degree of the translation always depends on the opinion of the person doing the translation. For example, when Origen originally translated the scriptures into the Latin version, he was quoted as saying that "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." He influenced Eusebius, who later produced fifty copies of his own latin bible for Emporer Constantine, who established sunday worship and the catholic church. The modern day bible is a combination of Vaticanus Manuscript, and the Sinaiticus Manuscript, which are of the Origen/Eusibius style of bible translation, but are believed to be only two of the original fifty constantine bibles. The latin bible from which all modern bibles are translated, was in itself a translation from the original Hebrew, and certainly not a direct word for word translation. This is why it is crazy to even consider taking the bible word for word, since these are likely very different from the original scriptures on which they are based.
The exact words in the bible has definately changed because it was translated from greek and aramaic. however the important part is that the ideas have been preserved. we may never know christinity completely because the chruch destroyed the "other" versions of the gospel -there were around 60 to 80- in the first vatican counsel in the 3rd century. back to the point the words in the gospel have changed but what changed most is the way we view the bible or our religion.
Does anyone know much about the early Gnostic Church, I have heard bits of it and their ideas/believes seem quite intersting.
Pfffttttt! Dude, you owe me a new hot chocolate. These two manuscripts are in Greek, not Latin. Anyway, if you're going to use academic words, you should do us all a favor and report on the percentage errors in the New Testament. It's approx. 2% and it affects nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing. Say it again: nothing. No doctrine is based upon the 2%. None. Period. When the amount of errors in the NT is compared to the amount of errors found in other old writings, that 2% figure might just as well be zero because it's astonishly small by comparison to other books! And furthermore, the errors among the THOUSANDS of manuscripts are mostly spelling errors. Come on. You could make similar reports for the Old Testament. Why do you assume that the writers of these other documents knew Jesus better than Paul and Peter and John? Why? Were these other writers among the 12 disciples? Were they among the next circle of friends (such as the siblings Mary, Martha, and Lazarus)? Well? Were they? That's a serious question that you need to come to grips with. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that the writers of these other documents knew better than Peter, Paul, and John. I'm curious to know what you think.
As Voltaire said, if the book was written by God, as the church claims it is, all facts must be true. If any one detail is found to be incorrect, then the whole thing is a lie.
Not only is that silly, but I don't even think Voltaire would have used that in the context of what Aikimac said. In other words, I don't think Voltaire would have counted spelling errors. While an author might be inspired by God (which is what the passage you quoted says - not that God himself took a quill and actually printed up the bibles with his own hands - i.e. God is, rather, the author indirectly through someone else), I don't think anyone would expect his grammar and spelling to be absolutely perfect 100% of the time. What Aikimac was referring to was the change in scripture with successive copying of the bible, back to the earliest scriptures he could find. This amounts to minor changes in wording and spelling, but Aikimac said that this had absolutely no bearing on the theology or events that occurred in the life of Jesus. In other words, if what Aikimac said is true, then it cannot be varified that the modern bible contains any untruths by comparing it to older writings - which was the point he was trying to make - which is exactly the opposite of what you've seemed to take it for. Besides, no one ever said that the copiers and printers were inspired by God.
What about the books that were once a part of the tradition of the Bible and a major influence on Christianity as we know it, but were taken out of the Bible for various reasons. Its not even that there are translations of the Bible, as much as there are major changes that occured in the Bible not to mention evidence of alteration of the Old Testiment occuring during the Middle Ages. The Bible has a history to itself that must be taken into account when taking a literal view of the text.
The Bible is a copy of ancient texts written in Hebrew (Aramaic) that where discovered on tablets of stone, plates, & old scrolls. The "Bible" is just an midieval version of that translated into english & many other languages from latin, greek, & from the original hebrew text. Some believe it is the oldest form of written history that the earth has to offer... others think it is just a book of fairytales & myths. Personally, I think the stories are more than likely true because of the remains and artifacts found from that ancient civilization.... Alot of people forget though that the "Bible" is the new name given to the ancient texts that were collected long ago. As well that it has been changed from many different sources (scrolls etc,..) into 1 book which has a leather cover... I was also told that the "Bible" is actually an abreviations & means "(B)asic (I)nstructions (B)efore (L)eaving (E)arth".... many people talk about the words within it as a prophectical doomsday text, whereas it has predicted many current happenings it was original meant to keep that country's geneology & history from becoming lost. I also read the "Tao te ching"...
Dude, i wasnt referring to spelling errors. There are plenty of historical inaccuracies and plain absurdities in the Bible.
There is concrete, historic evidence that the Bible was not changed in the Middle Ages, and that the Bible you may read today contains the same information as in the Bibles read and used by Jesus's disciples. Just looking at the New Testament: While there are many translations into Latin, the earliest surviving manuscripts are in Greek. In total, today, there are over 5300 surviving Biblical manuscripts in ancient Greek, well over 10,000 surviving Latin manuscripts, over 4000 Slavic manuscripts, over 2500 Armenian manuscripts, over 2000 Ethiopic manuscripts, and several hundred manuscripts of the Syriac Peshetta, plus hundreds in Arabic, Persian, Frankish, Gothic, Sogdian, etc., etc., for a total of well over 24,000 New Testament ancient manuscripts and readable fragments. Compare this to the single most widely read ancient Greek manuscript other than the Bible: today there are a grand total of 643 surviving manuscripts and readable fragments of the Iliad. (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here's Life Publishers) Geisler and Nix (General Intro to the Bible, Moody Press) compared the degree of variation between the words in the 643 manuscripts of the Iliad and the 24,000+ manuscripts of the New Testament. Here is a summary of their findings: Iliad: 15,600 lines 764 lines in question 5% Textual Corruption New Testament: about 20,000 lines 40 lines in question Less than 1/2% Textual Corruption For further comparison: Mahabharata (Indian epic): 250,000 lines 26,000 in question >10% Textual Corruption Old Testament: The fact that the Old Testament has not been changed is even more clear. First, in addition to wide manuscript evidence similar to that listed for the New Testament, you have the relatively recent discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. These scrolls contain portions of every book in the Old Testament, and can be (and have been) compared to the Bible we have today. No significant changes in any doctrine have been found. Importantly, the entire 53rd chapter of the book of Isaiah was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and this was found to have been unchanged from the time of the scrolls (200 BC - 100 AD) to the present day. Here is a link to that chapter in Isaiah, without commentary. Here is a link describing the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls, and some important facts about the 53rd chapter of Isaiah. The Bible we have today is the Bible that existed 1000 years ago, which is the Bible that existed 2000 years ago. Of course that only makes sense: if a Sovereign God wanted to communicate with people, He would certainly make sure that His message survived for all time.
