See other Religion Articles
Title: Can You Trust the Bible?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 30, 2007
Author: Various
Post Date: 2007-11-30 12:50:27 by richard9151
Keywords: Bible, law, trustworthy
Views: 1783
Comments: 100
Proverbs 14:15; A fool will believe anything; smart people watch their step. Today's English Version. The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. The King James Study Bible The simple believes every word : but the prudent man betakes himself to after-thought. The Septuagint from the Original Greek and including the English translation. Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. I have mentioned that I have 12 Bibles, and the above is a good example of why. The meanings of the words become much clearer after reading three or more translations. Each translation is complete within itself, but..... so much clearer when several are used. Not to mention the errors that show up. I find it curious as to how many people talk about the Bible, and their opinions of it, when they have not read it. Yet, they talk as if the opinions that they have, which came from others and not from their own research and understanding, somehow mean something. Nothing could be further from the Truth, and, most opinions about the Bible are the same; nothing could be further from the Truth. That, my friends, is a shame. Why? Because of all of the books ever written, only the Bible has stood the test of time, and, it has done so because it has proven to be trustworthy. How so? Because only a fool would go through life blindly accepting everything he hears, basing his decisoins and actions on frivolous advice or baseless teachings. If you think about it, this is exactly what has happened to America. Get yer new credit card here and enjoy the American lifestyle to the fullest! Get yer second mortgage here and deduct that interest from your taxes so you can have all the things you crave! Get yer drugs here! Get yer fast food here! Send yer kids here (school-movies-whatever) so you are not bothered! Get yer new cable channels here! Subscribe to ------------ so you can learn all about the world! And on and on endlessly.... and most Americans buy into the programs. Why? Because they no longer have a moral base by which to judge right from wrong. Instead, they have been programmed to accept the non-sense that comes from the widely distributed (garbage) books, the telly, and the government controlled education system. Yet, in most homes, unopened, is the answer to their problems. The Bible. BUT.... the Bible is not what you have been told that it is, which is why so much of it is banned from what YOU think of as Christian churches. Why do you permit that? The Bible is the most widely distributed book in history, The World Book Encyclopedia. From Awake, November, 2007; Over 500 years ago, the German inventor Johannes Gutenberg began printing with movable type. The first major book to come off his press was a Bible. Since then, billions upon billions of books on every subject imaginable have been printed. The Bible, however, is by far the most exceptional of them all. It is estimated that more than 4.7 billion Bibles (in whole or in part) have been printed. That is more than five times the number of copies of the next most widely distributed publication; Quotations from Chairman Mao. More than 50 million copies of the Bible or portions of it were distributed recently in one year alone. "The Bible is the best-selling book of the year, every year," says a report in The New Yorker magazine. In whole or in part, the Bible has been translated into more than 2,400 languages. At least some of the Bible is available in the languages spoken by over 90 percent of the human family. About half of the Bible writers finished their writings before the birth of both Confucius, the renowned Chinese sage, and Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism. The Bible has endured bans by governments, vurnings by religious opposers, and attacks by critics. No other bookn in history has faced greater opposition -- and survived. The above facts are ourstanding, but impressive details and statistics alone do not prove that the Bible is trustworthy. Here are five reasons why millions of people are convinced that the Bible is worthy of trust. 1. Historical Soundness. No one has ever successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible. It refers to real people and real events. 2. Candor and Honesty. The Bible writers were honest men who wrote with openness of heart. Their candor gives their writing the clear ring of truth. My note; the above is particularly important. The historical record confirms that, as today, ancient rules NEVER permitted a record made of their defeats or shortcomings. We learn of such only form their enemies. However, the Bible writers openly admit their errors and misgivings. This is really an important and refreshing difference. 3. Internal Harmony. Imagine asking 40 men from varied backgounds to write a book, each writing a section. The writers live in a number of lands and do not all know one another. Some do not know what the others have written. Would you expect a book thus produced to be harmonious? The Bible is such a book. (The Bible is a collection of 66 books, or subdivions, starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation.) Written under even more unusual conditions than those described above, its internal harmony is nothing less than profound. Uniqe Circumstances. The Bible was written over a span of some 1,600 uyears, from 1513 B.C.E. to about 98C.E. Many of the approxiamately 40 writers thus lived centuries apart. Their occupations were varied. some were fishermen, others were shepherds or kings, and one was a physician. A harmonious message. The Bible penmen developed one central theme; the vindication of God's right to rule mankind and fulfillment of his purpose by means of his heavenly Kingdom, a world government. Agreement on details. The Bible writers agreed on even minute details, but often this harmony was clearly unintentional. 4. Scientific Accuracy. Science has made great strides in modern times. As a result, old theories have given way to new ones. What was once accepted as fact may now be seen as myth. Science testbooks often need revision. The Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say. Free of unscientific views. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some pratices that were ineffective at best, lethal at worst. But not once in its more than 1,100 chapters does the Bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices. Scientifically sound statements. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging "upon nothing." (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaigh clearly referred to "the circle [or, sphere] of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without anyt visible or physical means of support -- does not that sound remarkably modern? Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarentining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste. -- Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14. Even though it is an acient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. 5. Fulfilled Prophecy. The Bible is filled with predictions, or prophecies. Its record, as documented by history, is clear. Bible prophecy is always right. Distinguishing features. Bible prophecies are often specific and have been fulfilled down to the smallest of details. They usually involve matters of great importance and predict the opposite of what those living at the time of the writing might have been expecting. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The above details came from a Special Issue of the Awake! This issue is titled, Can You Trust the Bible? If you wish a copy, it is probably available, as it is freely printed and distributed by www.watchtower.org. On average, each issue of Awake is printed in 80 languages in 34,267,000 copies. I have stated before that I am not a Jehovah's Witness. However, from what I have read, they, BY FAR, come closest to my understanding of the Bible, BASED on my own research and reading. And I find that many of their tracts are very accurate and Scriptually correct. Now, the question that I have for you is.... are you reading the Bible, or, is the non-sense of the United States really that much more important? As I have stated before, I have no debt. Why? Because I read the Bible. Pretty well sums it all up for me.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 98.
#2. To: richard9151 (#0)
This is not true, my friend. There are preserved texts in Hinduism and Buddhism that you could spend an entire life time reading and never finish. Have you not read the Bagavad Gita? It's the cream of the Upanishads. The story of Gilgamesh endured centuries prior to the great transformation into Noah in the Bible. It is one of the oldest preserved stories on earth, trustworthy enough to make an appearance in the Bible. Explore theology a bit more and you will find that many of your most trusted Biblical stories have much older roots. Your understanding will blossom like a flower if you take the time to delve deeper. However, I agree that much is lost in Bible translations, along with a reader comprehension. Dumbing down of the Bible is a fascinating topic. Thanks for sharing.
The story of Gilgamesh endured centuries prior to the great transformation into Noah in the Bible. It is one of the oldest preserved stories on earth, trustworthy enough to make an appearance in the Bible. Explore theology a bit more and you will find that many of your most trusted Biblical stories have much older roots. Your understanding will blossom like a flower if you take the time to delve deeper. The curse of humankind is the inability of most to see the simple truths you have stated. The Bible contains some truths, some wisdoms. It also contains fables, myths, tortured histories and fairy tales that craft some kind of message that may have been lost in time. No book is the word of God, for books are written by men, some of whom have some insights into God, and many of whom do not.
Care to be more specific, such as naming names and quoting Scriptures? Rather than just repeating what you have heard elsewhere? N0?! Thought not.
No, because you're an idiot who thinks most of the stories in the Bible are true, and arguing with such a tard is a complete waste of time. Fuck off, Bible boy.
Well, since no one has been able to prove that such stories are false, that means I am in pretty good company; the company of those who believe that which has been proven, unlike others, such as, oh, for instance, attorneys, who believe whatever they are told to believe, such as in the goddess of justice.
The burden of proof is on YOU, not me, to establish the stories are true. You can't, but the burden is on you, nevertheless. You maintain they are true. You have the duty to prove that. You fail to recognize that ALL your beliefs about the Bible are merely yours. They're beliefs. They're not facts, and they'll never be facts. You live in a mythical world that exists only in your head, but you think it's the world God created. It's not. It's your fabrication.
This thread demonstrates clearly what we all know: that the most ignorant among is the one most convinced of the rightness of his own religious beliefs. This is common. Religion thrives on ignorance and lack of intelligence, and this thread is a clinic in that topic. Most hard core Bible thumpers are ignorant rubes who know only the things other zealots have told them. They use the Bible and ignore anything that predates it. They don't even know how it was written, or more importantly, how it was edited.
Many of them of them even try to deny that they got it from the Catholic Church since they hate the Vatican so much. The complete and utter ignorance of history is incredible among most so-called "Bible Christians" and a gross number of so-called "apologetics" works are utter hogwash and easily refuted with a Funk and Wagnalls. The most recent one I was handed said that the Orthodox Church came into being at the Reformation in the 1500s.....and that the Catholic Church came into being in 800AD....but that this particular group of Baptists had been around since 33AD. Never mind that the Baptists came into being post-Reformation as any Enyclopedia will tell you. Quite honestly, in regards to the Bible, it really does seem that a lot of them think it fell from the sky already translated into English for them and that an argument for the "King James" version is that it has no copyright! Jeez!
The Catholic church has its own Bible. The errors in the King James Bible are readily admitted by most Christains. I have very good source books which show where translations come from, and what they are based on; i.e., the most trusted sources dating from before the year 200. As I have stated, I have 12 Bibles, and check versus to verify, not trusting to any one translation. Works pretty well, and, I have identified errors in several Bibles doing that. The fact is that most copies of the Bible that I use DID NOT come from the Roman church. That being said, I do still use my King James Study Bible.
The table of contents did -- after being edited by Martin Luther.
And...... your point is? There have been a lot of men involved in deciding what books to include in the Bible, and not just those of the Roman church. This includes Jesus Christ who quoted from the Old Testament. And not every one of my Bible follows the Roman church's formula. Not even close.
My point is that you got your Bible from the Catholic Church. Like it or not, the Councils determined the canon that went into it. That's history. You got your Bible from the Catholic Church. Period. Here's a nice book for you to read about all of this. Written by a Protestant of all things:
Let me see.... this means that I accept what a mainstream, self-proclaimed Protestent says. This would be a man who celebrates Xmas, Easter, and all the rest of the non-sense that comes from Babylon through the roman church.... right? A man who works in a corp. church, is lic. by the state and etc. Ummmmm. Sorry. Not interested in such. If you had paid attention to the beginning of this thread, you would have seen the following; The Septuagint from the Original Greek and including the English translation. The Roman church did not fully take control of what was happening until about the year 300, with the union with the Roman government. The last of the books in the Bible were finished in about the year 98. Lots of time in between. Course, that did not stop the Roman church from claiming that ALL Scripture came only from them. And a lot of silly people believe most anything that comes from such sources. The Septuagint came from the original Greek, and has never been touched or contaminated by the Roman church. In addition, I use one from the original Aramaic; the Pershitta. (Think I blew that spelling!) You really should not believe everything that you read unless you are willing to research the subject throughly.
I have, which is why I can consistently back you off and back you down. I know more about this than you EVER will because your eyes are closed to the truth around you. Most of your postings are simply to prove to yourself that you're right. What ends up going on is that you're backed off. Why is that? Don't answer me. Answer that question for yourself and have that answer ready for the man in the mirror. BTW, I could easily refute your post but I'll let it stand as another show of your ignorance and prejudice. You don't like history. You don't even know it. You got your Bible from the Catholic Church. Period. Take your crap about the "Roman Church" and drop it off a cliff where it belongs. You don't understand what the word "Catholic" means, you have no clue where the Bible came from, and you can't comprehend a world without a printing press. When you can explain the difference between "Roman Rite" and "Eastern Rite" and what that means, then let's talk. But until then, keep your bigotry to yourself. It just shows you are, so to speak, "cutting off the nose to spite the face." Again: You got your Bible from the Catholic Church. Get used to the idea. And....for what its worth, your Protestant Bible doesn't use the Septuagint.
Since I am not a protestant, how would that matter to me? Would you think that perhaps that is why I have copies of such, and use them? And catholic means universal. And I could care less about roman or eastern rituals. Or, about the difference between them; who cares? As to those rituals, I would suggest that you use the words; tammuz christmas tree nimrod easter catholic church -- type them into any search engine and enjoy. I am sure that some of the info that pops up will show at least a little about those rituals you seem to know so much about. And the day you back me down.... well, pack a lunch, my friend. If I am somewhat slow on occasions, some of us have to work on occasion, unlike attorneys.
Been there, done that and it'll happen again and again and again because you're blind to the actual truths of the matter. Your paranoia about the Roman Catholic Church blinds you to history. You don't even know what is in your Bible or where it came from. The Gospel of Luke made it into the *Catholic* canon by a single vote. Remember: The Church existed before the Bible. The Church MADE the Bible. The Church decided what was to go into it. Ever hear of the Gospel of Peter or the Acts of Paul? Why are they not still being read in Churches and why are they not in your Bible? The Bible did not come before the Church. The Church made the Bible. That is how it is. You can only trust the Bible as far as you trust the Catholic Church. Since you don't trust the Catholic Church, you should not be trusting the Bible. You, my friend, have a problem with your logic.
This gets so..... ummm, non-sensical? I packed up many of my books cause we are rearranging our business and how we use what little commercial space we have.... and now I have to go dig out the books I packed! Well, I should have known better....... "All those who in any way corrupt the truth, and harm the teaching of the church, are the disciples and successors of Simon Magus of Samaria...They put forth, indeed, the name of Jesus Christ as a kind of lure, but in many ways they introduce the impieties of Simon...spreading to their hearers the bitter and malignant poison of the great serpent (Satan), the great author of apostasy." - Irenaeus, Libros Quinque Adversus Haereses "Gnostic motifs were already felt in Christian circles in the Age of the Apostles. Early church tradition attributes the rise of Gnosticism to Simon Magus, briefly mentioned in Acts 8:9-24. - Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies The very first post I put up on 4um was about Simon Magus, and his creation of the Roman (universal) church. See: The First Church of Rome - http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_20items/first_church_rome.htm The Founding of the First Church of Rome and Its Corruption by Simon Magus and Cerdon 1. The founding of The First Church of Rome happened shortly after Pentecost. There were Jews from Rome and native-born Romans who had been converted to Judaism (1) amongst the pilgrims from many lands staying at Jerusalem for the Feast of Pentecost in AD 33 (2). Many believed the message of the Resurrection, when they heard the preaching of Peter and witnessed the miraculous demonstrations of the Holy Spirit's power performed through the Apostles: some will have returned after the Feast to their native lands, carrying their new faith with them. And etc. Very interesting, and you could spend your time in worse ways than in reading the info supplied. Then; CLICK HERE TO VIEW A TIMELINE OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES OF THE FIRST CHURCH OF ROME http://www.christianhospitality.org/pages_20items/first-church-rome-timeline.htm Very interesting time line. Worth a look, by all means. As you can see, I am well aware of the roots behind Rome and what went on. For reference, as I have mentioned numerous times in 4um, see the book, Two Babylons. If you wish to have a link to a free copy of this book on-line, I have it; please ask. None of this pertains to what you both believe, which is that the Roman church outwitted God! Amazing, that you actually put that much faith in men! Actually, what you are claiming is not so much different from many others, who actually believed that God's Word could be destroyed. And that man can defeat God. Many kings and tyrants tried this, and always, what they found and destroyed was always just a small portion of the copies that existed. The same is true for the roman church, However, this has nothing to do with the originals and what you two 'believe.' So, here is a (very) brief history of how the New Testament has come down to us. (I am saying nothing about the Septuagint; ask if you wish to know.) The New Testament We need to start our exploration of the New Testament by examining and understanding how the New Testamanet texts have come to be transmitted down to us. Before the invention of the printing press and modern-type paper, all ancient books were written by hand, thus the word manuscript, and were periodically recopied for preservation and circulation. The New Testament was written originally in Greek; of this there can be no question. Some men have tried to claim that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic, a dialect of Hebrew, and then later translated into Greek, but all such men are incapable of presenting a single shred of evidence that points to their contention. ... If you wish more of this, I will be happy to transcribe it for you. ... but a great body of witnesses does exist that points to the original words of the original manuscripts, and through the science of Textual Criticism we shall see how today we can come closer than ever before to knowing with certainty the original words of the New Testament. Uncials Today, the uncial manuscripts are the most important of the Greek witnesses to the original text of the New Testament. They date from the 4th to the 9th centuries AD, and they are written entirely in large capital letters on vellum manuscripts or parchment. .... Vaticanus The Vatican Manuscript, represented by the letter B, is the oldest of the great uncial codices and dates to the early 4th century AD. Unitl its recent release by the Catholic Church, it was kept hidden in the Vatican Library for at least 600 years. .... Sinaitic Ths Sinaitic Manuscript, represented by the symbol - (Aleph) is the second oldest of the uncial codices (early 4th century), and it too has only recently, comparatively speaking, become available. This manuscript was found in May, 1844, by the great German scholar Konstantin von Tischendorf in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. ... Alexandruse The third oldest of the great uncial codices is signified by the letter A, and dates from the early 5th century. Ephraemi Codex Ephraem is the fourth oldest of the uncials, dating from the 5th century, and is signified by the letter C. When the King James translators made their Bible in 1611, they certainly knew of the existence of Codex Ephraem, for it had been brought to Paris by Catherine de Medici. ... Bezae This manuscript, dating from the 5th century, is the fifth of the great uncials, but it is also the least trustworthy of the five. ... Others There are nearly 300 other uncial manuscripts, Of these, none are complete New Testamenst, but some of them are very old (perhaps even older than the ones discussed above), and for the portions that do exist they are very good witnesses. Miuscules There are literally thousands of minuscule type manuscripts fo the New testament in existence, and they are of secondary importance to the uncial type manuacripts. Minuscules texts are written in running hand or cursive, with or without spaces between the words. ..... Major Families The minuscule manuscripts can, for the most part, be placed into families or groups. This si because the minuscules can be compared to one another and many show the same set of common errors or idiowyncraasies, showing that they have a common origin or a common source manuscript from which they were copied. The different families can then be given relative value. This makes comparing the many thousands of minuscule texts much easier, as there are nearly 2800. ... Papyri The papyrus manuscripts are certainly some of the most important tools in ascertaining the original text of the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament was originally penned down on papyrus scrolls. ... ... Papyrus was used universally until vellum displaced it in the 4th century, and because papyrus is not durable, no complete or nearly complete copies of the Bible, Old or New Testament, predate that time. However, our oldest witnesses to the test of the New Testament are prpyri. In fact, p52 dates from c. 125 A.D. ... c. 200 ... and etc. Versions The versions are secondary witnesses to the original text of the New Testament. A version is any translation of the Greek New Testament into anothe rlanguage. ... Old Latin Contrary to what might be assumed, the Greek texts were used for the first two centuries of his era in Rome. In fact, nearly evryone in Rome was bilingual, speaking both greek and Latin. For this reason, it is unclear where the first Latin translations of the Scriptures were made, some believing Rome, some Pompeii, some Antioch, and some Egypt. ... Vulgate By 382 AD, there were already a great mumber of Old Latin manuscripts in existance, and among them were a great number of contradictory readings. Thus, Pope Damascus asked Jerome to create a uniform text, or a common vulgar test. .... Thus the Old Latin represents a far better translation than does the Vulgate. ... Old Syriac There are six Syriac manuscripts which are of importance ..... Peshitta The Peshitta, or Vulgate Syriac, .... Philoxenian and Harklean These two versions are also both in Syriac. Palestinian Syriac Coptic Armenian Georgian Ethiopic Arabic Gothic Nubian Sogdian Others Besides these, there are fragments and portions of the NEw Testament in many other languages, dating anywhere from the 4th century to the 12th and 13th century. The most notable are the Old Persian, Slavonci, and the Anglo-Saxon, but like the Nubian and the sogdian they are of little textual importance. They are important, however, in determining how interpolations and textual families have spread throughout the world. Other Witnesses And etc. Now, before you two, and anyone else in 4um, starts to lecture me about the Roman church and 'the creation of the Bible' by that monster of iniquity, I would suggest that you, at the very least, do SOME research outside of what is approved of by that so-called church! To even suggest that the Roman church has/had control over the Bible is to deny the Word of God, and the power that God holds over man and his affairs. Yes, God does permit man to prove, over and over and over again, that man can not control himself, or, his destiny, but that is simply to prove to man how much he needs God and His Word! But to suggest that God would allow His Word to be controlled by man is silly. And, there is too much evidence to prove otherwise! So, anything else?
You never even bother to read anything that does not confirm your 'beliefs' do you.
I did not have time before to finish what I should have added; Now the question always raised is; If all of this is true, will it ever be possible to ascertain the original text of the New Testament or Septuagint? The answer to this question is, Yes, it is possible today. It was not possible at the time of Erasmus and his creation of the Textus Receptus; it was not possible when the King James Version was translated, but it is possible today because of the sheer number of manuscripts and different witnesses that are available, nearly 5600! This huge number of witnesses is how God has preserved His Word pristine, for in those witnesses can be found the original words as they were penned down. All of this is not possible with other classical Greek and Latin texts. ... ... Another piece of evidence that makes the job of textual cristicism easier for the New Testament is the variety of places in which the documents have been preserved. Very early on, copies of the Septuagint and New Testament were widely distributed: in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, Italy, and all of Asia Minor. This makes it nearly impossible for thge Jews or Catholics to make sure they got every manuscript and corrupted or destroyed them all. ... ... After this time, other Western or Catholic influenced texts began to assimilate this change and it is from these manuscripts that Erasmus, a Catholic and a Vulgate-conformist, produced his Textus Receptus. Thus, not only can we arrive at the original reading of the New Testament passage, and also the Septuagint and even Hebrew, but we can also trace how many of the interpolations found their way into the texts and when and why. ... ... Skillfully used, anyone should be able to trace the original words of the New Testament. ... ... As an example of intellectual dishonesty and theological prejudice, I will cite Luke 23:34. This is, of ocurse, the verse which contains the spurious words, "And Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.'" It has been demonstrated time and time again that these words were not originally in the Gospel of Luke and that since they are in no parallels of the pasage they can in no way be considered to have been originally spoken by Christ. I have already mentioned in this present work that the Jews have inserted a self-fulfilling prophec into their Masoretic Text which apparently prophesies Jesus saying these words, but that prophesy is absent from the Greek Septuagint used by Christ and His Apostles. ... ... When we look at the oldest papyrus of this part of the bible, the aforementioned p75 (175 - 225 AD), we find that these words are entirely absent. They are absent from uncaials n1 and B, as well as the corrected D and several others. We find that the earlies Latin, the earliest Syriac, and the esrlies Coptic all do not contain the words. We find that the prophesy supposedly foretelling the saying is absent from the Greek Septuagint. We find that a great number of reliable minuscules omit the words. ... .. With this in mind, let us look at Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentart On the Greek New Testament and read the comment of the Editorial committee of The Greek New Testament on these words; ...the logion (i.e., a saying attributed to Jesus), though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel. ... Notice that they admit that the words were added by an unknown copyist at an early date (but at least after 225, as we learned from p75). ... There are other errors. BUT, if you care enough to learn the basis of the New Testament, you can find as close to the original as is possible; probably, within 99% accuracy. And as I said in the beginning of this discussion; the problem is with men, and not with God or His Word. But even given the existing errors, there is still enough in the King James Bible to lead someone, who reads it with an open heart and who asks for guidance from Him, to find His Path. And as far as I am concerned, that pretty well sums it all up.
Textual criticism is always interesting to read. That is why the majority of scholars view 2 Peter as being an outright forgery. Only fundamentalists who don't understand the origin of the table of contents of the Bible maintain it isn't. They stand alone. Even Catholics are beginning to wonder, but they can always kick the book out since it was *their* councils that assembled the table of contents in the first place. So that leads to another question - what other forgeries are in the Bible? In the early days of the Church, forgeries such as the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Thecla, the Acts of Paul, et al were in places considered canonical and accepted as Scripture. All of this together.....to get back to the subject of this thread -- no, we cannot trust the Bible implicitly on its own merits. One has to trust the councils who put the thing together. That means trusting the Catholic Church. Or, as St. Augustine put it, "I would not accept the validity of the Bible but for the authority of the Catholic Church."
There are no replies to Comment # 98. End Trace Mode for Comment # 98.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhy? Because of all of the books ever written, only the Bible has stood the test of time, and, it has done so because it has proven to be trustworthy.
#4. To: abraxas (#2)
This is not true, my friend. There are preserved texts in Hinduism and Buddhism that you could spend an entire life time reading and never finish. Have you not read the Bagavad Gita? It's the cream of the Upanishads.
#8. To: Paul Revere (#4)
It also contains fables, myths, tortured histories and fairy tales
#12. To: richard9151 (#8)
Care to be more specific, such as naming names and quoting Scriptures? Rather than just repeating what you have heard elsewhere?
#15. To: Paul Revere (#12)
No, because you're an idiot who thinks most of the stories in the Bible are true, and arguing with such a tard is a complete waste of time.
#43. To: richard9151 (#15)
Well, since no one has been able to prove that such stories are false, that means I am in pretty good company
#44. To: All (#43)
#45. To: Paul Revere (#44)
They don't even know how it was written, or more importantly, how it was edited.
#62. To: mirage (#45)
Many of them of them even try to deny that they got it from the Catholic Church
#64. To: richard9151 (#62)
The fact is that most copies of the Bible that I use DID NOT come from the Roman church.
#66. To: mirage (#64)
The table of contents did -- after being edited by Martin Luther.
#68. To: richard9151 (#66)
And...... your point is?
That's how it is. 
#75. To: mirage (#68)
You got your Bible from the Catholic Church. Period.
#80. To: richard9151 (#75)
You really should not believe everything that you read unless you are willing to research the subject throughly.
#81. To: mirage (#80)
And....for what its worth, your Protestant Bible doesn't use the Septuagint.
#89. To: richard9151 (#81)
And the day you back me down.... well, pack a lunch, my friend.
#90. To: mirage, ghostdogtxn (#89)
The Church MADE the Bible.
#91. To: richard9151 (#90)
#92. To: ghostdogtxn (#91)
Why is the bible accurate? Because the bible says so.
#93. To: richard9151 (#92)
#95. To: ghostdogtxn, mirage (#93)
all other versions notwithstanding?
#98. To: richard9151 (#95)
Replies to Comment # 98.