Ghanaian theologian disproves the validity of Bible

T

thefountainhed

Fully Realized
Valued Senior Member
Dr. S.Y. Akorli, a Ghanaian theologian and the founder of Religious Science International, a foundation committed to critical thinking of religion, has cast doubts on the validity of the Bible. Dr. Akorli, who is a Presbyterian, is a product of the University of Leipzig with a doctorate in Theology. He has been gaining increased recognised in the academic circles of Leipzig for his theses on the Bible.
As a Christian, his views on the Bible and its events are considered revolutionary. Last year he toured various institutions in Germany lecturing on his perspective of the Bible and Christianity. His monthly seminar has been attracting numerous Europeans who are looking for new forms of religious expression and interpretation.
Click to expand...
http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=56085

He says somethings I think should be rather obvious, but seemingly are controversial.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's controversial in Ghana, where historical knowledge of the Bible seems to be considered "revolutionary".

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a search for the famed theologian yields an impressive 2 (two) results: the revolutionary newsflash posted above, and its mirror.
 
Last edited:
Proud Muslim,

some scholars estimate the bible has more than 50,000 errors:
Click to expand...
Gosh almost as many as those in the Islamic coran thingy then.

Of course the phrase 'some scholars' doesn't mean much unless you can name them and provide references to their research.

Kat
 
As a spiritual document, the Bible is superb. But no serious Christian can take the Bible to be 100% accurate in terms of science, history and geography.
Click to expand...
That about sums it up. I guess this is still a pretty revolutionary concept in Ghana.
 
It doesn't seem revolutionary to me, but most Christians I know take the Bible stories as analogies meant to teach a moral, not literal truths.

By the way, I just found out my sixteen year old niece went walking after dusk with a man from a rival town. Do I sacrifice her on an altar of stone with a lamb, a goat and a calf or do I sell her into slavery? I can never remember. Yes, of course the Bible is not literal in the contemporary sense.
 
Katazia said:
Proud Muslim,

Gosh almost as many as those in the Islamic coran thingy then.

Of course the phrase 'some scholars' doesn't mean much unless you can name them and provide references to their research.

Kat
Click to expand...

Since when hopeless athiest like you is interested in knowing anything about any religious book ?? :rolleyes:

Are you blind ? did you not see the link I have provided ????
 
Jenyar said:
Maybe it's controversial in Ghana, where historical knowledge of the Bible seems to be considered "revolutionary".

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a search for the famed theologian yields an impressive 2 (two) results: the revolutionary newsflash posted above, and its mirror.
Click to expand...

Careful on the snide remarks mate, Im Ghanaian.

Anyway, I agree with Katazia, PM could you please provide some links to the majority of these errors found in the Bible, I would like to have a look at them..
 
§outh§tar said:
Careful on the snide remarks mate, Im Ghanaian.

Anyway, I agree with Katazia, PM could you please provide some links to the majority of these errors found in the Bible, I would like to have a look at them..
Click to expand...
Don't go there you will drown in 50,000 fantasmagorical points of nonsense.
NOOOOOOOOooo!!! plunk *falls into the abyss* :D
 
§outh§tar said:
Careful on the snide remarks mate, Im Ghanaian.

Anyway, I agree with Katazia, PM could you please provide some links to the majority of these errors found in the Bible, I would like to have a look at them..
Click to expand...
My apologies... I meant no offense. I was reacting to the article, which says he is considered "revolutionary" by Christians - based on a statement I thought was common sense. What would make him truly revolutionary would be if he rejected the Bible and still called himself a Christian. I can pretty much imagine the kinds of problems he has with it - nothing we haven't heard on these forums before, I'm sure.
 
§outh§tar said:
Careful on the snide remarks mate, Im Ghanaian.

Anyway, I agree with Katazia, PM could you please provide some links to the majority of these errors found in the Bible, I would like to have a look at them..
Click to expand...

I already provided one link, but here is more;


For example, in 1881, the scholars of Christianity got together to study the King James Bible (based upon the Greek Textus Receptus), the version of the Bible which the Church has been pushing upon the masses for roughly four centuries, the version of the Bible which the Church depicted as being so utterly perfect and faultless as to literally consider it to be direct from 'the mouth of God,' the version of the Bible which the Church considered it a heresy to consider anything less than 100% perfect and the undying unfailing word of God, these same thirty two Trinitarian scholars and fifty cooperating Christian denominations got together to expose the Church's "King James Bible," their ultimate achievement, and declare the following:


"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.." (From the preface of the RSV 1971)


They go on to caution us that:

"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"


The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:

"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."


Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Are they, as our current authors would have us believe, all people of questionable 'preconceptions' which backwards Muslims gleefully quote out of ignorance? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:

"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"

Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and then again in 1971):

"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)

"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)

"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)

"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)

In the beginning, when the Gutenburg printing press was first invented and the masses finally succeeded in forcing the Bible out of the hands of the Church and out into the open, those who studied it and found numerous problems in it simply attempted to 'fix' the errors and tampering in the KJV (of 1611 C.E.) as they were slowly exposed by the discovery of more and more ancient copies of the Bible. However, it was not long before the errors which they discovered became so many and so serious that any amount of 'fixing' would no longer do. The text needed a complete overhaul. The whole KJV needed to be tossed out, the ancient manuscripts needed to be reassessed, and a completely new version needed to be compiled. This is how such Bibles as the Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the American Standard Version, etc. (based upon the Westcott-Hort) were born. However, even this effort was found to be seriously lacking in total honesty of translation and reproduction of the original and in unbiased objectivity. For more on this issue please download the second edition of the book "What Did Jesus Really Say?". and read chapter 2.1 The information contained therein is too extensive to reproduce here..

What Did Jesus Really Say?

http://www.ummah.net/jesussay/purchase.html

http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/thetruth.htm#RSV

TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE


http://www.beconvinced.com/RELIGION/TRANSLATIONER.htm

Exposing the New Testament's historical corruptions


http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm

A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark"

http://www.answering-christianity.com/mark16.htm

Christian Scholars refuting the status of the NT as an inspired scripture

http://www.answering-christianity.com/scholars_refute.htm
 
Proud Muslim I find it interesting that your links lead to sites advocating Islam.



Are there any links you have that are by UNBIASED scholars, or is your plethora limited to such?
If you have any, please let me know.


Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top