Origins of Bible...

Markx

Registered Senior Member
Inspector,
How about a thread dedicated to Bible?. Let us hear what you have to say. I apologize in advance if it will turn into Bible or Quran Bashing thread. We will try to stay focus.
Please tell me/us,

What is Bible historicaly?

Who wrote the bible?

When it was written?

How much of Jesus saying is actually in there?

I like to start short, with basic questions. I know it is a lenthy topic.

Thanks in Advance.
 
For the last 50 years the Bible has been the largest seller of all books published in the history of the world.

The Bible was written by about 40 men in about 1600 years dating from 1500 B.C. to about 100 A.D. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13).


The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in A.D. 1388.

The first American edition of the Bible was perhaps published some time before A.D. 1752.

The Bible has been translated in part or in whole as of 1964 in over 1,200 different languages or dialects.

The Bible was divided into chapters by Stephen Langton about A.D. 1228.

The Old Testament was divided into verses by R. Nathan in A.D. 1448 and the New Testament by Robert Stephanus in A.D. 1551.

There are 66 books in the Bible, 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. (Note: 3 x 9 = 27).

The OT has 929 chapters and 23,214 verses. The NT has 260 chapters and 7,959 verses.

In the OT, the longest book is Psalms. The shortest book is Obadiah.

In the NT, the longest book is Acts. The shortest is 3 John.

The word "God" occurs 4,379 times. The word "Lord" occurs 7,738 times.

Isaiah is referenced 419 times in 23 NT books; Psalms 414 times in 23 books; Genesis 260 times in 21 books.




From the NASB Open Bible, 1979, pages 1227-1228 and Willmington's Book of Bible Lists.

><>
 
Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people.
---------------------------


Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."






Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus.






Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 19.

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."






Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2

Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money

Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."





Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "christus" who is Jesus - Annals

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt





Thallus Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun. Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus who wrote about AD 221 mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.

"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."

Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."

The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.





Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante–Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.







Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.





The Talmud

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."

Luke 22:1, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."

This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.






Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."

Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11–13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.

___________________
Sources

McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, San Bernardino, CA, Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1979.
Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Encarta on the Web at http://encarta.msn.com .

><>
 
The as we know it is an accepted canon (or at least was) of scriptures that were deemed relevant to the layperson. The canon was decided upon after a number of councils.

You have to realize that the bible did not come from one single document, it is a number of sources. So there is no "who wrote the bible," at least if you look at it from a single author or compliler. If you want to read further into this, but "Who wrote the New Testament" and "Who wrote the bible," even though the second one is a bit out of date. The first one will give you a good overview of recent studies.

- Phaedrus

if you have any very, and I mean very specific questions, feel free to ask. I have read some on the subject.
 
Over 1/3 of the Dead Sea Scrolls (tangible evidence) are actual books of the Old Testament. Also, the Tell El Amarna tablets (tangible, non-biblical evidence), written in 14th century B.C., are archaeologically consistent and textually accurate with the biblical accounts of Joshua's conquest of Canaan.

><>
 
Originally posted by inspector


Inspector,
Thank you for your time. You still haven't answer all of the questions, but let me start with your first reply and also let me tell you that why I don't think that the Bible today is orginal Bible or Injeel. The Injeel and Torah mentioned in Quran are no longer available, so the question of alterantion in God's word doesn't even apply on them. They were unchanged words of God. Sadly no longer exists.

The Bible or Bibles which exists today Cannot be the word of GOD, I may not be a scholar of either Bible or Quran, but I will only say what I read in Bible or common sense.

To me God had been eliminated from the authorship long ago. In the RSV by "Collins," invaluable notes on "The Books of the Bible" are to be found at the back of their production. I am reproducing only a bit of that information on below. Let's start with "GENESIS" — the first book of the Bible. The scholars say about its "AUTHOR": "One of the 'five books of Moses'." Note the words "five books of Moses" are written in inverted commas — " " This is a subtle way of admitting that this is what people say — that it is the book of Moses, that Moses was its author.


The next four books, "EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY": AUTHOR? "Generally credited to Moses."
This is the same category as the book of Genesis.

Who is the author of the book of "JUDGES?" Answer: "Possibly Samuel."


Who is the author of the book of "JOSHUA?" Answer: "Major part credited to Joshua."

Who is the author of "RUTH?" Answer: "Not definitely known" AND

Who is the author of:

1ST SAMUEL?............ Answer: Author "Unknown"

2ND SAMUEL........... Answer: Author "Unknown"

1ST KING?................. Answer: Author "Unknown"

2ND KING?............... Answer: Author "Unknown"

1st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Unknown, probably …"

2st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Likely collected …"



THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

GENESIS
AUTHOR One of the "five
books of Moses."

EXODUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

LEVITICUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

NUMBERS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

DEUTERONOMY
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

JOSHUA
AUTHOR. Major part
credited to Joshua.

JUDGES
AUTHOR. Possibly Samuel,

RUTH
AUTHOR. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel.

FIRST SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.

SECOND SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.

FIRST KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.

SECOND KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.

FIRST CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Unknown,
probably collected and
edited by Ezra.

SECOND CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Likely collected
and edited by Ezra.
EZRA
AUTHOR. Probably written
or edited by Ezra.

ESTHER
AUTHOR. Unknown.

JOB
AUTHOR. Unknown.

PSALMS
AUTHOR. Principally David,
though there are other writers.

ECCLESIASTES
AUTHOR. Doubtful, but
commonly assigned to Solomon.

ISAIAH
AUTHOR. Mainly credited
to Isaiah. Parts may have been
written by others.

JONAH
AUTHOR. Unknown.

HABAKKUK
AUTHOR. Nothing known of
the place or time of his birth.



The above facts are from Collins' R.S.V. 1971. Pages 12-17.



Also you mentioned 40 people wrote the bible and this "Holy Ghost thing came to them" Isn't it possible that this same Holy Ghost comes to some one now and they would like to add their own info in there? or thoughts or something and why do you beleive those 40 people and will not believe the more?


How about all the different versions of the bible in the world? are christian scholars are not manuplating the word of God by keep modifying the book?

Do you reject the fact that the Bible has been tampered? Modified, things have not been subtracted or added in there?

There are many bibles available these days and each group is following their own versions, mormons, protastants or catholics etc. Do you not agree with me?.

Now on your comment about worlds best seller. I agree with you. But does it make it word of GOD? I don't think so.
Let us hear it from the Scholars of Bible themself.

THE WORLD'S BEST SELLER"

On page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;

"THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."

Can you,, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above? I, for one, cannot. All that is wonderfull now let see what else they have to say;


"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the their own mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence." Another team of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopaedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in this Holy Writings and their reasons for eliminating them.

Do you see my point in above? I will get back to you tomorrow with the rest of my post. I am short on time.
 
Well, the old testament comes to us again. Scholars do not agree that the "five books of moses" were actually written by him. They belief that is was a compliation from many sources, namely the J, D, P and E sources. If you want to look more into it, search for "documentary hypothesis." It is not generally accepted among scholars as true and has received a great amount of research into it. If you want more, look at the books I have recommended before.

- Phaedrus
 
Originally posted by Phaedrus
Well, the old testament comes to us again. Scholars do not agree that the "five books of moses" were actually written by him. They belief that is was a compliation from many sources, namely the J, D, P and E sources. If you want to look more into it, search for "documentary hypothesis." It is not generally accepted among scholars as true and has received a great amount of research into it. If you want more, look at the books I have recommended before.

- Phaedrus


So you admit that those 5 books were not written by Moses?. They could be written by anyone? correct me please if I am wrong.
 
Redaction Criticism of the Bible is the theory that different copyists and commentators of the early biblical writings embellished and altered the biblical texts throughout early Jewish and Christian history to make them appear more miraculous, inspirational, and legitimate. An example of redaction theory would be the claim that Old Testament prophecies were modified by redactors after the fact to make them appear as miraculous prophecies. Redaction criticism reduces the quality of the biblical record, casts strong doubt on its inspiration, and implies that the Bible is not trustworthy as a historical document.

Originally, redaction criticism was restricted to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), but it has been applied to other areas of scripture. Norman Perrin in his book "What is Redaction Criticism?" states, "The prime requisite for redaction criticism is the ability to trace the form and content of material used by the author concerned or in some way to determine the nature and extent of his activity in collecting and creating, as well as in arranging, editing, and composing."1

Redaction Criticism began in Germany in the early 1700's with Hermann Reimarus who was a professor of Oriental languages in Hamburg. He was a deist who wrote extensively opposing Christianity. He proposed that Jesus was a failure and that the disciples altered their stories in an attempt to make Jesus appear messianic and miraculous.

Redaction criticism was then taken up by David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74) who attempted to show that the gospels were altered, were the expression of myth, and cannot be construed as historical. His main contribution to redaction criticism was the idea that Mark was used as a source document by Matthew and Luke.2 Wilhelm Wrede (1859-1906) was the next major proponent of redaction criticism who attempted to show that the historical narratives of Mark were not reliable.

Some evidence offered to support biblical redaction is that the ending of Deuteronomy (Chapter 34) records Moses' death though it was not Moses who wrote it; the arrangement of the Psalms into five sections is the work of a compiler; and that the Book of Chronicles state they are based on prior writings (1 Chron. 9:1; 27:24; 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29; 13:22; 6:11; 20:34; 25:26; 27:7; 28:26; 32:32; 33:19; 35:27; 36:8).3 There are other alleged evidences but these will suffice.

Though there are accounts of biblical writers arranging or commenting on events, this does not discount the authenticity or reliability of the biblical documents. It is commonly accepted in conservative scholarly circles that Joshua probably wrote the ending of Deuteronomy. This does not invalidate the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Likewise, simply arranging material, such as the Psalms, into categories does not affect its inspiration, authenticity, or reliability at all. And, citing other sources for factual reference likewise, in no way reduces the inspiration of the book of Chronicles, or the Bible as a whole. The inspired writer simply used other books, which were not inspired though accurate, in his compilation of the biblical record.

Another twist in redaction criticism is the proposition that there were inspired redactors. That is, those people who compiled and commented on biblical passages were themselves inspired. But, this contradicts the doctrine that the original writings were inspired. After all, if the original writings were inspired, there would be no need for altering the text. It further implies that what is said in scripture is not trustworthy. The gospels, for example, would not then really contain Jesus' words but only the words of redactors who wanted to embellish and/or modify "myth stories" into what was apparently more spiritual and inspirational. With this, deception is implied since the biblical documents claim authenticity and accuracy.

Though it is not within the scope of this paper, redaction criticism is refuted by the evidence of the reliability of the historic documents (dealt with in Textual Criticism), the fact that the prophecies were indeed made and fulfilled, and that the Bible is archeologically accurate. Due to the science of Textual Criticism, the original texts of the Bible can be reconstructed with a great deal of accuracy, their prophetic nature verified, and their inspiration maintained.

_____________
1. Perrin, Norman, What is Redaction Criticism?, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1969. p. 2.
2. Perrin, Norman, What is Redaction Criticism?, pp. 4-5.
3. Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1999. p.636.
 
Originally posted by inspector

_____________
1. Perrin, Norman, What is Redaction Criticism?, Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1969. p. 2.
2. Perrin, Norman, What is Redaction Criticism?, pp. 4-5.
3. Geisler, Norman, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books, 1999. p.636.



After your long post that you quoted of from some one else's ideas or thoughts, you just admit that there is a quite a bit of human input in Bible. Where is the proof that those men who ever wrote bible had that So called Holy Ghost in them? Now you didn't answer my questions again. Are you trying to dodge me? You missed my whole post and tried to give me Idea about redaction or deduction. Can you please help me out here. All I am saying, why would some one believe Bible? when the history of big is so fishy, I repeat again, I asked,



The next four books, "EXODUS, LEVITICUS, NUMBERS and DEUTERONOMY": AUTHOR? "Generally credited to Moses."
This is the same category as the book of Genesis.

Who is the author of the book of "JUDGES?" Answer: "Possibly Samuel."


Who is the author of the book of "JOSHUA?" Answer: "Major part credited to Joshua."

Who is the author of "RUTH?" Answer: "Not definitely known" AND

Who is the author of:

1ST SAMUEL?............ Answer: Author "Unknown"

2ND SAMUEL........... Answer: Author "Unknown"

1ST KING?................. Answer: Author "Unknown"

2ND KING?............... Answer: Author "Unknown"

1st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Unknown, probably …"

2st CHRONICLES? …. Answer: Author "Likely collected …"



THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

GENESIS
AUTHOR One of the "five
books of Moses."

EXODUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

LEVITICUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

NUMBERS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

DEUTERONOMY
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

JOSHUA
AUTHOR. Major part
credited to Joshua.

JUDGES
AUTHOR. Possibly Samuel,

RUTH
AUTHOR. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel.

FIRST SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.

SECOND SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.

FIRST KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.

SECOND KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.

FIRST CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Unknown,
probably collected and
edited by Ezra.

SECOND CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Likely collected
and edited by Ezra.
EZRA
AUTHOR. Probably written
or edited by Ezra.

ESTHER
AUTHOR. Unknown.

JOB
AUTHOR. Unknown.

PSALMS
AUTHOR. Principally David,
though there are other writers.

ECCLESIASTES
AUTHOR. Doubtful, but
commonly assigned to Solomon.

ISAIAH
AUTHOR. Mainly credited
to Isaiah. Parts may have been
written by others.

JONAH
AUTHOR. Unknown.

HABAKKUK
AUTHOR. Nothing known of
the place or time of his birth.



The above facts are from Collins' R.S.V. 1971. Pages 12-17.


what do u think of above? why the word is God is by some one else? I mean according to, possibly or maybes are pretty common in word of God?. Please help. Thank you.
 
Please help. Thank you.
-------------------------



I apologize. The above and below refernces come from carm.org



This is how the validity of the Bible is attacked:

The point here is that because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we cannot really know what the originals said and, therefore, the Bible could have been corrupted. They then compare the Bible to the Koran and state that the Koran is the guaranteed, preserved, direct word of Allah given by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Of course, what they fail to mention is:

The Bible documents are well attested as being reliable and accurate. (See the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.)

Regarding the Koran, Muhammad couldn't read or write, so he recited the Koran to people who then wrote it down. There is no evidence at all that the Koran was written down in its entirety in

Muhammad's lifetime and compiled as a unit. So how could he have verified its truth? Shortly after Muhammad's death, the Muslim Uthman ordered all sets of the Koran manuscripts to be destroyed except the codex of Zaid. Why? Is it because Zaid's copy was better? If so, how do we know? Did differences in the copies arise so quickly that discrepancies were evident and Uthman recognized the need for a standardized copy lest Islam suffer division? It raises doubt on the Koran's supposed incorruptibility.

Muslims claim that Allah said the Koran would be preserved. But, the mere claim is not enough. It is using the Koran to substantiate the Koran which is circular reasoning.



Once again, markx, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I wish you luck on your spiritual journey.

><>
 
Originally posted by inspector
Please help. Thank you.
-------------------------



I apologize. The above and below refernces come from carm.org



This is how the validity of the Bible is attacked:

The point here is that because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we cannot really know what the originals said and, therefore, the Bible could have been corrupted.



They then compare the Bible to the Koran and state that the Koran is the guaranteed, preserved, direct word of Allah given by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. Of course, what they fail to mention is:
.

><>

We can talk about Quran as much as you like. But I rather talk about Bible here.


But,

"The point here is that because we do not have the original manuscripts of the Bible, we cannot really know what the originals said and, therefore, the Bible could have been corrupted. "

Isn't it true? what you just said above? is it true or not?.
 
So, how can we be sure that those missing writers were inspired or who were they? And what about all the "According to" and "possibly" writers??. If I were to believe that Bible is word of God, I would like to see some solid arguments here, some logic and some concept of validity and I am not even talking about erros or contradictions etc etc. They are not even the point of concern here. All I like to know why would some one believe a Book, which is missing writers, but the books are there, many books are only believed to be written by certain people but no solid proof. Many errors which I believe that something God can't do. They according to who ever etc. I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
 
Again, all I am talking about is problem with the validity of Bible in terms of writers and factual history. Evidence and refernces are from Bible itself. Not from any other scriptures. Also encyclopedia Britinca was used for some references, and article has been edited to fit in this thread.

The Bible: The Encyclopedia Britannica writes "There will be no Bible without a Church that CREATED it"



1 . However, the term "Holy Bible" was not used by any of the Bible writers. It was rather a late Christian invention to identify the compilation of their canonised writings. It is composed of two parts, the Old Testament (O.T.) and the New Testament (N.T.).


O.T: a name given to the sacred books of the Christians (and Jews). It consists of



1) Torah (The Law),

2) The Books and

3) The Prophets.



The Christians, however, disagree on the exact number of the O.T. with its three parts. Protestants (like the Jews) believe only in 39 books as being canonized, whereas the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches take as sacred 52 books with an extra 14 books, known as Apocrypha (doubtful). The original manuscripts of the O.T., written in Hebrew, were all lost. What Christians are using today are only two translations of the lost originals. The Latin Translation, (known as Septuagint) is used by the Catholics, whereas the Greek translation is used by the Orthodox Christians. Nevertheless, the two versions "differ from each other frequently in minor particulars and sometimes in important particulars"



2. The modern different English translation, in particular, confirm these textual differences alluded to.



N.T.: "The Church CREATED the N.T. canon". This is verbatim quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica




3 . This part of the Bible is composed of 27 books that are divided into three parts:


1) The Four Gospels - figuratively known as Injeel in Arabic
2) The Epistles and
3) Revelation



Mormons, a Christian sect, add their own (Book of Mormon) as an indivisible complement of the New Testament. With regard to the Four Gospels, it has been proved beyond doubt (yet millions of ordinary Christians are unaware) that the present Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as well as many other Gospels- were written by anonymous writers, and not the disciples, who used for their writings the names of those disciples "only to gain ecclesiastical recognition."


4. Nonetheless, when it comes to identifying the real authors, a variety of assumptions are made. Some of the scholars of Comparative Religion, both Muslims and non-Muslims, assume that the existent Gospels were inspired, if not physically written, by St. Paul for a number of valid reasons as spelled out by Al Haj Ajijola.


5. Similarly, Christians differ greatly on pinpointing the precise date in which the Gospels were written. Notwithstanding, they agree that the writing of the Gospels took place between 50 and 150 years after the ascension of Jesus (a.s.).



6. They also admit the historical fact that there were, contemporary to the Gospels, a number of other gospels in circulation and all were accepted by the different Churches of that time. What is unknown, however, is the precise number of those gospels. Some scholars have the belief that they were no more than 20; others put the number up to 300 gospels



7. If this was the case, then why and how did the Church select only four books which are still used in Churches now?



The answer is simple; if we know that the four Gospels were selected in 325 A.C. - during the Nicene Council - in which the creed of "Trinity" was introduced for the first time, then it will become obvious that the selection was based on the fact that the current Gospels were held to be in support of that pagan doctrine, known from Egypt to India, some very explicitly like the Gospel of John. Furthermore, the manner in which the selection was conducted exposed very clearly the superstitious and Byzantine legacy of the Church and its anti-Jewish and pro-Hellenic Christianity. The event of the selection occurred during the Nicene Council which was attended by delegations from different Mediterranean churches. In that Council, "it was decided that all the different Gospels should be placed under a table in the Council hall. Every one there left the room and the door was locked. The bishops were asked to pray for the whole night that the correct version of the Gospel might come unto the top of the table. In the morning, the Gospel acceptable to (the Council decisions) were found neatly placed on top of the table. It was decided that all the Gospels remaining under the table should be burnt"


8. Despite this theological 'holocaust' in which more than one million Unitarian Christians were killed, some of the condemned Gospels, like Thornas' and Barnabas', miraculously survived. Thereafter , since that date - 323 A.C. - the right of keeping, copying and reading the Bible remained the unchallenged monopoly of the Church father until the fourteenth century.



As the Church "believed it was wrong for the ordinary people to read the Bible", John WY cliff, the English clergyman, was not forgotten or forgiven by the Church until his "bones were dragged from their grave and burnt" for he dared to translate the "Holy Writ" into his own mother tongue, English


9 . With the loss of the political and military power it possessed, the Church lost its grip on the monopoly of its 'Holy Book'. Today, the Bible is rendered into almost every spoken language. In English alone, there are about 40 authorised versions/translations. Because these versions were translated from different manuscripts - 22,000 of them which no two copies are identical, according to Ahmed Deedat - they understandably suffer from enormous textual differences.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Textual Difference in the Bible's Versions: ( Not Errors )


With the exception of the extra 14 books added by the Catholic Church coupled with the difference in the text between the Latin and the Greek translations of the Old Testament, the New Testament, in particular, underwent extensive changes and adulterations clearly manifested in the still existing phenomenon of the additions and omissions in the text of the Bible which was carried out by Christian scholars.


The following comparison between the Authorized King James Version (KJV) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV) provide concrete evidence of the corruption of the Bible.



KJV -Vs- RSV (1952):


a) Mark (16:8-20) in KJV ends with verse 20, but in (RSV) it ends with verse 8! This then means 12 verses were thrown out as FABRICATION!!

b) In KJV, chapter 8 in John starts with verse 1, which is quite regular, but the irregularity becomes visible when it starts with verse 12 as RSV (1952). Again 11 verses were unceremoniously expunged as INTERPOLATION!

c) Even verses clearly supporting fundamental dogmas, e.g. "Trinity", were not saved from this tampering. An example of this is John 5:7, which says, "For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; and the three are One". This verse appears in KJV, yet disappears in RSV!



RSV: Comparison:


In the Preface of the RSV it is written that "The KJV has GREAT defects... those defects are SO MANY and SO SERIOUS as to call for a revision of the English translation". In the above lines a few examples of these defects in KJV were mentioned. What is amazing about this Book is that every RSV, which came to correct these defects, contains even GREATER defects itself! A few examples will make it clear.


a) RSV (1952) had 23 verses REMOVED from the text as fabrication. (Mark & John).

b) The same RSV for the year (1971) allowed all 23 verses to make a mysterious comeback to the text! Hence they are now rendered revelation after they were fabrication.


Amid this unholy game of editing and re-editing,resulting with the Christians playing with their "Holy Book", the translators of the New International Version (NIV 1984) have scored yet another shot in the game by returning the 23 removed verses but in a different way. They have inserted a 'warning statement', enclosed in two brackets, to precede each portion of verses to warn the unwary Christian that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses DO NOT HAVE MK [16:8-20] & JN [8:1-10]!




It is not untrue to assert that another book, the size of the Bible, would be inevitable if the Bible was scrutinised for every single defect, error or fault. This fact is supported by the Jehovah's Witness' magazine (AWAKE) which reported that there are 50,000 errors in the Bible".

This astronomical figure should cause no surprise if we care to know that the writing of the Bible spanned over 3000 years and was carried out by more than 40 writers! Most certainly, during that vast space of time, the Divine truth, the Inspired Word of Allah went missing. But Allah (s.w.t.) through His mercy had restored that truth in His Final Revelation: the Holy Qur'an. He also promised to preserve it from any human distortion or corruption when He said, "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and we will assuredly GUARD it". As for those who still stubbornly refuse to believe in the Diving origin of the Holy Qur'an, Allah (s.w.t.) is reasoning with them and inviting them to study, check and compare it to their (holy) books, yet with a gentle rebuke thus, "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care) had it been from any other than Allah they would have found therein many discrepancies" (An-Nisa 4:82).

My simple point is, word of God should have been same like Quran.No omitions or additions. But it is not. How can you call it word of God?. Maybe some teachings of Jesus, some tid bits of his life some stories, some facts and some ficition etc etc written by those 40 or more men after 150-300 years after his life.
 
I think that the bible suffers from a phenomena that every historical text suffers from, namely that such a text can only be properly understood by its contemporaries.

Always when we study a historical text now we do not grasp nuances, details, facts, contexts that were obvious for a person that lived in the time the piece was written. It is therefore for an historian always a question to what a degree he really can understand an historical text.

Why would this be any different for the bible? On top of that we use translations. Furthermore, there were different authors in different times, probably writing down oral accounts passed on from generation to the next generation.

what do you have left in the end: a document that has been ripped out of its historical context. A document that has been intensly modified.
 
Since no one raised an argument about the validity of it or my claims, So after all Bible is men's handy work, 40 or 100 but fully human product. Thank you.:m:
 
So you admit that those 5 books were not written by Moses?. They could be written by anyone? correct me please if I am wrong.

Yes, there were not written by one person. We know around where the writers were located and a few other tidbits of info, but why would that even matter?

O.T: a name given to the sacred books of the Christians (and Jews)

Well, the Jewish religion does not agree completely with the accepted texts, they have a few more than the christian canons.

N.T.: "The Church CREATED the N.T. canon". This is verbatim quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica

Yes, the "universal church" created the canon if you want to put it this way. They had a number of councils to create the canon in reaction to other sects and groups of people that accepted books that the church did not agree with.


Some of the scholars of Comparative Religion, both Muslims and non-Muslims, assume that the existent Gospels were inspired, if not physically written, by St. Paul for a number of valid reasons as spelled out by Al Haj Ajijola.

Uhh, I know of no "scholars" that believe this. At least I have not seen any of these articles in peer reviewed scholarly journals. The OT and the NT were written by a number of sources that are not completely agreed on by current scholars. Check out the books I listed in a previous post.

5. Similarly, Christians differ greatly on pinpointing the precise date in which the Gospels were written. Notwithstanding, they agree that the writing of the Gospels took place between 50 and 150 years after the ascension of Jesus (a.s.).

It was more along the lines of 40-150 BC, if it was "after the ascension" (if you want to call it that) then it would be later since Jesus was born around 8-6 BCE (before common era) and died sometime after 30 AD, but before 60 AD.

"believed it was wrong for the ordinary people to read the Bible",

Not exactly correct, the church believed that it was wrong for a person to interpret the bible differently than the church itself, because it saw itself as the true authority. However it is true that a printing of the bible in vulgar languages would make this "interpretation" happen. But they still read verses to people in latin, which while many people did not know it, a few still did.

With the loss of the political and military power it possessed, the Church lost its grip on the monopoly of its 'Holy Book'.

Wrong, it lost its monopoly of the holy book when the reformation happened. To be more precise, it was more around the time after Luther died that vulgar translations were more common. Luther translated the bible into German while he was alive which angered the church. It was not the "loss of political and military power" that made this happen. It was a loss of the people. People were moving to Luther`s side, even with the horrible attacks on the break away sects (the church would kill many of them) people still changed over. The church did lose these powers later on because of the breakaway and the turning to secularism.

My simple point is, word of God should have been same like Quran.No omitions or additions. But it is not. How can you call it word of God?.

I do not call it the word of god, however I cannot see how you can call the Quran the word of god either. In fact I do not see that if a text has no errors, even with a claim that it was inspired by "god" why it would have to be god who created (or inspired) it.

- Phaedrus
 
Originally posted by Phaedrus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, there were not written by one person. We know around where the writers were located and a few other tidbits of info, but why would that even matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe it is really serious matter, because one if putting his faith on man made religion and following the ideas and thoughts of humans and not some divine revealition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the Jewish religion does not agree completely with the accepted texts, they have a few more than the christian canons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very true.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the "universal church" created the canon if you want to put it this way. They had a number of councils to create the canon in reaction to other sects and groups of people that accepted books that the church did not agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See, more human intervention in word of God. Thank you for proving my point. All I am trying to say that, this text is no longer divine or word of God. It is more of a word of human, mixture of fiction and here say, offcourse there are some facts, but yet far from beeing called word of God.


I will try to get hold of the books that you have mentioned. Thank you for you time though.
 
Back
Top