On The Authenticity Of The English Bible

**jmpet** · 01-17-11, 11:53 AM

Last night I surfed Wikipedia for several hours on The Bible old and new- not the religion but the history of the words through the centuries through today and ended up very confused.

Apparently there is no definitive source for the bible- just a consensus of what scholars believe or have believed or have interpreted through the years. For example, the King James version of the Bible- which I learned a great deal about. First published in 1611, based on 47 scholarly opinions and translated from Greek, Latin and Hebrew. What I found interesting is that no great single event happened in 1611- that was just the year they all got together and came up with one English version of The Bible.

There is nothing that makes this version more definitive or authoritive, it's just "the new version".

The Roman Catholics have their own version of The Bible as well.

As far as the New Testament texts themselves, they were written 30+ years after the event happened and written probably in Aramaic- all those books are now lost. At some point it was translated to Greek then to English, and we've been rewriting it ever since.

It is comforting to find say, the Dead Sea Scrolls and see we're not that far off with the Old Testament and it'd be nice to one day find the New Testament's "Q Bible" from which the books draw information from.

I do have some faith in the oral tradition thousands of years ago but I am amazed at the latitude that has been given through the years to polish up the Bible and make it more coherent. Alas, to go back 2,000 years and learn common Aramaic- that'd be the prize.

You can say I am nit-picking but I think it's particularly relevant- especially with Jesus' claims to divinity- which is the central tenet of the Catholic faith.

As the Readers Digest jokingly put it, they quipped the Bible told priests to "celebrate", not "be celibate". D'oh! This is an example of how the twist of one phrase can throw an entire book off.

What do you folks think?

**Lori_7** · 01-17-11, 12:36 PM

i rely on the holy spirit as the definitive source. it's used the bible to teach me things. i see it as a tool more than a book really. i'm not worried about human translations and manipulations because i think it's silly to think that humans can thwart a message that god wants to impart. i think the whole point of the message is still intact, the message being to rely on the holy spirit.

**jmpet** · 01-17-11, 01:36 PM

Okay- where's the Book of the Holy Spirit?

**AlexG** · 01-17-11, 01:41 PM

She means the voices in her head.

**Cifo** · 01-17-11, 02:07 PM

No matter what may or may not have happened to the Bible, there's plenty of redundancy in addition to the Holy Spirit working through believers, and the essential message is preserved.

So, for example, when in 1631, someone published a version of the Bible (later nicknamed the Wicked Bible) because one part of it read: "Thou shalt commit adultery"

, it was an obvious error, and its printing was stopped, almost all the existing copies were burned, and the publishers were spanked

(no, just fined).

So, as Lori said, with the help of the ever-present Holy Spirit, the essential message comes through loud and clear and unchanged: love God, love your neighbors, and love your enemies.

**gmilam** · 01-17-11, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Cifo

So, as Lori said, with the help of the ever-present Holy Spirit, the essential message comes through loud and clear and unchanged: love God, love your neighbors, and love your enemies.

Feel the love oozing from The Westboro Baptist Church?

OK - Maybe the message isn't loud and clear for everyone...

**dbnp48** · 01-17-11, 03:38 PM

Read these if you think the bible is the "word of god":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

An omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god would have delivered a single, internally consistent document that would remain valid for all time. Reading the above links will convince any thinking person that the bible is a man-made document riddled with errors and inconsistencies. The same can be said of the Qur'an.

**Cifo** · 01-17-11, 03:45 PM

Yeah, the whole basis of Christianity is that people aren't perfect but that they should try to be. It'd be nice to limit our imperfections to picking our noses in public or whatnot, but there are occasional wackos (even so-called "Christian" wackos) who are always coming up with new ways to screw things up.

Funny ... Americans call what they do "the pursuit of happiness" and "free speech". Christians call it "sinning", and they consider it worse than breaking any law that humans can ever invent. I'm glad you seem to agree.

I try to remember that the squeaky wheels gets all the attention, while all those wheels that work just fine get no attention at all, just like cops don't give awards to drivers who don't speed.

**jmpet** · 01-17-11, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by dbnp48

Read these if you think the bible is the "word of god":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

An omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god would have delivered a single, internally consistent document that would remain valid for all time. Reading the above links will convince any thinking person that the bible is a man-made document riddled with errors and inconsistencies. The same can be said of the Qur'an.

I guess you gloosed over the OP and posted the exact same links I already referenced in the OP. Good going.

**Lori_7** · 01-17-11, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by jmpet

Okay- where's the Book of the Holy Spirit?

the holy spirit isn't a book; it's a spirit.

Originally Posted by AlexG

She means the voices in her head.

the bible however is a book all about how the holy spirit communicates with people.

**dbnp48** · 01-17-11, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by jmpet

I guess you gloosed over the OP and posted the exact same links I already referenced in the OP. Good going.

You didn't post any links in the OP.

**Cifo** · 01-17-11, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by dbnp48

An omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god would have delivered a single, internally consistent document that would remain valid for all time.

Well, that come with it's own problems. We've known for a long time that languages change and evolve over time, and even Modern English is still evolving. So how's this document supposed to work? If there's a physical object that's, say, indestructible and magically understandable by every person of every language in the world for all eternity, then people would tend to worship it instead of God.

For me, an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god would have given us sex organs that we don't pee out of.

I mean, really, what's up with that? And they should emit pheromones that women find irresistible.

**dbnp48** · 01-17-11, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Cifo

Well, that come with it's own problems. We've known for a long time that languages change and evolve over time, and even Modern English is still evolving. So how's this document supposed to work? If there's a physical object that's, say, indestructible and magically understandable by every person of every language in the world for all eternity, then people would tend to worship it instead of God.

I have no idea how to do it but then I'm neither omniscient or omnipotent

It just seems unlikely that such a god would create a document with internal inconsistencies. And, I assume there would only be one "instruction manual". Since there are dozens of mutually incompatible "sacred texts" and the two most important "sacred texts" contain dozens of inconsistencies, I assume they didn't come from god.

**gmilam** · 01-17-11, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Cifo

Well, that come with it's own problems. We've known for a long time that languages change and evolve over time, and even Modern English is still evolving. So how's this document supposed to work?

Well, that's her own fault... Remember that whole Tower of Babel thing.

**wellwisher** · 01-17-11, 06:07 PM

Say you had a dozen people witness an accident. If you ask each person what happened, some parts of all their stories would be consistent, but others details might be inconsistent and vary from person to person.

If you were someone, who was not there, to witness the accident, but wanted to know the truth, what would you do with all that converging and diverging information? Would you pick one person and use his account and call it the truth? Or would you use all the data, knowing the truth was scattered among all the data?

I would guess, the people who compiled the first bible saw these inconsistencies, but to avoid the risk of eliminating any truth, they kept it all. Leave it for the future to figure it out the truth, by handing then all the data. This shows honest intent, rather than pretend perfection. A good scientist does not throw out the conflicting data to make his thesis look better.

**gmilam** · 01-17-11, 06:19 PM

Say you were god, and you had a message for us - would you make it open for imterpretation? Or would you spell it out clearly, concisely and unambiguously so that all get the same message?

Just sayin...

**birch** · 01-17-11, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by wellwisher

Say you had a dozen people witness an accident. If you ask each person what happened, some parts of all their stories would be consistent, but others details might be inconsistent and vary from person to person.

If you were someone, who was not there, to witness the accident, but wanted to know the truth, what would you do with all that converging and diverging information? Would you pick one person and use his account and call it the truth? Or would you use all the data, knowing the truth was scattered among all the data?

I would guess, the people who compiled the first bible saw these inconsistencies, but to avoid the risk of eliminating any truth, they kept it all. Leave it for the future to figure it out the truth, by handing then all the data. This shows honest intent, rather than pretend perfection. A good scientist does not throw out the conflicting data to make his thesis look better.

so you just made this up too? i suppose that's why the church threw out or kept out whole works or texts they didn't like, eh? still, there is no way to know concretely if these stories are true to the letter. that's why it's best approached as moral allegory. that's really the major point of any religious text.

why do religionists consistently make up things with not an iota of concern for the truth and then act like victims when it's called into question?

**NMSquirrel** · 01-17-11, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by wellwisher

Say you had a dozen people witness an accident. If you ask each person what happened, some parts of all their stories would be consistent, but others details might be inconsistent and vary from person to person.

If you were someone, who was not there, to witness the accident, but wanted to know the truth, what would you do with all that converging and diverging information? Would you pick one person and use his account and call it the truth? Or would you use all the data, knowing the truth was scattered among all the data?

you read my post..wait you are a new user..you must be channeling my post..

and birch is young with a big religious chip on his shoulder,don't let him get to you..

**jmpet** · 01-17-11, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by dbnp48

You didn't post any links in the OP.

No I didn't. But intelligent people can discern that Wikipedia has the relevant information.

**dbnp48** · 01-17-11, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by jmpet

No I didn't. But intelligent people can discern that Wikipedia has the relevant information.

You referred briefly to your "research". I provided links including an extremely relevant one indicating errors and internal contradictions in three "sacred texts" to support my position. It's called citing sources and is a normal part of making a reasoned argument. If you want people to take your position seriously, don't state opinions without evidence and snipe at those that do.