The Bible Is Very Edited

Joined
Apr 18, 2017
Messages
1,277
Likes
3,179
#1
"Actually, the Bible is the most authenticated ancient text known to man. What does that mean? A lot of things actually…

The Bible has the smallest time gap between the time it was first written and the earliest manuscripts we have. That is VERY important when we are dealing with ancient documents because it greatly increases probability of reliability. We are going to take a few moments to compare the New Testament to other ancient historical accounts that are considered trustworthy and reliable.

IMG_3583.PNG

By historical comparison, the earliest manuscripts we have of the New Testament were written in a shockingly short time span from when the original document was penned - a mere 50 years. But there is so much more…

Every single manuscript out of the 24,633 we have of the New Testament alone matches up virtually perfectly, which means they were copied, not edited. They were not perpetuated like a game of telephone, they are true to their original content. How does that compare to the works of other ancient text? Look how many we have of Caesar, Plato, and Tacitus in comparison to the New Testament:

IMG_3580.PNG
The next closest in regards to the number of manuscripts we have would be Homer’s Iliad with a total of 643 manuscripts

IMG_3581.PNG
That still leaves the Bible leading by 23,990 manuscripts.

The foundational points of Caesar’s life, the preservation of the Iliad, and the reliability of Tacitus’ writings are considered rock solid. We believe those events happened, we believe the stories told are ones the authors wrote. So why do we doubt the Bible which is FAR more trustworthy than anything else we have? 643 x 38.31 to be exact.

So internally it’s accurate, but what about externally? How do we know it is not simply the writers perpetuating a lie? Glad you asked! Next slide…
IMG_3582.PNG

Apart from the Bible, we have 9 non-Christian outside sources and 33 Christian outside sources. That brings us to a total of 42 outside sources affirming the events and authenticity of the Bible. Compare that to the second place who would be Caesar of which we only have ten outside sources documenting his life.

We don’t doubt the events of Caesar’s life, we don’t say that there is no evidence to prove the words about him are true, we don’t claim that these other books are so heavily edited that we can no longer believe anything they say is accurate. So why do we doubt the Bible is true?

The Bible blows everything else away. It passes every test of authenticity by a massive amount. If we disregard the validity of the Bible, we have to discard everything we claim to know about ancient history because the Bible is the absolute highest standard for historical accuracy. That’s a fact. (You can watch the whole video including why the four eye-witness gospel accounts are important here)"
 





Camidria

Established
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
474
Likes
1,118
#2
This also baffles me a lot when talking to people who refute Jesus's existence, it is a well known fact that we only have 10 copies about Caesar, but we believe he was an historical figure and that he existed. But the bible who has 24,633 copies and 42 outside sources (WAY more than Caesar) no that must be fake and a fairy tale. What type of stupid logic is that?

People believe what they want to, because believing what you told that fits what is comfortable for you is easier. It feels like the truth isn't really important to people!
 





Alanantic

Established
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
241
Likes
307
#4
From:
http://omjesus.net/


Rudolf Bultmann: "The character of Jesus, the clear picture of his personality and life, has faded beyond recognition. I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning his life and personality, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary..."

Ernst Käsemann: "One is overwhelmed by how little [of the accounts of Jesus in the New Testament] can be called authentic...the historical figure of Jesus is traceable only in a few words of the Sermon on the Mount, the conflict with the Pharisees, a number of parables and some further narratives."

Günther Bornekamm: "The attempt to reconstruct an original draft of the Gospel according to Mark is a hopeless undertaking..."

While more recent New Testament research sounds less depressing--especially with recent developments in New Testament scholarship in the United States-modern experts in general have gradually come to believe that no more than fifteen percent of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are his actual words. The rest have been attributed to him by generations of theologians and scribes.

In other words, the New Testament was not written by eyewitnesses. Rather, the four gospels gradually evolved, reflecting views of various Christian communities that existed from the time when the Gospel of Mark was written, around 70 AD.

The last gospel, the Gospel of John (125 AD), is now regarded as the least authentic because of its exaggerated Christological and Gnostic tendencies. Bultmann considers the Gospel of John a Tendenz Roman (i.e., tendentious literature).

As for the gospels of Matthew and Luke, written shortly after Mark's (c. 80-85 AD), it is widely agreed upon that both drew on Mark for their plots.

Regarding the virtually identical instructional material in Matthew and Luke that is not in Mark, scholars have assumed that the authors of both similar gospels drew upon a common source, logia, labeled 'Q' (from the German word Quelle meaning "source"). Q is said to comprise written or oral sayings of Jesus that might have been in circulation around the time of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels (i.e., those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

This assumption in its most basic form is called the Two Sources Theory. It has gained considerable support with the emergence of the Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi Codex, discovered in Egypt, 1945), which indeed turned out to be a Gospel of Jesus' sayings--the existence of the genre of a gospel of sayings thus being demonstrated.

None of the Gospels were written in Israel. All of them reflect the understanding of the evolving Christian communities in the various geographical locations they represent.

Hence at the heart of the argument is the idea that the Gospel stories that we have all known, loved, eagerly recited and reposed our faith in--from the manger in Bethlehem to the crucifixion at Golgotha and beyond, to the resurrection and ascent to heaven--rather than representing the Jesus of history are actually proclamations of the Jesus of faith: What Christian communities outside Israel had come to believe about Jesus after 70 AD.

Along these lines, it is quite certain that neither Jesus nor his disciples had any idea of him being the awaited Messiah, the Christ, God incarnate, the second person of the Trinity, or the savior bringing mankind salvation through his self-sacrifice at Calvary.

Even the Last Supper--first recorded in Paul's letters ("For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night when he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me...'" (1 Corinthians 11:23-27)-even this might very well not be what those who actually physically associated with Jesus received (i.e., Peter, John and the rest of his disciples. John Dominic Crossan says the Didache, a second century document of the Jewish-Christian community--discovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios--says nothing about such an event. In other words, the immediate followers of Jesus were not Christians. Nor was Jesus one.

With much of Christianity's most essential theological concepts being called into question--Soteriology (Jesus as the suffering savior) as much as Christology (Jesus as the divine second person of the Trinity)--Christianity is facing a major doctrinal crisis.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
2,766
Likes
4,627
#5
Why would anyone take a Jesus and Krishna website as an authoritative scholarly website for bible scholarship?!

Liberal theologians are on the opposite end of the spectrum of conservative/ bible believing scholars.
https://carm.org/elements-liberalism

A challenge for you: Please provide evidence the men quoted above actually *believed* what the bible said is true.
Qualifications, church title (pastor, bishop etc.), not sufficient. Personal faith in Jesus Christ proved via other quotes from same people.
 





Alanantic

Established
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
241
Likes
307
#8
Why would anyone take a Jesus and Krishna website as an authoritative scholarly website for bible scholarship?!

Liberal theologians are on the opposite end of the spectrum of conservative/ bible believing scholars.
https://carm.org/elements-liberalism

A challenge for you: Please provide evidence the men quoted above actually *believed* what the bible said is true.
Qualifications, church title (pastor, bishop etc.), not sufficient. Personal faith in Jesus Christ proved via other quotes from same people.
You misunderstand the purpose of my post...and possibly the thread.
 





Joined
Apr 29, 2017
Messages
213
Likes
240
#15
Quality over quantity. I've read Eusebius and other Christian writers. Many of them are simply repetitious, always invoking quotes from the scriptures, inserting them whenever possible. It muddles the alleged history and makes reading a chore. Origen's writings are at least bearable.

Plus, one must also take into account the innumerable losses of ancient literature (i.e. Library of Alexandria), that may or may not have been caused by proto-Christianity. Many works mentioned by the ancient writers are long gone or only exist in fragments.

This also baffles me a lot when talking to people who refute Jesus's existence, it is a well known fact that we only have 10 copies about Caesar, but we believe he was an historical figure and that he existed. But the bible who has 24,633 copies and 42 outside sources (WAY more than Caesar) no that must be fake and a fairy tale. What type of stupid logic is that?

People believe what they want to, because believing what you told that fits what is comfortable for you is easier. It feels like the truth isn't really important to people!
Caesar has a surviving bust while there isn't even a reliable description of Jesus' appearance or features. The ancient Greeks/Romans certainly had a good grasp of how to transmit a person's memory to posterity.

That isn't to say that Jesus never existed. I think some people take their hostility too far in that regard. As for me, I am only against the myths that have been built around Jesus.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
5,119
Likes
7,737
#17
Quality over quantity. I've read Eusebius and other Christian writers. Many of them are simply repetitious, always invoking quotes from the scriptures, inserting them whenever possible. It muddles the alleged history and makes reading a chore. Origen's writings are at least bearable.

Plus, one must also take into account the innumerable losses of ancient literature (i.e. Library of Alexandria), that may or may not have been caused by proto-Christianity. Many works mentioned by the ancient writers are long gone or only exist in fragments.

Caesar has a surviving bust while there isn't even a reliable description of Jesus' appearance or features. The ancient Greeks/Romans certainly had a good grasp of how to transmit a person's memory to posterity.

That isn't to say that Jesus never existed. I think some people take their hostility too far in that regard. As for me, I am only against the myths that have been built around Jesus.
You would be very interested by "A Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, judging from your comments....
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,079
Likes
2,317
#18
Even if it was 100% authentic....you Christians do not follow it.

The center of your belief ie the trinitarian doctrine tells you the son and holy spirit are fully God and co-equals with the Father
Ironically you consider Catholics 'pagan' because their polythiesm is a little bit more mystical than your version.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,079
Likes
2,317
#19
However the 'bible' is a collection of many different books
Historians consider Daniel for example to not be legitimate but written by a random Jew in the 1st century BC
Yet despite what the historians claim the prophecies in the book foretold later events ie Jesus and Titus and the destruction of the temple.
Sometimes I go with faith and not what historians say but how I do this depends on my personal outlook and how a text makes sense to me.
Kings and chronicles contradict each other various times nor are they inspired works with a prophetic purpose. They also tell us a dark tale about Solomon Which in the context makes nonsense and contradicts the book of Ecclesiastes.
In this instance simple logic tells me Ecclesiastes is the one to follow

The Bible is wasted on most Christians...
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
2,766
Likes
4,627
#20
Even if it was 100% authentic....you Christians do not follow it.

The center of your belief ie the trinitarian doctrine tells you the son and holy spirit are fully God and co-equals with the Father
Ironically you consider Catholics 'pagan' because their polythiesm is a little bit more mystical than your version.
Very sweeping statement there.
What is your definition of following the bible?

Second claim is incorrect. This is the core doctrine of Christianity.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Disproves Islam:
Shows God loves the world, including non-believers
God (the Father) gave His begotten Son (Jesus), therefore God has a Son
Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone will give eternal salvation

Your (self-proclaimed) prophet had no idea of what the bible meant because he was never born again.