A few things I don't understand about the bible

by Leander 64 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  CPiolo

  Lefty:

  that's because there is no "evidence" that you have to offer which proves that the Bible is NOT the word of God.

  Following your lead, then there's also no evidence that the Vedas, or the Qu' ran, or the Book of Mormon, and so on ARE NOT the Word of God either. For that matter, there's no evidence that there IS NOT an invisible pink unicorn in my closet that is channeling information from God directly to me exclusively. I'm being facetious for a reason. It's often difficult or impossible to prove a negative. And as has already been pointed out, those making assertions are responsible for backing those assertions up with evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not the other way around.

  On the other hand, there is much evidence that the Bible borrowed, stole, adopted, and/or integrated the mythologies and religious thought of surrounding older and contemporaneous cultures --from Mithraism, Zorastrianism (paradise is originally a Persian word, not Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek), and Egyptian, Greek and Far Eastern religous thought. At the same time, there are many believing religious scholars and clergy that have had to admit that there is little or no supporting evidence for many Bible stories (the exodus of Jews from Egypt and their wandering the desert for 40 years is one example) and much evidence to the contrary.

  So where does that leave one? The possibilities are many. You can ignore the empirical evidence and take it on faith alone that the Bible is the literal truth provided by God, and condemn all those who use their God-given abilities to think and reason and who reject the Bible as literal truth. You can say the Bible is from God, but is a mixture of history, allegory and myth and reject all other claims of divine inspiration and condemn all those who believe other religous texts are from God and that yours are not, and who condemn you for your beliefs. You can say that all religious texts are from God, and that all contain truth and condemn no one. And the choices go on infinitum. I prefer to live a good life, trying not to condemn anyone for their beliefs alone, use the intelligence with which I've been blessed to learn, to think and hopefully improve, and to do my best to get along with my fellow man, and leave the judging to God if God is so inclined, because frankly I can't see the veracity of one religion's claims to represent God above all others.

  CPiolo
• 

  JanH

  Lefty,

  What you say is essentially: If you don't already believe, you cannot accept the "evidence."

  The prosecution smugly rests its case

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  Thomas Poole

  Leander,

  Your thoughts and ponderances of this nature are not a priority for you at this.

  There is a matter of Salvation and being in the position of the New Man in God.

  Then your questions will come forth with a more rational posturing of inquiry. The static is removed and faith, with the help of the Holy Spirit, will answer many of those questions. The cobwebs will go away.

  Start with sincere prayer as soon as possible. You will learn the Grace of our Abba Father, our God in Heaven.

  In Christ
• 

  LittleToe

  Jan:
  Okay, I'm not a proud man...

  I retract the "tradition states that Alexander..." comment due to it's having an unauthenticated heritage.
  The earliest mention that I can find of it is in Josephus Antiquities if the Jews Book XI Chapter 8.
  Personally that is enough for me, since he was only 400 years from the date in question, however I do understand that some (after an additional 1900 years from Josephus record) feel this source inadequate.
  I don't retract the statement "To be totally spurious you would have to prove them such", however, since you have interjected an absolute into the equation that I have serious problems with.

  I don't retract the comment about "the LXX has stood", as I clarified the context to SixofNine.

  Neither do I retract the comment about my allusion to the Roman dynasty, since I was refering to the "world empire" sections (Daniel 2 & 7). This is covered in ANY good commentary.
  I personally reference:
  Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's Commentary
  Matthew Henry's Commentary
  John Wesley's Explanatory Notes
  In addition Josephus, recording Daniel's comments as history, in Antiquities book x.

  I never mentioned emperors, you did.
  You may be mixing me up with some other dude who commented on the King of the North/South.
  I never made this clear, but then you never asked.

  In all honesty you weren't particularly fair, since I had already stated that I wasn't in striking distance of my references.

  Now in good Viking spirit, join me in a drink!!!
  Then we'll do battle again another day

  LT
• 

  LittleToe

  Jan:
  Arrgghhhh!!!
  I forgot to add that the LXX was completed about 200BC.
  Where are your sources for Daniel being written after this date - you stated that it was written during the 2nd Cent. BC, not the 3rd.

  LT

  Clink "Chin, chin"
• 

  AGuest

  Dearest Lefty, may you have peace!

  And may I ask you again to please permit me to ask you: do you think the Bible to be the Word of God? Can you show me where the Bible itself SAYS that it is the Word of God? I await your response and thank you, in advance.

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Satanus

  Aguest

  Exactly which parts of the bible do you consider words from god? If i remember right, you may have said moses, revelation. I don't remember the rest. By 'moses', do you mean the pentatuch?
• 

  willy_think

  that's because there is no "evidence" that you have to offer which proves that the Bible is NOT the word of God

  hi Lefty,
  can you tell me who frist said the bible is the word of god?
  can you tell me the year?
  can you tell me how many years it was after the chirch went apostate untill the time thay called it the word of god?
  can you tell me why i need to call an apostate book the word of god?
• 

  JanH

  LT,

  I forgot to add that the LXX was completed about 200BC.

  You're making this up now, aren't you?

  LXX is simply a name for a collection of Greek translations of the OT (+ apocrypha) made over a long period by different people, following different methods. Only a fraction of what is called LXX can be traced to the mythical 72 elders in Alexandria. Some of the books are shortened versions (Jeremiah comes to mind), some quite exact, some in good Greek, some in very poor Greek, some ideomatic, some are not, etc, etc. These texts are dated from around 300AD to some time before Aquila, c. 130AD (see e.g. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pp. 1092f)
  

  Where are your sources for Daniel being written after this date - you stated that it was written during the 2nd Cent. BC, not the 3rd.

  It was written very shortly before Antiochus IV Epiphanes' death in 164 BC (NJBC, p. 408). I have already given the primary reason for this, which can be found in the book itself. It accurately describes the events leading up to this year, and then it makes predictions that failed to come to pass.

  A detailed examination of the whole line of arguments can be found in any decent Bible commentary. If you really have never opened any text books on the subjects, I suggest you do so now.

  - Jan
  --
  "Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets
• 

  AGuest

  Dearest Saint... peace to you!

  You ask:

  Exactly which parts of the bible do you consider words from god?

  As told me by my Lord, I consider that which is 'inspired' by God and thus, is 'scripture'. According to my Lord, this would be Moses, the Prophets, the Psalms... and the Revelation (by means of my Lord's directive to John to 'write'). The Prophets would also include at least the Books of Enoch, Jashur, and Baruch, and some others, which are not included in the Bible canon. Why are they not included? Because the 'false stylus' of the copyists have included, excluded, and added whatever it is they wanted to. If you recall, some time prior to Josiah's reign, ALL of it was 'lost'.

  Jeremiah 8:8

  If i remember right, you may have said moses, revelation.

  Yep.

  I don't remember the rest.

  See above, please.

  By 'moses', do you mean the pentatuch?

  Actually, no, I don't. I think "Pentateuch" is a GREEK word, rather than a Hebrew one, and it what the Jews adopted, say, during the first century. According to my Lord, "Moses" includes all of the first five books except Genesis, as well as a book of "the law of Moses" and a book of "the Wars of JAH". And according to my Lord, Genesis was written by Joseph when imprisoned in Egypt and went with the Israelites when they returned his bones to Canaan.

  I hope this helps to answer your questions, Saint. I have only shared with you what has been 'given' to me.

  Peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ