DOES THE BIBLE really really EXIST?

by Terry 87 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    The OT texts, for example, show evidence of extraordinary preservation.

    I have to disagree with you there, although compared to many books of the ancient world, the preservation is remarkable in of itself (regardless of how much redaction and change the books have undergone).

    The Dead Sea scrolls, when discovered, were many centuries older than the oldest available OT texts. However, they are remarkably similar, with little change.

    Quite a difficult claim to sustain for books like 1-2 Samuel, Jeremiah, Psalms, etc.

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog


    Quite a difficult claim to sustain for books like 1-2 Samuel, Jeremiah, Psalms, etc.

    Wording and grammer changed some (like the differences in English translations). But, content of doctrine, very little if any.

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    Thank you, Terry!

    You have a PM.

  • glenster
  • pixiesticks

    Even if you still believe the bible to be the true word of God passed down through the ages, for Witnesses, who rely on the exact phrasing and wording of particular scriptures, key to their prophecies for "the end of the system of things", the fact that the entirety of the NT is on such shaky ground should be of real concern!

  • AllTimeJeff

    I have no problem with a person wanting to base their personal spiritual identity on the bible. Some use the bible, some use comic books. Both are just as relevant to the person who uses them.

    What your treatment Terry speaks to me is the fact that there isn't a great deal of intellectual honesty where the bible is concerned. Most people are aware that this information is out there, yet many, in spite of the great stakes involved, are satisfied with their belief system. Which I think speaks to how powerful a person deciding to believe in something really is.

    Most theological students these days learn this at college about the bible. About original manuscripts, etc. When they become ministers in a religion, given supply and demand, most of the audience still don't want to hear about how the bible got to us. They want to hear stories in the bible explained. Until the general populace demands to learn more in a scholarly way from these men and women, they will continue to get legends and old stories turned into morality plays. While I enjoy that myself on occasion in what I read (Lord of the Rings for example) its important to keep in mind that one is reading a book of fiction, even if there is some good points to learn from it.

    Yes, I believe most of the bible to be fiction regarding its accounts. I do take 6 books for myself that I consider on occasion: Proverbs, Ecclesaisates, and the 4 Gospels. The rest of it is not worth my time personally.

    There has to be a difference between a persons spirituality, and the insistence by some that this spirituality be tied into accepting the bible as the unerring word of god.

    Terry, as you so eloquently put it, there never was a bible to consult until several hundred years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. It's a creation of the Christian religion, not the cause of the Christian religion. A study in the history of the cannon and how it got to us is very illuminating. It may not do a lot for your faith, but it will for your honesty, if you value that above a comfy belief system.

    I know that faith keeps a lot of people going. I know that many do misuse it, others don't. But a person can have faith while not dogmatically insisting the bible, with all its weirdness, has it right. A study of the bible's history shows why it is so disjointed in its message in the first place, they are a bunch of indivdual books, strung together by religionists with an agenda. Even if some of the writings do have value, and I believe that some do, in now way justifies a belief that all of it is from god, for us, nor does it excuse in my opinion a person deciding to turn off their brain, and not wanting to consider the evidence. I don't respect that too much.


    Wikipedia? Now that's a really good source. If I ever cited Wikipedia, or if any of my students cited Wikipedia there would be an F on the paper so fast.

  • AllTimeJeff

    I call bullshit XJW4EVER. Be fair, that is a summation of many different works and history and you know it. Would you dare to pick anything out of that article and dispute it, or do you just take comfort in a hit and run ridicule of the facts?

  • The Oracle
    The Oracle

    Excellent points Terry. And of course, very logical.

    When one reads the bible cover to cover with an open mind and with pure motives, it becomes painfully obvious that this collectoin of writings is anything but inspired of God. It is a collection of writings of men filled with petty and foolish expressions along with some quality object lessons and some principles that have merit and could be followed by nice people. As a complete work it is terribly flawed and does not deserve the respect that it receives.

    My humble opinion.

    Respect your fellow man. Do good to all. And do not align yourself with a religion.

    Peace out.

    The Oracle


    ATJ, call bullshit all you want, but Wikipedia is NOT a reputable source. Just look at how hard it is to get contrary facts out on the J Dubs or Scientology. I know no one in academia that even remotely takes WIkipedia seriously. I expect better from you.

Share this