Accurate Bible?, controversy

Bud, you've made a msitake on this one too. In the sotry you have quoted here, the protagonist is NOT Abimelech, but Pharaoh of Egypt. Abraham tried this trick first here with Pharaoh in Gen 12:12-20. Obviously it worked! He was not killed and he and Sarah were set free. so why would he NOT try it again with Abimelech? And it obviously worked BOTH times for Abraham, so why WOULDN'T Isaac try it? Hey, if it worked for dad.... I think you're stretching on this one...

Also, once again, just becasue the king's name is the same does not mean it is a mistake! Two possibilites: 1) Abimelech was just plain dumb or naieve and fell for the same trick twice, or 2) two different kings named Abimelech. Sorry you have yet to prove to me that this is a mistake.

As for the second part, the people were commanded, as you say, to LOOK upon it (Num 21:9), NOT to worship it (Exodus 20:4-5). This snake is a foreshadowing of Jesus' death.

Next?

I disagree the story is repeated 3 times between Gen 12-26, it is the same template, but in the first two tellings Abraham and Sarah are the same and in the second two stories the king is the same Abimelech king of Gerar.

Exodus 20:4 Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in the heaven above, or is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Plus Jesus is not traditionally know as the serpent, usually he is called the lamb because of the sacrifice he made. And don't you think that the serpent has a negative connotation from his work in the garden.

Another question if Mary did have the immaculate conception why did the list Joseph's linneage in the beginning of the Gospel. They tied him into history 42 generations but all's he did was not denounce Mary? They should have listed hers as a carrier of the Christ (though not actually his biological parent).

as for listing joseph's lineage in the gospel it istablished Jesus legal claim to the throne of david to fulfill the prophecy in the old testament that the Messiah would be of the lineage of david. Mary was the biological (if you will) connection to the throne. However the jews would ignore this since it came through the mother not the father.

BTW the Bible is clear that it is three different stories involving many of the same characters but 3 seperate stories. In Genesis 12 it says that God sent Abraham. Then the suceeding chapters tell where Abraham went. Genesis 20 says "from there Abraham went.." There being the plain of Sodom and Gamorah. That is not where Abraham started his journey from when God told him to go. Genesis 26 says during a famine, but NOT the famine of abraham that sent abraham to egypt in Genesis 12.

As for Abimalech could it not be a title similar to pharoh. If we use your logic earlier that because it lists the same name twice that it is the same man then egypt only had one ruler throught history? The other possibilty is the Abimalech was realy long lived.

How do you get 3 creation accounts in Genesis?

I only count 1.

Genesis chapter 1 is an overview of the 6 days of creation. Chapter 2 is a more detailed account of what he created during the 6th day. remember, chapter and verse divisions were not originally part of the Hebrew scriptures. They were added later for convenience.

This post has been edited by reddrake79 on 01-Jul-2004, 08:59 AM

Ok, I know I am 'picking', and this is meant to be lighthearted.... But a real question still.... I swear I amnot trying to be an Antagonist.

If the word of God is what the Bible is, then why would it have to be changed for convenience???? And not left in its original form......That then changes the 'word of god'. And that is the point I was trying to make earlier. Mans interfernece over 2000 yrs, who is to say what is legit? I know it comes down to faith.......

And just in reading this discussion there are already 3 differant interpritations of basically the same thing.......

I am not saying the bible is the word of god, but I am also not saying it isn't. I am mearly saying that with a 2000 yr old text being translated, and retranslated over and over language, to language ( and with out a spell check!!!!) that there are bound to be mistakes, from the interpritation of the original. None of us have ever seen the original text. So 'we' are completely going on faith.........Which is what the whole religion is based upon.
I think I answered this already for you.....


I think I am rambling.....LOL!!!!

Jason

I think this is just a matter of semantics . The Chapter and verse designations are not a part of the original manuscript they were added later for convenience in referencing the various verses and to make it easier to read. Punctuation was not a part of the original text and the same for vowels. This is part of the translation process.

As far as the Bible being translated from language to language I used to think the same thing and then I found out that all of the modern translations - german, english, chinese, etc... are all translated from the oldest Greek,Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts some of which predate Christ.

It is not like they were translated from Hebrew to Latin to Greek to German to English and then back to German again

I have more information on this subject at home if I have some extra time tonight I will post it. I personally find the whole thing fascinating.

Birddog as far as the King having the same name (I do not believe it to be a title) It is not and never has been unusual for people (even rulers) to have the same name. Even though you personally believe the stories to be to similar and the name is just more evidence to you that they are contrived. Consider that Isaac in all likelyhood learned the trick of calling his wife his sister from his father or that it may have been a common way to keep from being killed by a king for your wife in those days.

Simply deciding that the Kings are the same person lacks empiracle evidence and It is not a point that will come to any conclusive end, therefore it is probably not worth belaboring as it will simply come down to a matter of opinion. Who do you trust? Obviously you do not trust the author in this case?

Peace

Mikel

I was expecting someone to ask about the verse divisions as soon as I posted it.
Thanks to raven for sharing his studies with us.

In response to barddas

discussions about the Bible are longwinded enough. Without the chapters and verses people would have to wait forever to find the passage they were looking for (where is that passage about Isaac decieving the King....can't find it...know its here somewhere...its neer the middle... AAhhh there it is.) Then trying to tell someone (its after the calling of abraham...no further...near the middle..after that...there you go.) Convinience does not mean inacuracy or malicious medling.

It does mean that someone tried to make it easier to access and follow along in.

"We will be starting in Genesis 26:1 today" not "we will be starting in Genesis, the story of Isaac. You'll find it after the story of Sodom and Gamorrah - russle, russle, russle- Its on page 126 of my Bible."
"but pastor mine wasn't made by the same company"

5 minutes later everyone is on the same page.

Birddog - a couple more points about the Abimelech story...

First, look at Gen 20:13, "And it came to pass, when God caused me to wander from my father's house, that I said unto her, This is thy kindness which thou shalt shew unto me; at EVERY PLACE whither we shall come, say of me, He is my brother." So Abraham had REQUIRED Sarah to say every where they stopped that she was his sister. Its a good thing the Bible only records these two instances of them stopping or there would have been more than just 2 similar stories!

Second, you said that the Abraham/Sarah story was identical to the Isaac/Rebekah story. Well, there are major differences: Abimelech took Sarah with the intention of making her his wife. However, not Rebekah! Isaac and Rebekah were merely living in the country! Abimilech did not take her as he had Sarah! And Abimilech had been upset with Abraham becasue he himself had almost slept with Sarah, but at Gen 26:10, Abimilech says to Isaac: "What is this thou hast done unto us? ONE OF THE PEOPLE might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us." One of the people, not he himself.

On a different topic, you said "Also Moses wrote the first five books how did he write about his funeral?" I'm sorry but I found this a little humorous. You didn't even question the idea that God had revealed to Moses things that had happened hundreds, maybe even thousands of years in the past, things he could not have possibly known about, intimate details of the creation of the unverse and man, entire life stories, even personal conversations, but you DO question that Moses had knowledge of things that happened just a few short years in the future? Sorry, but that hit my funny bone. You have missed a couple of possiblities: 1) perhaps God did indeed give Moses a vision of his own demise and the events that followed, or 2) perhaps someone else wrote the last chapter for him, recording the events that happened after his death, and they were included with the works of Moses for the sake of keeping his life story whole and in one place. It would be very important when recording the details of a pivotal person's life to keep all of those details together and in order with the other details of history. If you'll notice, the very last chapter of Deuteronomy flows almost seamlessly into the first chapter of Joshua. Perhaps Joshua, or the author of Joshua, wrote that last chapter.

This post has been edited by WizardofOwls on 02-Jul-2004, 09:01 AM

Sarah Was his sister

Gen 20:12 and yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Yes, I know that. My point was that Abraham required her to tell everyone. That's why the story was repeated from Pharaoh to Abimilech.

This post has been edited by WizardofOwls on 01-Jul-2004, 09:40 PM

There are so many versions of the bible and the St. James version with al the thee's and thou's confuse me so I use the Living Bible.

A

I personally prefer the New American Standard Bible as I was told it was the most accurate from the original scrolls.

Wizzard! You have some really wonderful things to say and have encouraged me as a believer!

This is probably what you mean't to say Rose, but I am a stickler for semantics when talking about the bible as it seems like a little crack in the conversation can turn into a bottomless gorge otherwise.

New American Standard Translation is held up to be the most accurate translation.
Meaning that there is felt to be accurate interpretation of how the original language should be rendered into English.

The King James Version is held up as the most literal translation meaning that there is very little or at least less interpretation of how the words are translated.

Even thought these translations come from 2 different manuscripts they are essentially the same. By that I mean that there are no inconsistencies between them and the difference in the manuscripts is very miniscule indeed with the (i think they call it)the Majority Texts being essentially a few missing verses (these manuscripts are essentially a complete text assembled from many different original texts to make up a complete New Testament) The missing passages being at the end of Mark and I John 5:7. Both of which contain concepts that are repeated elsewhere hence I say essentially no difference.

Peace

Mike

I will come back later and write more but,for now, I will say this:

From an analytical standpoint, if I take into consideration the gnostic texts that were discovered at the beginning of last century and the apocrypha plus throw into it the fact that man has had his grubby paws on most of the material for centuries,I find it hard to believe that the bible is 100% accurate.

The gnostic texts (for those who dont know) are a collection of texts that were written by other groups of christ followers. These sects were ,subsequently, destroyed, persecuted and harrassed into extinction by the one sect that would become the Catholic church. These texts portray Christ and his teachings in a more esoteric light than the accepted scriptures. Many of the scriptures that were found were carbon dated and found to have been written during Christ's life as opposed to 30,40 or a hundred years after his death.

The apocrypha were a little better. These scriptures were a little more "PC" but didnt fall into what the emerging church wanted so they were left out as well. These have many interesting stories about christ as a child and shed more light on Mary.

Then we have man. Man corrupts what he touches. Sometimes accidently but it happens nonetheless. Many hands have touched the scriptures and many minds have had their say in way was included in what we know as the BIBLE. Some were pure of heart and only wanted to convey the Lord's Teaching. Some were trying to push a specific agenda and dogma so they might not have done things with the purest intent. A good example of what I'm talking about is the game you play as a kid called Trcikle Down(or a dezon other names) where I tell someone something and they tell someone else and so on until the end where it doesnt sound anything like my first phrase. This happens through misunderstandings and misinterpretations and (with some people) a want to change something to suit their needs. Let's be realistic, the books we have in the scriptures have been bound together for almost 2000 years. Someone is bound to have "tweeked" something here and there.

Do I believe that the bible is 100% accurate? No. Do I beleive that some sections were tampered with to suit the needs of the emerging church/world power? Yes. Do I think that some parts were more "tweeked" than others? Yes, I believe that. I think some parts were fairly untouched. Jesus's sermon on the mount is a good example(matthew chp. 5). I think it was left alone or lightly touched because it conveyed a lot of Christ's teachings in a nut shell.

On a personl note I think its sad that so many wars have been waged in the name of a book the (at least the NT) taught forgiveness and caring and understanding. So much hate can be generated using this(the tome of God) as an excuse to hate. So many take bits and pieces out of context to forward their own causes..*sigh*

*back on subject*I think the question of whether the bible is accurate or not is a moot point that will not be known until we stand in front of the Powers That Be and get a chance to ask them.
It's not whether it is accurate or how many people have changed it because ,in the end, we will not be judged by the ink on paper..we will be juded by what we have done to exemplify those basic teachings. Love ,forgiveness, understanding and walking in the Lord's Light.

My ramblings
Urian

Amen Urian!

As I understand it, the KJV is called the King James Version because it was written in such a way as to not offend King James. I'd be surprised if there wasn't quite a bit done to increase the power and importance of a king in that version as well; to the point of being second only to the devine.

At least the core message remains, and that's what is important. However, I also have trouble believing that everything happened exactly as stated. The core history is there. That has been proven, but between telling a story to relay a deepre message, and tamperings like I mentioned for helping a political agenda... I'd say some of the individual stories are probably not the same as what actually happened. They aren't what is important anyway though. What is important is the lessons they teach.

To help express my view, I'll use a question that was often asked of Jesus himself, and is core to the Christian belief. Is Jesus the son of God? Personally, I'd say he may well have been. Sure, I'll agree that he probably was. However, in the end, is it important? He knew what he was talking about either way. The teachings are the same, reguardless of how he came to be on Earth. Several religons speak of God having a human son. (Sometimes this is plural, sometimes Daughters) For so many to believe it, I'd say it's true. According to the NT, the son is Jesus, so yes, I'll believe he is the son of God. Again, not that it matters to me one way or the other. He still knew what he was talking about and knew how to teach it; perticularly so it would be accepted.

Anyway, back to summerise my point and bring this back to the original topic; Do I believe everything in the Bible is correct and untouched? no, there are innacuracies. However the message remains. It's just a matter of not getting too wrapped up in the little things to see the truth of what is being said.

/me gets off the soap box and tries to stop rambling