Accurate Bible?, controversy

[Shadows]

And the Bible was written by man! Inspired or not it was man's hand that wrote and has re-written it over the many centuries. Each translation from the original scrolls has had the influence of the translator included.

[WizardofOwls]

This is where faith comes into play, Shadows. I am asked to belive, by God, that He created the universe in 6 days, that He flooded and destroyed the world in a 40 day flood, that He led His children with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, that He parted the Red Sea that His children could walk across on dry land, and any number of other things that, to me, seem impossible. Believeing that He could keep His word pure despite the fumblig intentions of man seems like a tiny leap of faith compared to those!

[Tassiecelt]

Shadows, what you say is true, but the miraculous preservation of the Bible's integrity may astound you if you look into it a bit more.

Sure there are some versions that leave a little to be desired, those arising from the Nestles Greek text would be among them, the have weaknesses, but no major teaching is obscured from the common man on its account.

The Textus Receptus, or Recieved Text is regarded as very reliable. The King James is based on this manuscript.

Discoveries such as the Dead sea Scrolls, esp. a nearly complete copy of the Book of Isaiah has demonstrated to scholars around the world that these "copies of copies" have been copied so carefully that there was little changed from this much older copy found in the cave.

Sure, Man's hand is involved, but as i study the depths of God's Word I find more and more that man alone could not have written such things unaided by divine Power.

No other collection of Books (66 in all) written by over 40 authors of a period of over 4000 years has such harmony in all it's words, and includes over 8000 verses of prophecy, 75% of which have been fullfilled in great detail.
There is even a whole seperate language of mathematics woven into the books that place the stamp of God on it as does the watermark in a bank note.

I could go on and on, this Bible we have today was written and preserved by God in a way no other sacred work can claim, and it can be proven to be so.

But like the treasure of the parable, some digging needs to be done to find it. Jesus promised that if you seek, you shall find.

Are you seeking God's truth, or do you only want to reconfirm your own opinions?
Are you willing to abandon self and human reasoning to find something of more value than you could ever imagine?

Forget the holy Grail
Forget looking to the Stars, or mars for answers
The truth is right in your hand as you hold the Bible.

Only the God of Creation can open your eyes to it, if you ask Him, He will!

[Shadows]

I am not going to sway you from your beliefs nor you I.
I have studied the bible extensively and have found much that has made my decision for me to not hold it as " the only true word ".
My study of religion and religious works has spanned 40 years and the conclusions about the bible I have come to are right for me. Yes there is some historical truths that are proven in the latter years of the OT, but there are also books of fiction from ealry man that have the same amount of historical accurieceies, you see man writes about what he knows. Look at the way our modern history books are now being changed in the schools ( this is a diferent topic all it's own ), they no longer reflect correctly what has happened to mankind. If "man" is involved it is flawed!

[Tassiecelt]

well we share a love of celtic music, so it's not all bad

[maryellen]

If it is so "flawed", why do these universal truths of love, kindness, grace, peace and prayer still continue 2000 years later? Yes yes you can argue how everyone has been brainwashed, but come on. 2 millenia is a long time.
Also, I hope your journey also included "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. It is a very very popular book. A journalist interviews the greatest biblical scholars throughout the world. It is also very compelling.

Great post Tassie! You get right to the heart of it!

In addition to Genesis and the creation of the world, one common argument is that God's voice cannot produce light. But students at a university (I think Standford?), made sound produce light.

With evolution and creation, I do not think man evolved from "monkeys". Darwin knew nothing of this magical thing called DNA. Experts like to state that 98% of our DNA is similar to chimps. Yes, but if you change 3 genes on this very very long strand of DNA, the being cannot survive.

[CelticRoz]

Someone please answer this question for me. someone told me that the New Testament Gospels were written 100 years after Christ. But the people who wrote the gospels lived and walked with Christ, saw his death and resurrection! How can it be that they wrote the gospels 100 years later?! Wouldn't they have all been dead? I need to answer this question for someone, so please help me as I don't know how to answer her. Thanks!

[maryellen]

Matthew: According to the Catholic Dictionary, It is the unanimous tradition of Christian antiquity that (Matthew) was the author of the first of the four Gospels and dated before 50 AD.

Mark: Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 AD is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 AD.

Luke: The traditional date of Luke's Gospel is 60-64 AD. Some critics place it after the destruction of the temple of Jersusalem and put the dates between 80-150 AD. Another reason the critics think that it is dated this late is because they conjecture that Mark was a source for Luke. They also say Acts was written shortly thereafter.

John: Most critical scholars place the beginning of John's writings between 50-70 AD and culminating around 95-100 AD. This final date is assumed in large part because the so-called "appendix" to the Gospel, chapter 21, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple," probably the leader of the Johannine community that produced the gospel. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' folowers, then a death around 90-100 is expected.

However, I agree with the opinion that since no gospel, not even Acts, mentions the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, which was prophesied by Jesus, then most agree that these 5 books date before 70 AD. None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.  This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1).  This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple.  The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold.  Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after 70 A.D.  Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims -- such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said -- would surely have been included.  But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself.  Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension.  Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written.  Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews.  The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70.   If we add to this the fact that acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written early.

Also, Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses. John was an eyewitness.

[CelticRoz]

Oh thank you, MaryEllen! This has been a very big help to me! I appreciate it so much! I had this one book that explained all that and let a friend borrow it and I have since to get it back. Guess I am going to have to buy another.

Many thanks again!

[maryellen]

No problem CelticRose! I try to back up stuff I remember with research and it is fun to find out more information about the most important aspect of ourselves- the spritual.

[CelticRoz]

Well MaryEllen! I had this wonderful book by Josh McDowell who addressed all that kind of stuff, but I lent it out to friend and never got the book back...........so I have had to reorder it for myself. well no love lost in the book. The guy I lent it too actually became a Christian as a result! So it served its purpose!

[Shamalama]

OK, I've been lurking around and watching the posts. This is such a touchy topic for many people, and I will certainly not attempt to sway anyone's opinion.

The Bible is the bible. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the written inspired record of God's relationship with Man.

But Jesus is the Word of God. Period. Above and beyond the Bible.

He that has ears, let him hear. The Holy Spirit will speak in a still, small voice to anyone that will listen. That, my friends, is the true Word of God.

Now I'm not going to back anyone's bible. If you believe every comma and paragraph then I'm happy for you. If you believe in allegory and illusion in the text, then I'm happy for you.

The Bible does record Man's experience with God. What was written was done so by inspired people. There may be missing books, there may be too many books.

But my reliance comes from what God Himself says to me, via the Holy Spirit, and what I know of the life of Christ, the human embodyment of God on earth.

I do study the bible. Personally I study the New Living Translation simply because it's so easy to read. But I don't get too excited by "translation", "transliteration", "paraphrase", etc. I read what I have, I meditate on it, I ask God for assistance, and I listen to what He says through the Holy Spirit.

Too many wars are fought over "which one is right". The King James may, in fact, be right, but I always know that God's voice is "more right".

The "accurate bible" is spoken to me, not read by me.

[maryellen]

Very true Shama!!

I wanted to also note if anyone wanted concise where, when and how about each book of the Bible, the Life Application Bible has at the beginning of each book who wrote it, why, when, etc. all right there. It is the new international version and has lots of footnotes about the context of the times.

I will have to check out the NLT.

sigh. I wish God would just write me a letter that says do this, this and this. It would seem to be easier.... but I know it wouldnt be.

[Shamalama]

Sister maryellen, I use the NLT version of the Life Application Bible so that I get all those study helps. The Life Application Bible is a great book.

[freekenny]

O'siyo,
~ Sheesh, why can't I just sit on my hands at tymes while biting my tongue ..cause that ain't me!
~ Again tis only my opinion so here goes....This book called the Bible is a great story book...tells of many great 'things' in history and of this great Healer named Jesus..but, mere mortals wrote it..it has been interpreted over and over countless tymes..much I have to believe was 'left out' because it didn't contain enough 'glory'..MUCH was left out because pure and simple no one was certain, no one had the answers...but, I can't help to think that much was left out so that we as mortals would ponder, discover for ourselves and 'live our life in the way it suits us'..I have to believe that this God and Jesus NEVER intended for all mortals to live the same way or by the same rules..I believe these '10 Commandments' are nothing more than common sense..I believe had these things not been written in this Bible we WOULD have 'figured it out'..example: We would have known that it is wrong to go around killing our fellow man/woman..what is so damn puzzling about that is, we still have to experience war..
~ I believe like so many things in life, we were never meant to have all the answers..that wouldn't be 'normal'..that wouldn't be 'living life'...there would be no learning...
~ I have read this Bible, no not cover to cover, I know few that have conquered that feat...in my reading I have discovered many contradictions, many Catch-22's, and many unfinished thoughts..Personally, I am glad that I don't feel as if to be a better person and live a 'good life' I have to live by 'words from this Bible'..at the same tyme, I respect those that do feel that way because, I care about others and if this is what makes them productive and happy then ..
~ Aren't we as humans such SPLENDID, INNOVATIVE and WONDERFUL creatures with so much diversity!! We are truly blessed!
~~~Sty-U