Muzman on 29/1/2004 at 14:56
Just to stoke things up some more (in the fruitful livliness sense);
I've always heard it was the case we couldn't make such connections because the gospels were written in arrears and, regardless of who or what Jesus was, might have felt the need to force the card, pad the resume, sex up the report, as it were
fett on 29/1/2004 at 15:55
No doubt Muz - but most of the time, the writers admit it openly- a very common phrase I'm finding is '...that the scripture might be fulfilled.' Matthew's gospel is rampant with this type of stuff and he seems to be very open about pulling OT prophecies out of context and applying them to Jesus of Nazareth. Fair enough.
I'm more concerned about the ones that work the other way. Events in the NT working in fulfillment of the OT prophecies without any manipulation or control.
For instance - the birth in Bethlehem - fairly well attested by history (still in some debate though) - it fulfills over 12 OT prophecies in terms of time, place, conditions, etc. The only reason the parents of Jesus were in Bethlehem was because of a Roman census that they had no control over. Obviously Augustus and Quirinius weren't purposely orchestrating things. Sure, Christian authorities could have gone back and doctored things, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are proving more and more that they didn't . The entire book of Isaiah (where 7 of these 12 prophecies are found) has been declared by both Christian and mainstream authorities to be accurate to modern sources within three 'punctuation' marks. So far, the pieces of the other books found among those scrolls have similiar attributes.
Add to this the fact that most of these models, genealogical goodies, etc. are just now being discovered by Biblical scholars - it's doubtful that earlier authorities would have had the foresight to hide such things away (most revisions and tampering is way more obvious).
Like I say, I still have my suspicions, but when you really take the time to dig into some of this, it's very surprising that most of the claims of tampering and 'contradictions' just simply don't hold water. For most of the critisizm declaring that the text is unreliable, forged, adulterated, etc. - there is still no specific evidence to show that the Bible is any more unreliable than most other ancient texts that we take at face value.
Most of the critisizm runs along the lines of skeptism of the miracles, and intellectual posturing without much first hand investigation of the actual text itself. How many arguements start with the words, "I've been told," or "Most scholars say," or, "I don't understand how..."???? Where's the first hand knowledge of these supposed contradictions? Where is the specific historical, geological, and anthropological smoking gun? Most guys I've debated are working on ideas from the 1950's (mutiple sources for Genesis, two Isaiahs, modern Daniel, etc.) - all disproven repeatedly.
scumble on 29/1/2004 at 16:19
As I understand it, the Bible was compiled 2000 years ago. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest form. If you think about it, it isn't surprising that the Bible has some sort of coherence, becuase it was put together in one go. There is not much proof that "early" books were written down at their supposed time.
Even the supposedly fulfilled prophecies aren't necessarily remarkable. Consider that the gospel writers, whoever they were, will likely have known the old tradition and written Jesus' story with that in mind. We have to take their word for it that any of the things that happened really did happen, and why should we do that?
So I pretty much agree with Muz's point.
Plus, saying that the Bible is no less reliable than other ancient texts doesn't help much. We have to be as careful with the writers of ancient greece as anyone else. Can we assume Plato was totally honest about Socrates? We can't tell. Assuming Socrates was exactly what Plato said he was is just as unwise as assuming the gospel writers were being totally accurate about Jesus. It's always looked to me like a collection of random stories, and each gospel is ordered in differing style. Luke is more verbose, Matthew doesn't mess about, John is more focused on the salvation bit - you see what I mean, hopefully. The fact that they know some of the same stories doesn't "prove" that they are correct..
the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 16:23
In response to several lines of thought...
Quote:
Does true Christianity require you to believe every single word that stands in the book, without considering that it could be meant symbolically? Or that the author(s) took some freedom to fill in the gaps?
Quote:
Yes, subject to revisions in light of new evidence or alternate theories rather than the Bible thumper's "THIS HAPPENED JUST LIKE THIS AND NO OTHER WAY. NO SHUT UP, UR GO 2 HELL"
Quote:
That's why when fundamentalists jump in and LITERALLY interpret the stories, they are mis-using the text.
There definitely are times that the Bible is intended to be taken literally, but many Christians today like to over-literalize things and take Biblical passages to mean something they really don't. If you read the Bible, you will notice that each section has a particular point... i.e. the account of creation indicates that God did in fact create the world. HOWEVER, the Bible is not a scientific textbook - the account of creation does not mention dinosaurs, etc. Many people love to try to shove it into a scientific mold and thus lose the truer meaning of many passages. That is not to say that science and the Bible don't line up, rather, i'm just inferring that many, MANY people will over literalize the Bible. My point here is this: don't let a few people who talk really loud discourage you from exploring the Bible (including myself). It should also be said that this point does not disprove notions about how God created the world - it just does not necessarily confirm them. For example, i'm with Zaccheus about the relationship to dragons and dinosaurs... something i've thought about before. Obviously, there's nothing Biblically that states this as a fact, but it is an assumption i make that i like to think about.
However, there are very specific things the Bible is literal about. As you read, think about what the point of a passage is, and, if something very explicit is said (i.e. God saying, "I shall be your God, and you shall be my people"), then it is meant literally. But if the details are surrounding the main point, don't get bogged down in them (so to speak). Remember that these books were written to cultures that lived 2000+ years ago, so it's likely that they understood things a little different than we do. If you do find interesting details that you want to know more about, start researching. There is a wealth of cool history, etc. in the Bible.
More quotes:
Quote:
Who recorded that, anyway? Who was THERE to know that God did it, other than He Himself?
Here's a good synopsis of the authorship of Genesis: (
http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/gen00a.htm)
Also, as an interesting note, the oldest book in the Bible is Job, not Genesis.
Quote:
Jesus was purposely vague at times to disuade those who were seeking another religious fad - the ones who were serious kept digging
Excellent point - more than one person who spoke to Jesus walked away scratching their heads. Many of the interactions he has with people are usually the people wanting Jesus to affirm them by saying what they would expect and instead he says things that a. condemn them or b. totally turn their beliefs on their heads. One of the big points of the Gospels is that mankind doesn't get it, that we think we know what is right and wrong and how to be a "good" person, and Jesus comes in like a bomb and blows away all of our self-serving and misconstrued notions, leaving you humbled before him with nothing to show for yourself but an evil and wicked heart. It is at that point that you realize how much you truly need him. i would recommend reading the Gospels, but this time you might read it a bit slower than you normally would and really think about each section. If you get confused, don't give up, rather, start asking questions.
Quote:
But if Jesus really is talking about living more righteously than the Pharisees, then the passage is a lot more coherent and flowing.
Surely you are not advocating that Jesus was insinuating that people can live righteous enough to please God? Jesus is claiming you can't live righteously... just after the Pharisee comment he dives into showing that you commit murder if you are angry in your heart, adultry if you lust, etc. which shows that no man can claim to be righteous, that we are all sinners and condemned.
Here's a portion of the broader passage (Jesus talking):
Quote:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."
This is just a small portion of the text... Jesus is showing how the Pharisees (and everyone else) are not righteous at all, despite our best efforts.
Anyway, if you made it this far, i truly do suggest reading the Bible again. Start with the Gospel of John, and read it slowly (which will take patience and a bit of dedication). i'm sure that Zaccheus, myself, and many others here would love to talk about any questions you might have.
GayleSaver on 29/1/2004 at 16:23
Quote:
Originally posted by buglunch This pain "builds character", ignatios. Trust me. :sly:
Ignorant fundamentalist literalist "piety" is damaging the entire world as we speak, via the Whitehouse and other huts.
Concealed weapons in Mormon churches is a needful and good thing?? Why do so many Americans act as if they live in the Gaza Strip or Kabul? This communal insanity buttessed by the Bible would be considered certifiably nutso everywhere else but in the "religious" war hotspots scattered around the globe. Should all Irish carry Uzis to church because of Luke (the
doctor, OMFGawd, teh irony)?
But, buglunch, I'd hasten (indeed) to generalize my (alas) obtuse and rude last post. The people who sit behind fundamentalists are themselves not, I believe, at root motivated by fundamentalism. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who believes that one fundamentalism is easily replaced by another.
fett on 29/1/2004 at 16:58
Quote:
As I understand it, the Bible was compiled 2000 years ago. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the earliest form.
Scumble - again you're making statements that are very broad and totally untrue. The OT was in written form during the time of the Greek Empire - Alexander had it committed to the Greek language before the events of the NT ever occured. It's called the Septuagint and is one of the main resources used today to translate and verify the authenticity of newer documents that are being found.
There is also overwhelming evidence that most of the books were actually written at the time they claim to be. Even by mainstream standards, the Bible is incredibly accurate in describing in detail the linguistic irregularies, cultures, relgions of the Jews, Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans. To say 'it was compiled in one go' is to reveal your absolute ignorance about the way the Bible was complied, written or preserved. I'm not trying to flame you, but don't throw out statements like that unless you know what you're talking about and you obviously don't. Even people who
hate the Bible know better than that.
There are also documents that pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls were a set of documents preserved by the Essene community at Quamran and just happen to match most of what is accepted to day as authoritative copies of the origianl OT documents.
Read what I am saying - don't fall into the trap of assuming these general ideas about the Bible and it's history are true. They are prevalent and popular no doubt, but usually put forth by 'scholoars' and authors who have very little hands-on experience with the texts themselves.
I'm not saying this to convince you about the Bible - but be just as skeptical of the critics as you are of the Bible itself and you'll find a much more balanced view.
the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 17:05
Scumble, i'd suggest (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74271) this thread where we discussed such topics quite a bit.
Not to toot my own horn, but here's a quote of mine from the thread:
Quote:
Plato's Republic has 5 collaborating sources that confirm its authenticity (thus scholars treat it as the original text). The Bible has well over 5,000 sources the verify its authenticity throughout history, yet scholars are skeptical at best (non Christian scholars, anyways). That always has boggled me.
Agent Monkeysee on 29/1/2004 at 17:15
What are the nature of those sources?
fett on 29/1/2004 at 17:36
grip: I agree- that's something that made me suspicious of the overwhelming critisicm of the Bible's historicity originally.
AM - I can't list the origins of all 5,000 sources, but many that I've personally seen/handled have been recovered from the ruins of 1st century mid-east synagogues, relics from Greek libraries, the documents from Quamran are overwhelming. I've also seen several documents of Babylonian and Persian origin verifying many events recorded during the monarchy period of Israel's history. There was recently a reference to 'Joseph the Semite' found in some Egyptian material. The list goes on. Even we could only list 20, it would make the Bible at least twice as reliable as Homer's Illiad, Plato's republic, and many of the works of Shakespeare. Something is suspicious about the prevailing attitude of the 'scholars' and intellects who dismiss the Bible out of hand. Reject it's message: sure. Reject it's historicity and authenticity: I'm telling you from personal experience, there's more here than meets the eye.
Agent Monkeysee on 29/1/2004 at 17:44
No it wouldn't, because MORE REFERENCES != BETTER THAN. I don't have any comment on the authenticity of the Biblical text but this argument that "nyah nyah here's 5000 things that reference the Bible making it 1000x better than the Republic" is bullshit. The number of references doesn't make any difference if they're all shitty-ass references that can't be independently verified or authenticated themselves.
It's just literary dick-waving.
Secondly you haven't mentioned what "authenticate" means anyway. The fact that you're comparing it the the Iliad and the Republic makes me suspect because one is obviously a mythical tale and one is a work of philosophy. Yet the sources you mentioned seemed to "authenticate" the text in the sense that they referred to historical events that the Bible also references, meaning it's "authentic" in the sense that it's at least partly an historic account.
Okay. So what? How the hell does that compare to the Illiad or the Republic? The Illiad is obviously a fictional story and the fact that we have the original text put down by whomever is authentication enough. The Republic, other than its usage of Sparta as an example, is a philosophical work on Plato's ideal political system. Again, what authentication is needed beyond having the original text? Maybe one or two that says "yeah Plato wrote that".
In other words make some goddamn connection between what it means to authenticate the Bible vs. what it means to authenticate the Republic or stop throwing around meaningless numbers to impress in the hope no one notices you're drawing a useless parallel.
Also I don't know anything about scholars "dismissing the Bible out of hand". In what sense? I think there's parts of it that are obviously describing historical events that actually happened. I also think there's a lot of fairy-tale bullshit in there. Whether I dismiss the text or not is dependent on what it is I'm trying to use it for.
