Errors in the Bible

[plekhanov 10]

As an aside - I think Jesus didn't quite lay all the details down in black and white. He made a point of telling the rich young ruler that he needed to sell all he had and give it to the poor, but he was happy with Zacchaeus's offer of 50% too.

The bible contradicting itself from page to page aside how many Xians even get close to 50%?

 

My point remains untouched. Nazi Xians failing to 'love their neighbour' in a way metaphoria understands no more means they aren't Xians allowing metaphoria to deny the compatibility of Xianity & Nazism. Than metaphoria's failure to give up 100% or 50% of their wealth means s/he isn't a Xian.

 

Nobody does everything it says in the bible it's literally impossible because as you point out the bible contradicts itself a good deal. metaphoria's argument is nothing but a no true scotsman fallacy.

[Circa 10]

The bible contradicting itself from page to page aside how many Xians even get close to 50%?

 

Wouldn't it only be a contradiction in this case if he had said that to sell all and give to the poor was an absolute standard for everyone? obviously selling, giving and sharing with the poor is a standard he referred to, but he didn't make a law out of it. how many christians get close to 50%? probably not many.

 

My point remains untouched. Nazi Xians failing to 'love their neighbour' in a way metaphoria understands no more means they aren't Xians allowing metaphoria to deny the compatibility of Xianity & Nazism. Than metaphoria's failure to give up 100% or 50% of their wealth means s/he isn't a Xian.

 

Sure - wasn't trying to touch your point.. I don't know enough about the nazi christians you refer to to pass any comment.

 

Nobody does everything it says in the bible it's literally impossible because as you point out the bible contradicts itself a good deal. metaphoria's argument is nothing but a no true scotsman fallacy.

 

yes - there are contradictions. at the same time i'd say that the new testament is a set of narratives of jesus' life, plus a bunch of letters, which carry the spirit of christianity, not a series of rules to follow. so that jesus was happy with 50% from one, advised another to sell all and give it away - yet another to merely tell his friends about what god had done for him - is ok. because he knew what each one needed to do - and although for each it was different, it was all shot through with the same themes - love, giving, testimony, forgiveness, healing, humility...

 

as i say though - wasn't making a comment about metaphoria's point/fallacy/whatever

[Grahame 10]

Well, ones that come to mind are the last 12 verses of Mark, which were added to the text in the second century at the earliest, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in sin (in John, i think) which was also a later addition, the story of Jesus and the leper (earlier texts had Jesus angry witha leper for begging to be healed, later texts were amended to make Jesus more compasionate)....that's just off the top of my head now (sitting on a train, typing on a phone).

 

Look up Bart Ehrman (and Dr Robert Price) for more.

 

We have only recently discovered the Dead Sea scrolls and if scholars discovered anything previously unknown then I for one would have no objection to it being included in Scripture almost 2000 years later.

 

.

[Grahame 10]

Anyway, to get back on track: i'm listening to an audiobook of Bart Ehrman's 'Jesus Misquoted', in which he explains how and why the bible we read today has so many errors. I'll try to quote a few excerpts when i get the chance. One of the interestimg facts he reveals is that a medieval scholar, John Milll, analysed 100 different biblical texts and identified 30,000 discrepancies between them.

 

Ehrman makes the point that christianity is a scriptural ideology whose original scriptures are no longer available. What we now think of as christian theology is what has evolved through centuries of scriptual alteration. He also states that most modern biblical scholars accept that the bible has more errors than actual words!

 

This is a pretty devastating review in the Review of Biblical Literature of Price's book Jesus is Dead.

 

A nice summary lol:

While this book may be attractive to the reading populace at large, it has little to commit itself to the scholarly field of New Testament studies. The writing is not a serious discussion of the issues among one’s scholarly peers but rather comes across as an extremely bitter rant against conservative Christianity and those who subscribe to it. There is a lot of heat in this book, but at the end there is no light.

 

Making it up as he goes along it seems:

While Price rejects the historicity of Jesus, he strangely enough is willing to grant the historical existence of John the Baptizer (89). But on what grounds can Price dismiss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth while granting the historicity of John the Baptizer while using the same source materials that mention the two: the Gospels and Acts? If John can be shown to be historical from the New Testament, why cannot the same criterion apply to Jesus? Price never answers this.

 

.

[carosio 185]

We have only recently discovered the Dead Sea scrolls and if scholars discovered anything previously unknown then I for one would have no objection to it being included in Scripture almost 2000 years later.

 

If you have no objection to the Christian Canon being updated in the light of new discoveries, which ecclesiastical authority do you consider to be the most suitable to implement this process?

Edited December 12, 2009 by carosio

[CHAIRBOY 10]

One thing the BIBLE refers to is ALPHA OMEGA, - first and last. When OMEGA

strikes the denizens of Sheffield heading for a certain restaurant, the Greek letter suddenly changes from Oh-migger to O-meeger.

This lack of knowledge extends to TV. Even the ad for O-meeger 3 fish is also flawed. It does seem that the reverends know what it should be.

[Grahame 10]

If you have no objection to the Christian Canon being updated in the light of new discoveries, which ecclesiastical authority do you consider to be the most suitable to implement this process?

 

One of the safeguards is that translation of original contemporary documents is done by scholars from various backgrounds, so no one person or body would be appropriate as any newly discovered documents would be of academic interest to people from a wide range of disciplines.

 

.

[EbonyBranch 10]

We have only recently discovered the Dead Sea scrolls and if scholars discovered anything previously unknown then I for one would have no objection to it being included in Scripture almost 2000 years later.

 

.

 

Eh? How is that a response to my post. Tut, tut; 1/10, must try harder. Here's what I wrote, again:

 

Well, ones that come to mind are the last 12 verses of Mark, which were added to the text in the second century at the earliest, the story about Jesus and the woman taken in sin (in John, i think) which was also a later addition, the story of Jesus and the leper (earlier texts had Jesus angry witha leper for begging to be healed, later texts were amended to make Jesus more compasionate)....that's just off the top of my head now (sitting on a train, typing on a phone).

 

Look up Bart Ehrman (and Dr Robert Price) for more.

[EbonyBranch 10]

This is a pretty devastating review in the Review of Biblical Literature of Price's book Jesus is Dead.

 

A nice summary lol:

While this book may be attractive to the reading populace at large, it has little to commit itself to the scholarly field of New Testament studies. The writing is not a serious discussion of the issues among one’s scholarly peers but rather comes across as an extremely bitter rant against conservative Christianity and those who subscribe to it. There is a lot of heat in this book, but at the end there is no light.

 

Making it up as he goes along it seems:

While Price rejects the historicity of Jesus, he strangely enough is willing to grant the historical existence of John the Baptizer (89). But on what grounds can Price dismiss the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth while granting the historicity of John the Baptizer while using the same source materials that mention the two: the Gospels and Acts? If John can be shown to be historical from the New Testament, why cannot the same criterion apply to Jesus? Price never answers this.

 

.

 

I haven't read that book, so I can't comment authoritatively, but I didn't think the review was particularly effective in its condemnation. The passage you quote is (as usual) quoted out of context: Price suggests, as a far-fetched thought experiment, that John the Baptizer (sic) and Jesus may have been one and the same. Overall, he makes the case that while the gospels and Jesus are probably myth, their connection to history may have been through a 'possibly real' John.

 

Interesting to note that Tony Costa, who wrote the review, is an apologist. His job is defending the faith, not objectively reviewing evidence against it. It would be a great surprise if he gave a positive review to a book suggesting flaws in the bible.

 

If you can find a review by a more neutral person, I might take it more seriously.

[shanes teeth 10]

We have only recently discovered the Dead Sea scrolls and if scholars discovered anything previously unknown then I for one would have no objection to it being included in Scripture almost 2000 years later.

 

.

 

Since the scriptures were written scholars have found thousands of pieces of evidence that call their validity into question.What stops you from at least considering those pieces of evidence? Scientists and scholars must sometimes think they are wasting their time.They work hard to discover the truth and some people just ignore them.There is a certain amount of arogance in thinking that ones knowledge is superior to the combined knowledge of all those brilliant minds.

If some ancient piece of incontrovertable evidence was found hidden in a cave in the Holy Land that showed that it was all just a lie,devised to control the masses,and signed by somebody called Jesus and witnesed by John the Baptist or somebody,would you accept that as the truth and realise that you have been wrong all along?

[carosio 185]

One of the safeguards is that translation of original contemporary documents is done by scholars from various backgrounds, so no one person or body would be appropriate as any newly discovered documents would be of academic interest to people from a wide range of disciplines. .

 

Perhaps you misunderstood my question, I'll re-phrase it a bit; in post 800 you expressed no objection to revisions of the Biblical text provided that scholars agreed that any newly discovered texts were authentic and worthy of inclusion in the Bible. Given that challenge, some authority, somewhere, would have to agree and approve the changes or updates to the existing text in, for example your own version of the Bible, and I was wondering which authority would be acceptable to you.

[Grahame 10]

Since the scriptures were written scholars have found thousands of pieces of evidence that call their validity into question.What stops you from at least considering those pieces of evidence? Scientists and scholars must sometimes think they are wasting their time.They work hard to discover the truth and some people just ignore them.There is a certain amount of arogance in thinking that ones knowledge is superior to the combined knowledge of all those brilliant minds.

If some ancient piece of incontrovertable evidence was found hidden in a cave in the Holy Land that showed that it was all just a lie,devised to control the masses,and signed by somebody called Jesus and witnesed by John the Baptist or somebody,would you accept that as the truth and realise that you have been wrong all along?

 

Lets have the evidence. Everything I have seen proves the historicity of the Bible.

.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Grahame