A lot of us have looked into these matters, believe me. I'm not "up" on the subject anymore as I looked into all this many years ago but it became pretty obvious to *me* that the whole god concept was just myth. The religious writings of a lot of the religions have the same characteristics and if you didn't know what you were reading, you couldn't tell if it were the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Bible or any of those "apocrophal" books you mentioned. Therefore I caution you not to think about it too much. You'll go crazy if you do. Think about it tomorrow . BTW... this should probably be moved to the Doctrinal forum, doncha' think?
David Anderson's book "The Two Ways of the Christian Church" makes some thought provoking arguments that the Book of James should never have been included.
Bell, I read an interesting book about how archiologists are deciphering the thousands of clay tablets out of sumaria (supposedly one of the earliest civilizations to be found) It`s clay tablets and records pre date the judean teachings by centuries....and yet most of the stories and allegories are the very same as found their places in the scriptures with minor variations....
The theory is that at one time, the judean prisoners were required to transcribe these while in captivity and took the tales back with them.....
My neighbor (the retired methodist minister) kind of views the bible as a collection of tales of how God worked at one time with a particular group of people at a particular time in history.....the basic tennants are the same ...but He is on no way seemes to be limited to the understanding or rules of a people thousands of years ago.
Re: "Many of the books were supposedly chosen because they were considered to be written through revelation from God, yet much of the authorship of the books are actually in question and the true authors are unknown."
I'd reiterate what Sudo said. If you want to stay in some sort of "believer" mode I'd stop your research immediately. The questions only get more debilitating the deeper you dig. Pretty soon you realize, AACCK!, Christianity is just another superstition (among the many).
Consider, all of the supposed traits of Jesus Christ - the virgin birth, sinless life, divine parentage, his unparalleled love, and his human sacrifice - were all fodder for countless supermen of numerous diverse cultures for centuries before JC made the scene. And here he was, the greatest man who ever lived, and not a word is written about him until forty years after his death. There is no real, tangible proof that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, ever even existed. And the list goes on...
And like Sudo, it's been years since I spent any time at all studying any of this stuff, so I'm far from being an afficienado anymore. But I do find it interesting at how many hardcore bibilical scholars, guys who spend years in textual research and archeology and the like, often become very tepid "believers" - if not outright
agnostics.
Anyway, stop thinking right now! It's your only hope!
Does this mean that the Pentateuch had already been corrupted by Jeremiah's time?
Belle, your asking the question and using the word "corrupted" indicates some pretty powerful assumptions. For example that there is (or was) some "uncorrupted" something. Are you only willing to do your search with those assumptions?
If so, you'll come up with very different results than if you're willing to put those assumptions aside. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but they'll certainly be different.
George and Sudo, y'all crack me up! Thank you, too, for the wisdom in your posts along with the wit. ;)
Sudo, please don't tell on me for posting in the wrong area, but I know many people don't wander down in that direction and the question is really sorta non-doctrinal in nature, isn't it? :unsure:
Rascal, I've heard and read things long that vein as well as some other theories that seem to make sense, but I didn't give them much attention while in TWI because I was afraid of even considering something not already endorsed by TWI. Wish I had kept notes on that sort of thing as I came across it. NOW I would be interested in reading more about it.
My3Cents, you're right and I didn't really think I had a pre-conceived notion about the scriptures, but I suppose I did. I honestly don't know WHAT I think anymore, but the more I learn about the Bible, how it was put together and the history of other religions/cultures/beliefs, the more I question the integrity, veracity and "divine nature" of it. Heck, I haven't even really determined whether or not I believe that there was any scriptures written down by revelation from God.
I suppose I'm really just acquiring information at this point and learning as much as I can - educationally, theologically as well as the opinions of those who have been through the same experiences that I have (TWI). I've not come to any conclusions (I don't think), but then again I may end up being a perpetual student in this area...
I have to wonder what will happen if this world survives another 3000 years or so and all the scrolls are lost and someone comes across all our notebooks from teachings, notes and research and decides they should have been put into the bible to.
I think civilizations kept an account of what they believed, usually in ancient times there would be in many groups a story teller or one who kept historical information for a group of people. These simply could be just there versions as they saw fit ....... not necessarily the truth.
I know a lot of our copied teachings from TWI weren't the truth .... what happens thousands of years down the line when someone gets hold of that information buried in a chest at HQ, I sure hope it isn't added into the bible.
I personally don't look to far into either any longer, not after researching civilizations ..........
I agree with Sudo ......... it wil drive one crazy.
I understand your point, Digitallis, but I think it's like comparing apples and oranges because these scrolls that were found, particularly the ones from the documentary, are from Jesus's time or very shortly after his death. Some of the ones they referred to were actually written BEFORE the birth of Jesus.
That in and of itself, imo, lends quite a bit more "credibility" to those scrolls than, say, our notes and syllabuses. I do agree that it can make your head spin, but these are things I've never thought about, never questioned before. Maybe I'll get tired of feeling like I'm going in circles one day, but for now I'm really enjoying learning and being able to ask questions I would have never been able to ask while in TWI.
I don't know if these kinds of questions help others who have left recently or are sitting on the fence, but I hope they do. I know they help me - if for no other reason than being able to "think out loud" about these things and to see other perspectives and thoughts. Thank you very much for taking the time to provide your input. :) I really do appreciate it!
Belle ...... I hope you are not misunderstanding me ..... I looked into these scrolls also. I questioned them myself ......... just like many other things such as Nostradamus etc... They cause a certain curiosity.
The point I was trying to make that in my study of civilizations I realized that they kept records dating back to the stoneage ...... drawings on the walls etc. If I recall correctly In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve were clothed in skins. I even wondered if this was where are stone age began.
Civilizations before Christ and during Christ would have kept records of their own beliefs and assessments and during that day and time may be it was written on stone tablets or scrolls of now carbon dated parchment and is considered to be the exact years that Christ was on this earth. It doesn't make it Gods word necessarily ........
....... it would have just been the means of which was available at the time to retain information. For the historians of each culture to put into concretion their beliefs or understandings. Who knows what that information truly is but GOD.
Carbon dating in and of itself is also not an exact science to be able to say that it came from a certain time period. Carbon dating is more of a theory that is used. One scientist may carbon date a scroll or a tablet thousand of years different from another scientist.
I don't believe I am comparing apples and oranges darling ............ information is retained with what that time period has ..... some cultures were more advanced than other cultures and had scrolls while others were still chisling in stone ......... we look at 2thousand plus years ago as important intormation according to the bible, but there is still the possibility it was records kept by a clan or culture of people who heard from one story teller who had herd it from another story teller etc. and we all know what happens as a story is retold and retold ......... it is added to and taken away from.
Story telling was the way of the past ........ maybe it is the word ....... I don't know ......... but God does.
....... who is to know what our future civilizations will look at what information is important to the bible. I am just emphasizing that it would be ridiculous for them to consider our notes or something buried at HQ and that it should be well established and researched before such scrolls or tablets become part of the bible. I would hate for people thousands of years ahead of us to have gone through some destruction and lose what is most valauable and look at what HQ had as the completed works of God.
The research on these scrolls and tablets will take many a years.
and
It will drive one crazy if they let it. ............
If you are talking about the same history channel show i saw, about the books that were used for the bible and the ones that were 'banned' from being used, would that be the one???
IF so, the show also talked about one book that didn't make it that had a reference to Jesus pushing a fellow playmate off of a roof and the playmate dieing. Kind of makes you wonder what some of the other books that didn't make it contain. :unsure:
I am a stickler for spelling, grammar and such with my own writing, but I didn't think it was obvious. Thank you for the correction and I apologize.
I did partiallyl mis-understood you, but I also didn't look at things taking the facts into consideration that you did. That's why I love this place and am glad that we can have discussions like this. Thank you for taking the time to clarify and expound on what you meant to communicate.
I knew that carbon dating at one time had been extremely unreliable, but I guess I had thought that they figured out how to make it more accurate as science progressed. One more monkey wrench in the machine, eh?
It is pretty scary to think of people 3,000 years from now saying "well, we found these books all over the US and they ALL say the same thing - it MUST be important knowledge that we've only lost through the years." THAT gives me chills to even think about it!
Must have watched "Banned from the Bible." I still concider the books that we have as the Word of God, but if we are honest with ourselves, we know that there have to be other Pauline Epistles that we don't have. Paul appears to quote from OT books which are not included in our Bible. To me, it is less of a question about the books we have, but which are the others that we should have? Some are known to be outright fakes, but others people are not sure of.
The gospel of Mary refered to in the show caught my attention, and I'm going to have to see if I have a copy of it. I've read the first part of the Gospel of Nickademous regarding the trial of Jesus, and found it quite interesting. I'm not sure I would add it the bible, but I'm not sure that I would discount it either. I haven't read the rest of the Gospel yet.
Almost any good bookstore should have copies of these. The book I have is called "The Other Bible." but I bought it used and it may not be in print anymore. I also used to have in a book called "Lost Books of the Bible."
Some of them are obvious, and as you read them you'll wonder why anyone would think they might have been God inspired. But they they are all, for the most part, interesting reading.
Prior to my days with the Way (my way daze) I had often pondered the autheticity of the bible as the "word of god" and had concluded that it was a book of inspired works that had been collected over a period of time. I was somewhat optimistic that that selection process was divinely guided but even that kind of thinking would get you in hot water in TWI. Someone once saw that I had a "Living Bible" in my place and they began to tell me how messed up that was since it was the "adversary's attempt" to counterfeit the "true" word of God. This was always odd since KJV was a translation yet no one in TWI seemed to apply the same skepticism to it that they applied to the Living Bible which was simply another translation (albeit of the KJV).
I've done lots of translation work between languages (spanish to english) and anytime someone is translating something of even a moderate level of complexity, something WILL always get lost especially if the content is rich in symbolism and methaphors , the strength of which might rely upon a given culture or specific language to be totally effective. As we know, the KJV is rich with flowery, symbolic language and culture specific references so on we are several times removed from the original meaings of those writings which in turn are the works of men (though supposedly inspired by God).
I admire the attempts to make sense of some of the references ("Orientalisms" by Pillai)
so westerners could see the meaning behind some of the accounts but that doesn't necessarily guarantee that KJV is "the source" for the word. I recall VPW's comments of " I wish you could see it in the original" (like he ever did himself) as if he had been privy to some scroll featuring the penmanship of God himself. His comments never rang true then and they ring even less true now. Frankly even if he did see some of the oldest scrolls containing elements of what we now call the bible I don't think he even had the necessary background to make a valid assessment of what he was actually looking at.
I mean his Phd was from a diploma mill so it was for sure he lacked the requisite research skills to even approach those documents with some level of reasonable intelligence.
Well I'm not suggesting one point of view over another. Believe as you wish but there are
definite problems when people start calling KJV the "word of god" or claim that they have superior methods of interpretation that would permit us to determine the true intent and desire of God using some "techniques" taught in a PFAL class. I've always felt that KJV was a book of information based primarily on the experiences of men despite the authoritative tone that accompanies , for example, the book of Genesis. It is written by someone who is narrating the formation of the Earth which suggests that it was a scneario that was passed down to someone who eventually documented it - unless of course you believe that God did it. Of course it is interesting that general literacy was a concept that didn't exist. Reading and writing was not a common skill set so even as we arrived at what eventually became the KJV, many people could not enjoy it or consider it even though it was all in English. Of course that didn't help people who didnt' speak English.
Many Christians have never really looked beyond the sacred cow of our accepted canon of scripture. To those who have really studied the history of the church, the things you brought up are fairly comon knowledge. This may be the reason that quite a few theologians do not accept "the Bible" as the inerrant word of God and have no problem with the notion that there may be errors, contradictions, and inconsistancies - even in the so-called originals.
When folks accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, they are also accepting that the men who complied the Bible were inerrant when they decided which books went in and which were rejected.
The question then is, were these men inerrant ot infallible in their decision? I kind of doubt it. As Oldies mentioned, there is debate as to whether James belongs in the Bible. Martin Luther rejected James as well as the book of Revelation and maybe a few others if I recall correctly.
As Danny will attest, others theologians/men of God like Marcion rejected the authority of many of the now included books of the Bible.
These revelations may shake the faith of some folks, but I dont think it really needs to. I suppose though that if somone's spiritual world and their faith hinged upon the Bible ( 39 OT Books and 27 NT books) being the inerrant word of God that fits together "like a hand in a glove" and with a "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" these things may be disheartening. I guess George and Sudo and quite a few others believed Wierwille when he said,
"But to be logical and consistent, either the entire Bible is the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation or it is not the Word of God anywhere." ( PFAL p 5)
Actually, Wiereille presented us with flawed logic in the form or a false dilemma. There are other choices, as anyone who takes the time to think about it should be able to see. The folks who decided the canon clearly saw the choices and made their decision. What prevents us from deciding for ourselves?
In any case, it should be clear that if one or several books was errantly selected, it would not negate the authority of all the rest. Or if one or several deserving books were omitted that this would not be cause to reject the whole.
However if a theological system or a doctrine is built upon a particular book or scripture that really didn't belong in the Bible - it does open up a whole can of worms. If one is of the school that insists upon inerrancy and perfect accuracy, to be "accurate" and not have your Bible "fall to pieces" you then have to make the errant book or verse fit (like a hand in a glove) with those books or verses that do belong. This, of course would and does IMO result in gross error.
So what's the answer? Reject the Bible as a whole?
Or look beyond the errors and inconsistancies try to understand the consistent messages and ideals that the scriptures offer us? I chose the latter.
There are a few sites that I will give you that have a lot of these writings captured down. They make for very interesting reading.
Early Christian Writings. Has a good compilation of writings of the apostles, writings from the leaders of the early Church, gnostic writings, and other apocryphal writings.
Christian Classics Etheral Library. Run by Calvin College...has a huge collection of classic Christian writings that span the entire 2,000 years and medieval and modern writings.
New Advent collection of Church Fathers. Another collection of writings from early Christianity. Also, possibly of interest, has documentation of the liturgies (religious ceremonies) that were used in the earliest forms of Christianity.
The Internet Medieval Sourcebook. Has English translations of many of the documents that shape our life, including how we see Christianity (not just Catholicism, but Protestantism, as well) today.
A couple of things to consider:
I am not hardly trying to state that these documents, in of themselves, provide the Truth. But they are interesting if, for no other reason, they show how people who were contemporary to the author saw their world. This is interesting when reading scripture, as the interpretation of scripture by people who were around then is, in MANY cases, dramatically different than how modern speakers/ writers interpret the same words.
These sites are in some ways duplicative, but not completely. Early Christian Writings has a larger collection of gnostic and other apocryphal writings than the other sites. CCEL has more devotional and general philosophical writings (such as Thomas Kempis' classic, Imitation of Christ, and a very nice Bullinger collection). New Advent has the the Summa and also has many of the early Christian Liturgies.
Hope that helps give you some info that you can use as you broaden your readings!
What evidence do you have that ANY of the books are divinely inspired? For that matter, what evidence do you have that there is a divinity?
I think you sell me and Sudo a little short. WayWorld wasn't my only venture into religiosity, just my last. And I think Sudo's religious credentials might just astound you.
At any rate, I don't see any reason that the Bible should be any more highly regarded than, oh I dunno, THE ILIAD, or the Bhagavagita, or The Saturday Evening Post. Why do you lend more credence to it than to any other book?
What evidence do you have that ANY of the books are divinely inspired? For that matter, what evidence do you have that there is a divinity?
Evidence that you would accept? Probably none. But haven't we been there before? Why bother?
I think you sell me and Sudo a little short. WayWorld wasn't my only venture into religiosity, just my last. And I think Sudo's religious credentials might just astound you.
George, George, George, its a matter of faith - not credentuals or intellect. You and Sudo are both quite bright and probably smarter than I am. That's not the issue though. We all believe what we want to believe or what we are 'compelled' to believe.
Based upon the evidence that I choose to accept (according to my standards) I chose to and am compelled to believe in the existence of God and that there is truth to be gleaned from what is commonly referred to as scripture (writings). Howerver, I don't subscribe to the idea of inerrerancy of scripture and readilly concede inconsistancies and errors in what is referred to as the BIble. Actually, I believe that it is mostly a human work - especially the New testament. Does this surprise you?
I understand your point when you rhetorically ask for evidence that ANY book is divinely inspired. Its a good point. For the sake of brevity I didn't qualify or expound upon several of my points which may may have answered that question. If any NT books at all are divinely inspired in the manner that TWI teaches, ie given by God word for word, I would be very surprised. Actually, I think it highly unlikely. The same goes for much of the Old Testament. The 'evidence' of inspiration via the dictation theory that VPW and many others espouse is only internal to one or two biblical works and is therefore quite weak in the whole scope of things - and certainly wouldnt or shouldn't apply to say, personal letters that Paul wrote to an individual or to a specific church somewhere. Or to a "gospel" which is basically a short story of the life of Jesus. Take Luke 1:1 - 3 for example: The writer says:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
It seems clear to me that the writer says that others, possibly the writers of Matthew and Mark of other writings floating around at the time, took it upon themselves to put on paper the things that had already been taught and were commonly believd concerning Jesus. He then says that it seemed like a good idea for him to do the same. Nowhere does he mention or claim that God told him or anyone else exactky what to write, or that God dictated the words to him or others.
So, for example I imagine the gospels to be the works of men. HONEST men and eyewitness of the events of which they write. Where they were not eye-witnesses, they may have drawn from folks who were. Even so, Mark may have recalled something differently than Luke or Matthew. And since these books were written many years after the events actually took place, it would not be unusuall for there to be a difference here and there, like an error in in the time or place of an event.
My point here being, that the records they provided, even though written and authored by men, were "good enough" to get the message through. Inspired or not.
At any rate, I don't see any reason that the Bible should be any more highly regarded than, oh I dunno, THE ILIAD, or the Bhagavagita, or The Saturday Evening Post. Why do you lend more credence to it than to any other book?
I regard it more highly becasuse I find the historical, traditional and experiencal evicence compelling - and because I want to. I find it difficult if not impossible not to believe in God or in the precpets and ideals contained in "the Bible" via my own canon of scripture.
Why do you regard the BIble seemingly less than the THE ILIAD, or the Bhagavagita, or The Saturday Evening Post? .............. Compelled? or is it strictly an intellectual thingy? Something else maybe?
"Why do you regard the BIble seemingly less than the THE ILIAD, or the Bhagavagita, or The Saturday Evening Post?"
Well, I think you can guess what I'd say here.
But, here ya go anyway.
I don't necessarily regard it as any less. I just don't find any compelling reason to give it any attention at all (I don't spend a lot of time with the Bhagavagita either, BTW). It's not particularly "accurate" from what I can tell, in historical, biological, astronomical, or physical declarations. It's not internally cohesive. And it's not even a particularly good "read" from my perspective, especially not day in and day out, good grief.
And isn't it still regarded as the sole rule for faith and practice amongst most of Christianity? But we should disregard anything it says if it doesn't pass our own personal "smell" test, yet embrace wholeheartedly the rest of it? Or half-heartedly? I guess I just don't get it. But, then, I never have...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
12
10
10
Popular Days
Nov 30
23
Dec 12
11
Dec 11
8
Dec 7
5
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 7 posts
Belle 12 posts
Digitalis 10 posts
markomalley 10 posts
Popular Days
Nov 30 2005
23 posts
Dec 12 2005
11 posts
Dec 11 2005
8 posts
Dec 7 2005
5 posts
Sudo
Belle,
A lot of us have looked into these matters, believe me. I'm not "up" on the subject anymore as I looked into all this many years ago but it became pretty obvious to *me* that the whole god concept was just myth. The religious writings of a lot of the religions have the same characteristics and if you didn't know what you were reading, you couldn't tell if it were the Book of Mormon, the Koran, the Bible or any of those "apocrophal" books you mentioned. Therefore I caution you not to think about it too much. You'll go crazy if you do. Think about it tomorrow
. BTW... this should probably be moved to the Doctrinal forum, doncha' think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Belle,
David Anderson's book "The Two Ways of the Christian Church" makes some thought provoking arguments that the Book of James should never have been included.
Hope you get a chance to read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Bell, I read an interesting book about how archiologists are deciphering the thousands of clay tablets out of sumaria (supposedly one of the earliest civilizations to be found) It`s clay tablets and records pre date the judean teachings by centuries....and yet most of the stories and allegories are the very same as found their places in the scriptures with minor variations....
The theory is that at one time, the judean prisoners were required to transcribe these while in captivity and took the tales back with them.....
My neighbor (the retired methodist minister) kind of views the bible as a collection of tales of how God worked at one time with a particular group of people at a particular time in history.....the basic tennants are the same ...but He is on no way seemes to be limited to the understanding or rules of a people thousands of years ago.
He is ever changing and personal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Belle,
Re: "Many of the books were supposedly chosen because they were considered to be written through revelation from God, yet much of the authorship of the books are actually in question and the true authors are unknown."
I'd reiterate what Sudo said. If you want to stay in some sort of "believer" mode I'd stop your research immediately. The questions only get more debilitating the deeper you dig. Pretty soon you realize, AACCK!, Christianity is just another superstition (among the many).
Consider, all of the supposed traits of Jesus Christ - the virgin birth, sinless life, divine parentage, his unparalleled love, and his human sacrifice - were all fodder for countless supermen of numerous diverse cultures for centuries before JC made the scene. And here he was, the greatest man who ever lived, and not a word is written about him until forty years after his death. There is no real, tangible proof that the man, Jesus of Nazareth, ever even existed. And the list goes on...
And like Sudo, it's been years since I spent any time at all studying any of this stuff, so I'm far from being an afficienado anymore. But I do find it interesting at how many hardcore bibilical scholars, guys who spend years in textual research and archeology and the like, often become very tepid "believers" - if not outright
agnostics.
Anyway, stop thinking right now! It's your only hope!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
Belle, your asking the question and using the word "corrupted" indicates some pretty powerful assumptions. For example that there is (or was) some "uncorrupted" something. Are you only willing to do your search with those assumptions?
If so, you'll come up with very different results than if you're willing to put those assumptions aside. I'm not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but they'll certainly be different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
George and Sudo, y'all crack me up! Thank you, too, for the wisdom in your posts along with the wit. ;)
Sudo, please don't tell on me for posting in the wrong area, but I know many people don't wander down in that direction and the question is really sorta non-doctrinal in nature, isn't it? :unsure:
Rascal, I've heard and read things long that vein as well as some other theories that seem to make sense, but I didn't give them much attention while in TWI because I was afraid of even considering something not already endorsed by TWI. Wish I had kept notes on that sort of thing as I came across it. NOW I would be interested in reading more about it.
My3Cents, you're right and I didn't really think I had a pre-conceived notion about the scriptures, but I suppose I did. I honestly don't know WHAT I think anymore, but the more I learn about the Bible, how it was put together and the history of other religions/cultures/beliefs, the more I question the integrity, veracity and "divine nature" of it. Heck, I haven't even really determined whether or not I believe that there was any scriptures written down by revelation from God.
I suppose I'm really just acquiring information at this point and learning as much as I can - educationally, theologically as well as the opinions of those who have been through the same experiences that I have (TWI). I've not come to any conclusions (I don't think), but then again I may end up being a perpetual student in this area...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
belle, did you really say HOW's come....
snortLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Yes, ma'am, I did. :P
I really use the terms "Mama" and "Daddy", too. Ask anyone who was at the Weenie Roast. ^_^
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
I have to wonder what will happen if this world survives another 3000 years or so and all the scrolls are lost and someone comes across all our notebooks from teachings, notes and research and decides they should have been put into the bible to.
I think civilizations kept an account of what they believed, usually in ancient times there would be in many groups a story teller or one who kept historical information for a group of people. These simply could be just there versions as they saw fit ....... not necessarily the truth.
I know a lot of our copied teachings from TWI weren't the truth .... what happens thousands of years down the line when someone gets hold of that information buried in a chest at HQ, I sure hope it isn't added into the bible.
I personally don't look to far into either any longer, not after researching civilizations ..........
I agree with Sudo ......... it wil drive one crazy.
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I understand your point, Digitallis, but I think it's like comparing apples and oranges because these scrolls that were found, particularly the ones from the documentary, are from Jesus's time or very shortly after his death. Some of the ones they referred to were actually written BEFORE the birth of Jesus.
That in and of itself, imo, lends quite a bit more "credibility" to those scrolls than, say, our notes and syllabuses. I do agree that it can make your head spin, but these are things I've never thought about, never questioned before. Maybe I'll get tired of feeling like I'm going in circles one day, but for now I'm really enjoying learning and being able to ask questions I would have never been able to ask while in TWI.
I don't know if these kinds of questions help others who have left recently or are sitting on the fence, but I hope they do. I know they help me - if for no other reason than being able to "think out loud" about these things and to see other perspectives and thoughts. Thank you very much for taking the time to provide your input. :) I really do appreciate it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
Belle ...... I hope you are not misunderstanding me ..... I looked into these scrolls also. I questioned them myself ......... just like many other things such as Nostradamus etc... They cause a certain curiosity.
The point I was trying to make that in my study of civilizations I realized that they kept records dating back to the stoneage ...... drawings on the walls etc. If I recall correctly In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve were clothed in skins. I even wondered if this was where are stone age began.
Civilizations before Christ and during Christ would have kept records of their own beliefs and assessments and during that day and time may be it was written on stone tablets or scrolls of now carbon dated parchment and is considered to be the exact years that Christ was on this earth. It doesn't make it Gods word necessarily ........
....... it would have just been the means of which was available at the time to retain information. For the historians of each culture to put into concretion their beliefs or understandings. Who knows what that information truly is but GOD.
Carbon dating in and of itself is also not an exact science to be able to say that it came from a certain time period. Carbon dating is more of a theory that is used. One scientist may carbon date a scroll or a tablet thousand of years different from another scientist.
I don't believe I am comparing apples and oranges darling ............ information is retained with what that time period has ..... some cultures were more advanced than other cultures and had scrolls while others were still chisling in stone ......... we look at 2thousand plus years ago as important intormation according to the bible, but there is still the possibility it was records kept by a clan or culture of people who heard from one story teller who had herd it from another story teller etc. and we all know what happens as a story is retold and retold ......... it is added to and taken away from.
Story telling was the way of the past ........ maybe it is the word ....... I don't know ......... but God does.
....... who is to know what our future civilizations will look at what information is important to the bible. I am just emphasizing that it would be ridiculous for them to consider our notes or something buried at HQ and that it should be well established and researched before such scrolls or tablets become part of the bible. I would hate for people thousands of years ahead of us to have gone through some destruction and lose what is most valauable and look at what HQ had as the completed works of God.
The research on these scrolls and tablets will take many a years.
and
It will drive one crazy if they let it. ............
Digi
Edited by DigitalisLink to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
Belle .......I know you would appreciate knowing ......
Digitalis is with one L
Thanks
Digi
Edited by DigitalisLink to comment
Share on other sites
danteh1
Hi Belle
If you are talking about the same history channel show i saw, about the books that were used for the bible and the ones that were 'banned' from being used, would that be the one???
IF so, the show also talked about one book that didn't make it that had a reference to Jesus pushing a fellow playmate off of a roof and the playmate dieing. Kind of makes you wonder what some of the other books that didn't make it contain. :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Digitalis,
I am a stickler for spelling, grammar and such with my own writing, but I didn't think it was obvious.
Thank you for the correction and I apologize.
I did partiallyl mis-understood you, but I also didn't look at things taking the facts into consideration that you did. That's why I love this place and am glad that we can have discussions like this. Thank you for taking the time to clarify and expound on what you meant to communicate.
I knew that carbon dating at one time had been extremely unreliable, but I guess I had thought that they figured out how to make it more accurate as science progressed. One more monkey wrench in the machine, eh?
It is pretty scary to think of people 3,000 years from now saying "well, we found these books all over the US and they ALL say the same thing - it MUST be important knowledge that we've only lost through the years." THAT gives me chills to even think about it!
Thank you from the bottom of my heart. :)
edited to fix spelling a error
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
Must have watched "Banned from the Bible." I still concider the books that we have as the Word of God, but if we are honest with ourselves, we know that there have to be other Pauline Epistles that we don't have. Paul appears to quote from OT books which are not included in our Bible. To me, it is less of a question about the books we have, but which are the others that we should have? Some are known to be outright fakes, but others people are not sure of.
The gospel of Mary refered to in the show caught my attention, and I'm going to have to see if I have a copy of it. I've read the first part of the Gospel of Nickademous regarding the trial of Jesus, and found it quite interesting. I'm not sure I would add it the bible, but I'm not sure that I would discount it either. I haven't read the rest of the Gospel yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Dante and Keith - that's the name of it! "Banned from the Bible" - I didn't get to watch the whole thing so I taped the last part of it.
Keith, I'm also interested in those two books as well. If nothing else, they do seem to be very interesting regarding perceptions of the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
Almost any good bookstore should have copies of these. The book I have is called "The Other Bible." but I bought it used and it may not be in print anymore. I also used to have in a book called "Lost Books of the Bible."
Some of them are obvious, and as you read them you'll wonder why anyone would think they might have been God inspired. But they they are all, for the most part, interesting reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Prior to my days with the Way (my way daze) I had often pondered the autheticity of the bible as the "word of god" and had concluded that it was a book of inspired works that had been collected over a period of time. I was somewhat optimistic that that selection process was divinely guided but even that kind of thinking would get you in hot water in TWI. Someone once saw that I had a "Living Bible" in my place and they began to tell me how messed up that was since it was the "adversary's attempt" to counterfeit the "true" word of God. This was always odd since KJV was a translation yet no one in TWI seemed to apply the same skepticism to it that they applied to the Living Bible which was simply another translation (albeit of the KJV).
I've done lots of translation work between languages (spanish to english) and anytime someone is translating something of even a moderate level of complexity, something WILL always get lost especially if the content is rich in symbolism and methaphors , the strength of which might rely upon a given culture or specific language to be totally effective. As we know, the KJV is rich with flowery, symbolic language and culture specific references so on we are several times removed from the original meaings of those writings which in turn are the works of men (though supposedly inspired by God).
I admire the attempts to make sense of some of the references ("Orientalisms" by Pillai)
so westerners could see the meaning behind some of the accounts but that doesn't necessarily guarantee that KJV is "the source" for the word. I recall VPW's comments of " I wish you could see it in the original" (like he ever did himself) as if he had been privy to some scroll featuring the penmanship of God himself. His comments never rang true then and they ring even less true now. Frankly even if he did see some of the oldest scrolls containing elements of what we now call the bible I don't think he even had the necessary background to make a valid assessment of what he was actually looking at.
I mean his Phd was from a diploma mill so it was for sure he lacked the requisite research skills to even approach those documents with some level of reasonable intelligence.
Well I'm not suggesting one point of view over another. Believe as you wish but there are
definite problems when people start calling KJV the "word of god" or claim that they have superior methods of interpretation that would permit us to determine the true intent and desire of God using some "techniques" taught in a PFAL class. I've always felt that KJV was a book of information based primarily on the experiences of men despite the authoritative tone that accompanies , for example, the book of Genesis. It is written by someone who is narrating the formation of the Earth which suggests that it was a scneario that was passed down to someone who eventually documented it - unless of course you believe that God did it. Of course it is interesting that general literacy was a concept that didn't exist. Reading and writing was not a common skill set so even as we arrived at what eventually became the KJV, many people could not enjoy it or consider it even though it was all in English. Of course that didn't help people who didnt' speak English.
Edited by diazbroLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Belle,
Many Christians have never really looked beyond the sacred cow of our accepted canon of scripture. To those who have really studied the history of the church, the things you brought up are fairly comon knowledge. This may be the reason that quite a few theologians do not accept "the Bible" as the inerrant word of God and have no problem with the notion that there may be errors, contradictions, and inconsistancies - even in the so-called originals.
When folks accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, they are also accepting that the men who complied the Bible were inerrant when they decided which books went in and which were rejected.
The question then is, were these men inerrant ot infallible in their decision? I kind of doubt it. As Oldies mentioned, there is debate as to whether James belongs in the Bible. Martin Luther rejected James as well as the book of Revelation and maybe a few others if I recall correctly.
As Danny will attest, others theologians/men of God like Marcion rejected the authority of many of the now included books of the Bible.
These revelations may shake the faith of some folks, but I dont think it really needs to. I suppose though that if somone's spiritual world and their faith hinged upon the Bible ( 39 OT Books and 27 NT books) being the inerrant word of God that fits together "like a hand in a glove" and with a "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" these things may be disheartening. I guess George and Sudo and quite a few others believed Wierwille when he said,
Actually, Wiereille presented us with flawed logic in the form or a false dilemma. There are other choices, as anyone who takes the time to think about it should be able to see. The folks who decided the canon clearly saw the choices and made their decision. What prevents us from deciding for ourselves?
In any case, it should be clear that if one or several books was errantly selected, it would not negate the authority of all the rest. Or if one or several deserving books were omitted that this would not be cause to reject the whole.
However if a theological system or a doctrine is built upon a particular book or scripture that really didn't belong in the Bible - it does open up a whole can of worms. If one is of the school that insists upon inerrancy and perfect accuracy, to be "accurate" and not have your Bible "fall to pieces" you then have to make the errant book or verse fit (like a hand in a glove) with those books or verses that do belong. This, of course would and does IMO result in gross error.
So what's the answer? Reject the Bible as a whole?
Or look beyond the errors and inconsistancies try to understand the consistent messages and ideals that the scriptures offer us? I chose the latter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
great post goey and i'm so happy to see you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Wow, they moved the thread on me...LOL
Belle,
There are a few sites that I will give you that have a lot of these writings captured down. They make for very interesting reading.
A couple of things to consider:
Hope that helps give you some info that you can use as you broaden your readings!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
But, but, but, GOEY,
What evidence do you have that ANY of the books are divinely inspired? For that matter, what evidence do you have that there is a divinity?
I think you sell me and Sudo a little short. WayWorld wasn't my only venture into religiosity, just my last. And I think Sudo's religious credentials might just astound you.
At any rate, I don't see any reason that the Bible should be any more highly regarded than, oh I dunno, THE ILIAD, or the Bhagavagita, or The Saturday Evening Post. Why do you lend more credence to it than to any other book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Hi George,
Evidence that you would accept? Probably none. But haven't we been there before? Why bother? George, George, George, its a matter of faith - not credentuals or intellect. You and Sudo are both quite bright and probably smarter than I am. That's not the issue though. We all believe what we want to believe or what we are 'compelled' to believe.Based upon the evidence that I choose to accept (according to my standards) I chose to and am compelled to believe in the existence of God and that there is truth to be gleaned from what is commonly referred to as scripture (writings). Howerver, I don't subscribe to the idea of inerrerancy of scripture and readilly concede inconsistancies and errors in what is referred to as the BIble. Actually, I believe that it is mostly a human work - especially the New testament. Does this surprise you?
I understand your point when you rhetorically ask for evidence that ANY book is divinely inspired. Its a good point. For the sake of brevity I didn't qualify or expound upon several of my points which may may have answered that question. If any NT books at all are divinely inspired in the manner that TWI teaches, ie given by God word for word, I would be very surprised. Actually, I think it highly unlikely. The same goes for much of the Old Testament. The 'evidence' of inspiration via the dictation theory that VPW and many others espouse is only internal to one or two biblical works and is therefore quite weak in the whole scope of things - and certainly wouldnt or shouldn't apply to say, personal letters that Paul wrote to an individual or to a specific church somewhere. Or to a "gospel" which is basically a short story of the life of Jesus. Take Luke 1:1 - 3 for example: The writer says:
It seems clear to me that the writer says that others, possibly the writers of Matthew and Mark of other writings floating around at the time, took it upon themselves to put on paper the things that had already been taught and were commonly believd concerning Jesus. He then says that it seemed like a good idea for him to do the same. Nowhere does he mention or claim that God told him or anyone else exactky what to write, or that God dictated the words to him or others.
So, for example I imagine the gospels to be the works of men. HONEST men and eyewitness of the events of which they write. Where they were not eye-witnesses, they may have drawn from folks who were. Even so, Mark may have recalled something differently than Luke or Matthew. And since these books were written many years after the events actually took place, it would not be unusuall for there to be a difference here and there, like an error in in the time or place of an event.
My point here being, that the records they provided, even though written and authored by men, were "good enough" to get the message through. Inspired or not.
I regard it more highly becasuse I find the historical, traditional and experiencal evicence compelling - and because I want to. I find it difficult if not impossible not to believe in God or in the precpets and ideals contained in "the Bible" via my own canon of scripture.
Why do you regard the BIble seemingly less than the THE ILIAD, or the Bhagavagita, or The Saturday Evening Post? .............. Compelled? or is it strictly an intellectual thingy? Something else maybe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"Why do you regard the BIble seemingly less than the THE ILIAD, or the Bhagavagita, or The Saturday Evening Post?"
Well, I think you can guess what I'd say here.
But, here ya go anyway.
I don't necessarily regard it as any less. I just don't find any compelling reason to give it any attention at all (I don't spend a lot of time with the Bhagavagita either, BTW). It's not particularly "accurate" from what I can tell, in historical, biological, astronomical, or physical declarations. It's not internally cohesive. And it's not even a particularly good "read" from my perspective, especially not day in and day out, good grief.
And isn't it still regarded as the sole rule for faith and practice amongst most of Christianity? But we should disregard anything it says if it doesn't pass our own personal "smell" test, yet embrace wholeheartedly the rest of it? Or half-heartedly? I guess I just don't get it. But, then, I never have...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.