Legitimacy of the bible as a historical document?

so i'm pretty sure that jewish scholars who wrote down or copied the old testament were bound to make an accurate representation of the text or they would be killed. so i guess, if we look at the old testament we can be pretty sure of it's likeness to that of the earliest versions of the old testament.

the people who wrote the new testament grew up under these laws, but the early church was very opposed to isreal. they would have been killed anyway.

so my question is: over the course of 2000 years -- the fall of the first church, the institution of christianity within the roman empire -- was the bible corrupted from it's original text or intent?

even if the bible wasn't corrupted through history, the dialect back when it was written is totally different from today's dialect. i just don't see how, even if the events depicted in the bible are true, that the bible could even begin to paint an accurate picture of what happened.

 

Yes.

I cannot remember the specific verse i Romans, but roughly half of the manuscripts say one thing and the other say another thing. The word spoken is the exact same, but the written word and meaning are different (in that case). It can then be interpreted either very Catholic or very Lutheran.

 

Of course it was corrupted. There are lost books, books that were suppressed, and even in the early Christian church, there were all kinds've debates over meanings and translations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christians

 

the bible is a hot mess.
but its still very much history.
whatever crappy version it is.

 

Doesn't it being in a more antiquated dialect make it more historically accurate?

I mean; I wouldn't exactly call '10 Things I Hate About You' more accurate Shakespeare than 'The Taming of the Shrew'..

 

Depends on whether or not you believe God, who can create the universe, can also keep his message intact and honest to reality (history included). I've seen so many that are Kings James only, AV only, etc. I think the differences between the translations are mostly superficial, the core purpose and message remains intact, but that some translations are better in that it's easier to read and contains less translation errors. There is a verse in Jeremiah that rebukes the scribes for corrupting the text to reform to their will, but Jesus goes on to say that not one letter of the law will pass away, so maybe it's not the actual writings but the intent, purpose, prophecies and the message that managed to be maintained despite plans of the scribes to corrupt it. For example, the same metaphors will be used throughout the books. Most scholars seem to agree that what we have today is pretty much what people had 2k years ago but with slight errors here and there but all superficial in the grand scope of things.

Overall, the Bible has been proven to be historically reliable.

 

Once again, I am with you on this.

 

interesting point. but what if the message was meant to be corrupted? how can we know?

although, if jesus said that the scriptures would never be corrupted, and the only source that we have of this is of him saying this in the scriptures, then how can we be sure that this wasn't just something that was corrupted to conform to the will of the powers that be?

 

You are telling us that you believe that talking animals and water walking immortal Gods can die and that these are real and historic?

Your kidding right?

Does your belief also go to staffs that turn into snakes and that a loving God would use genocide on mankind instead of just curing him?

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

Regards
DL

 

Language is not static, it evolves.
Some of the words that were used 2000+ years ago are very ambigious to us now, so information can be lost or altered in the translations.

There are too many contrary examples for me to take that statement seriously.

 

the prophets were killed by jews, for bringing truth ...i wonder if they'd spare scholars for writing it!

 

Deut 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

why should there be a need for the messenger of the creator of universe to say such a thing. does he not have the faith you speak of, that God would keep his message intact regardless ?

 

History is always told in the present, it is living tissue.

 

In the verse you cited, It mentions do not add or subtract the commands. It's another way of saying that all commandments should be followed and not only 9 out of 10, and that not more than 10 should be included, as in, don't create heavy burdens that God does not command.

The need to say such a thing is simple. God wants a friendship with us so he gives us what we need in order to build up that relationship.

 

why should there be another way for saying that! are you suggesting its a book for the smartest kind who are able to read between the lines, or rather make assumptions and draw conclusions. i bet everyone has a different viewpoint on this verse alone

 

people hallucinate when they read , and this allows spiritual understanding .
good writing is designed to help you do this well .
it neither bends your will , nor is of the void .

 

Really?

What should I follow here?

The command to honor my parents or
If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brother, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can not be my disciple." John 3:15

Another head scratcher is the fact that God broke his covenant with A & E concerning the eating of the tree of life while saying this.

My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of my lips.
—Psalm 89:34

Yep. The Bible is clear as a bell.

Regards
DL

 

Glad you asked. Honor your father sun and mother earth, that your days may be long in the land.

So the lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man.

Man usurped the power of god only in dreams.

No where does it say he woke up.

 

Hebrews were nothing but shit-kicking Canaanite Hillbillies, who only descended on Canaanite cities/civilisation like corpse picking vultures, after they were sacked by Egyptians, Hittites, etc. during the course of their wars.

There was no "Exodus," "King David," "Solomon," or an all conquering Joshua.

Read something other than blatantly obvious Bible propaganda written to make a proverbial silk purse out of a "Hebrew" sow's ear.

 

the ancestor stories we receive have honor . if
you would purely receive only the Word , you
might not have much to say about it and just
smile , and for that matter it might be so very small
that you also will enfold it , hold it within a story to be told
long and slowly .