-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How the Bible has changed over the past 2,000 years
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I believe the bible hasn't changed enough over the last 2,000 years, its still in the dark and superstitious age.
I think the spiritual of the Message of the Bible has remained intact in the text despite 2,000 years having gone by but not remained intact in the hearts of the followers otherwise they would all be one religion and never have had any wars.
I do not consider the changes significant enough to deviate from the central truths and messages within the Bible. It remains a profound source of spiritual inspiration for millions across the world.
The problem comes when followers are locked into man made doctrines and dogmas that have outlived their usefulness or were never intended in the first place.
Absolutely not. As I first listened to the video, I found it highly suspect. When it then quoted Bert Erhman, an agnostic atheist, it simply sealed the reality that it is a biased video.
A true study of the matter, would have given both sides of a position and not tilt it towards a biased position.
That being said, the points made didn't really mention anything that invalidated what Jesus said. For an example, their position that in one of the Gospels they decided to add a resurrection to the Gospel of Mark. If they did, and there are many that would say it wasn't added, it doesn't change the historicity of a resurrection.
NPR isn't exactly a unbiased source.
Absolutely yes. It allows it to be understood in a rational context instead of a magical context which tries to make the book something of supernatural origins. The latter magical/mythical context demands that those who think in in terms of critical thought suspend such nagging questions of contradictions and instead try to find creative means to either explain them away or deny they exist. The former rational/scientific context allows the contradictions to stand while not demanding the sacrifice of critical understandings for the sake of faith. In other words, "faith in the Bible" is not a prerequisite of faith for those who embrace what a modern understanding of the texts reveals. Faith is not based in magical stories taken as literal facts of science and history for them.
I sometimes wondered how they edited the Bible, why they include some books, but then exclude others or regard them as "apocryphal." How do they tell which books are "official" and which ones are "apocryphal"?
I mean, it's all "apocryphal," isn't it?
I mean, it's all "apocryphal," isn't it?
Simply put, the ones that advanced the standardized system of beliefs that they could administer more easily were deemed valid texts, and others that weren't were deemed heretical. Think of it as editors who cut out the director's visions of the movie in order to make it something they knew they could more easily market to the widest range of audiences without going over their heads too much. The editing process crafted a different sort of movie than what was originally put on to their cutting-room tables before it got released into theaters. Something like that.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
Am I the only one who believes he made people at least before animals.
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
that's interesting cause I was also of the thought that Jesus came as He and they didn't recognize him because many believed in evolution constantly and thought of Jesus too.
Which makes some sense of why nero went too far believed evolution to being inside your head and whatever else out there.
The Theory of Evolution was not believed by anyone back then. No one even knew what that was. It wasn't until the time of Charles Darwin in the 1800's that anyone "believed" in evolution when he proposed it based on observations. Quit trying to demonize something you have no understanding of, blaming it for everything that scares you.
Last edited:
For a long time my understanding has been that the Bible had been changed over time. So the examples in the video were interesting but did not effect the central messages of the Bible. I suspect there have been more drastic changes.
Over the years I've read teaching stories with specific morals which have been attributed to different religious leaders. It's clear that taking an illustrative story as literal is a mistake.
Over the years I've read teaching stories with specific morals which have been attributed to different religious leaders. It's clear that taking an illustrative story as literal is a mistake.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Judging an entire video by the remarks of just one of its sources isn't very broadminded, particularly when that source has excellent credentials.
FYI.
Professor Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
Bart D. Ehrman has written or edited thirty books, including five New York Times bestsellers: How Jesus Became God, Misquoting Jesus, God’s Problem, Jesus Interrupted and Forged. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity.
His work has been featured in Time, the New Yorker, the Washington Post and other print media, and he has appeared on NBC’s Dateline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, The History Channel, National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, the BBC, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets.
source
During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.
Source: Wikipedia
Bart D. Ehrman has written or edited thirty books, including five New York Times bestsellers: How Jesus Became God, Misquoting Jesus, God’s Problem, Jesus Interrupted and Forged. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity.
His work has been featured in Time, the New Yorker, the Washington Post and other print media, and he has appeared on NBC’s Dateline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, The History Channel, National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, the BBC, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets.
source
During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.
Source: Wikipedia
Think that just because he was unable to overcome a particular philosophical problem with Christianity theology that it taints his exceptional scholarship and objectivity with the "nuts and bolts" of the religion? ......................... No doubt you do.
Ah ha, a bit of innuendo. So what bias is this, and what is your evidence that it would affect the validity of what is presented in the video?
.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
As I recall, translations were often done at the behest of some monarch or other reigning authority, religious and otherwise, and necessarily reflected the particular theology of that authority.
.
That's a GREAT question.... Not sure what Bible you are using, but does Mark have the "Lord's Prayer"? It may be the reason it isn't found in the oldest copy. I'm not sure it is in the newest copy either
I am aware of his credentials... have a book by him. But much like some of the Pharisees in the times of Jesus, you can know a lot and miss the point entirely. As an agnostic atheist... he definitely missed it.
Skwim
Veteran Member
By which I assume you're implying that had he remained a Christian he wouldn't have missed it. Interesting connection you're making here.
.
Brilliant...
Or I thought I said the piece is biased because it only gave one side of the viewpoint!
Watch out for the word assume.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yep, I got the wrong source.That's a GREAT question.... Not sure what Bible you are using, but does Mark have the "Lord's Prayer"? It may be the reason it isn't found in the oldest copy. I'm not sure it is in the newest copy either
It shows up in at least some copies of Matthew as an ending that's included in the Lord's Prayer whereas it appears to have likely been a midrash (commentary) that got included. I don't know if your church uses that addition or not when they say the prayer, but some churches do.
With Mark, there's an ending to the book that I would have to look up to see what the issue is, and I'll try and figure that out and get back with you on this.
Sorry for the error.