-
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!
Christians, what do you do to trust that the bible you have today is accurate?
- Thread starter Purell
- Start date
exchemist
Veteran Member
I suspect that to most of us it does not much matter. The main themes of the New Testament are fairly clear, regardless of whether specific bits may be questionable. It is the themes that give one inspiration and comfort in life, not the minutiae of specific passages. Though scholars and perhaps biblical literalists may see it differently.
Earthling
David Henson
The fact that you know that Mark 16:9-20 and others are spurious is a pretty good indication that it isn't easy for those scriptures to go without notice. How accurate do you need it to be?
Accuracy is the least of the problems of the NT. The fact that 2/3 of the bible is attributed to the guy referred to by Yeshua as "least", by those in the "kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19), is the bigger problem. That the gospel of "least" (Paul means small, and the "foremost of small is "least"), is antithetical to the gospel of the kingdom of heaven, is the "greatest" problem (Mathew 5:19)
Earthling
David Henson
Huh? What is this, then?
SonOfElElyon
Member
I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, Yahweh, do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7 HCSB
The creator of all created all therefore it is ALL GOOD!
The only war humans are a part of is the one between your ears.
The creator of all created all therefore it is ALL GOOD!
The only war humans are a part of is the one between your ears.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Much of the New Testament is written by some homophobic dude named Paul who wasn't even around during the lifetime of Jesus Christ. How can you trust anybody like that who only has second hand accounts of whom Jesus Christ was or what did Jesus Christ actually stand for?
When I was a Christian I believed the experts who told me things I now know to be untrue.
Or an ending describing Resurrection appearances appended by a later copyist. Seems to be the majority view. The original Gospel ended with Mark16:8. Yet there are scholars who argue strongly for a lost ending (a final codex page that became detached"), contending that Mark would surely have narrated the appearance in Galilee promised in 16:7 (as does Matt 28:16-20). A proclamation of the good news that ends with the women saying "nothing to anyone, for they were afraid" (16:8) is troubling. The problem was noted in antiquity, since mss. of Mark witness to three different endings added by copyists, presumably in an attempt to correct the abruptness of 16:8. The best attested ending is called the Marcan Appendix or the Longer Ending and printed as part of the text of Mark in many Bibles.
Interestingly, the Council of Trent declared 16:9-20 to be canonical Scripture but there is no obligation for Roman Catholics to believe that it was written by Mark.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That was how I came about in believing at first , and reasoned at the time the biblical experts would be more privy in establishing the Bible's credibility when in fact I discovered one day even they were continually engaged in apologetics, which to me, was a major red flag of the Bibles contested and incomplete nature, putting it's accuracy at a serious disadvantage.
Now it's no more or less accurate than any other mythology of the day.
Mark 16:9-20 is not part of God’s inspired Word, and that for the following reasons:
1) These verses are not found in two of the oldest and most highly regarded Greek manuscripts as well as others.
2) They are also not found in many of the oldest and best Bible translations or versions.
3) Such ancient scholars as Eusebius and Jerome pronounced them spurious.
4) The style of these verses is entirely different from that of Mark.
5) The vocabulary used in these verses is different from that of Mark.
6) And, most important of all, the very content of these verses contradicts the facts and the rest of the Scriptures.
Since the top Bible Scholars can give reasons for why they know scripture has been tampered with, we can rest assured that the rest of scripture is as it should be. God can take care of his own word even if he used men to write it, preserve it, and make it available to all.
To me, the Bible is one book.....with one story.....and one author. When something doesn't fit, it is obvious.
Mark 16:16 seems to be the bulwark of the "Christian" false gospel of grace. And Mark 16:9, the bulwark of "Christ" rising on the "first day of the week", giving an opening to worship the sun god on his first day of the week, Sunday. You guys need to get your stories straight.
Well, if you claim that the NT is the unaltered word of God, you might want back up the claim. If it contains the traditions of men, you should simply confess, that you have been duped for over 1600 years. (Jeremiah 16:19)
Earthling
David Henson
I wouldn't make that claim. It does contain the traditions of men and I haven't been alive for 1600 years.
The present canon, commonly in use, has been around since the year 367 A.D. and was proposed by the man Athanasius. If you read Luke 1:1-3, you will find that gospel of Luke is a compilation of stories of unnamed men, and that Luke was a witness to nothing.
lukethethird
unknown member
Whether The Bible is the written word of God or not makes no difference. Believers believe, doubters doubt, life goes on.
Last edited:
Earthling
David Henson
His book is attributed to him in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 C.E.) and he was accepted by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria (second century) as the writer of Luke. Paul speaks of him at Colossians 4:14, Acts of the apostles 1:1 suggests he had composed the account most likely in 61 C.E. when in Rome with Paul. He wasn't a witness, not having been a believer until after Christ's death, but he was a meticulous historian, 'tracing all things with accuracy,' probably referring to Matthew's account, Paul and the disciples. Possibly even Jesus' mother Mary.
A lot of conjecture based on "nothing but falsehood" from "our (nations/Gentiles) fathers". (Jeremiah 16:19). As for Paul speaking of "Luke", which Luke? And wouldn't that make Luke an associate of the false prophet Paul? And who wrote Acts? Would that be the same Luke, who apparently couldn't get the wilderness story correct, for there are two different contradictory versions. Was the story of the adulteress an add on? And what about any words taken away? And what about the root of all this writing, was it deemed "obsolete" by some unknown author of Hebrews (Hebrew 8:13)? Was it taken away as the "cornerstone" (Isaiah 28:16) and substituted with the false gospel of grace, which is the "covenant with death" (Isaiah 28:18)? No, I am thinking that the foundation of the "Christian" church, the words of Paul, and the unknown words of the unknown author of 2 Peter 3:16, are "sand" (Matthew 7:26), and about to be washed away. (Matthew 7:25)
If you take away Mark's dubious writings, and the adulteress writings, which provide fundamental reasonings for the false creeds of the "Christian" church, what do you have left?
Last edited:
A REAL CHRISTIAN
Member
If someone tells you a story and you find some parts end up being true than the rest ou s probabely true. Just analyze parts of the bible until then. If i remember correctly that matthew verse was probabely a side note written by one scribe than another thought it was meant to be included. Simple mistake not the kind of fakeness some imply. Considering this is the best " forgery" in the bible id say thats impressive
