Christians can you be certain your bible is trust worthy?

[ChristineM]

Of course it was, but no more so than the OT texts. In many cases, less so, since the OT texts are much, much older and had already been redacted by the time the church got hold of them and further edited them as they did the NT texts.

The OT can be compared to the Septuagint Tanakh, no such classic standard exists for the NT.

Take a comparison of the NIV and KJV NT books, major wording difference, in some cases complete verses missing.

The oldest complete NT we have is the Vulgate which is unchanged from the original vulgate. If the bible NT were unchanged there would be far less resentment against catholics and everyone would be following catholicism.

 

[sojourner]

The OT can be compared to the Septuagint Tanakh, no such classic standard exists for the NT.

Take a comparison of the NIV and KJV NT books, major wording difference, in some cases complete verses missing.

The oldest complete NT we have is the Vulgate which is unchanged from the original vulgate. If the bible NT were unchanged there would be far less resentment against catholics and everyone would be following catholicism.

True, but do we know how much the OT had been redacted by the time the LXX was produced? The differences between the KJV and NIV are due to two things: first is the bias and agenda of the translators. The NIV isn’t a real good example of the newer translations. The NRSV is much better. Second is the newer scholarship that has older texts available than that which produced the KJV. We have far older Greek texts than the Vulgate. At any rate, the differences are relatively minor, and those differences have little to do with resentment against Catholics.

 

[ChristineM]

True, but do we know how much the OT had been redacted by the time the LXX was produced? The differences between the KJV and NIV are due to two things: first is the bias and agenda of the translators. The NIV isn’t a real good example of the newer translations. The NRSV is much better. Second is the newer scholarship that has older texts available than that which produced the KJV. We have far older Greek texts than the Vulgate. At any rate, the differences are relatively minor, and those differences have little to do with resentment against Catholics.

As far as i am aware there are no complete text predating the vulgate.

Minor differences are still differences.

A large percentage of the us population use NIV as their "trustworthy" source.

The differences between the catholic and protestant bibles and hence the difference in rites is the cause of resentment.

 

[sojourner]

As far as i am aware there are no complete text predating the vulgate.

Minor differences are still differences.

A large percentage of the us population use NIV as their "trustworthy" source.

The differences between the catholic and protestant bibles and hence the difference in rites is the cause of resentment.

Codex Sinaiticus contains over half the OT and all the NT (plus a couple more). It was written in the 300s.
I’d argue that the difference in rites is not due to the differences in the texts. RC doctrine and practice does not derive from the few apocryphal books they include in their canon. In fact, there are very few differences between RC rites, Anglican rites and ELCA rites.

 

[shmogie]

Yes. It was.

Nope, try again

 

[shmogie]

As far as i am aware there are no complete text predating the vulgate.

Minor differences are still differences.

A large percentage of the us population use NIV as their "trustworthy" source.

The differences between the catholic and protestant bibles and hence the difference in rites is the cause of resentment.

I don';t think so. The Douay version is not that far from the NKJV, NIV, NEB. etc.

The friction is based upon the fact that Protestant belief is based on sola scriptura, the Bible only.

Catholics accept tradition as as valuable as the Bible. Tradition has led them into things that aren';t in the Bible, Popes, and many others. The Reformation was ultimately about discarding tradition.

 

[sojourner]

Nope, try again

Authorship is authorship. When someone writes something, that person authors what is written, unless one is just taking dictation. The biblical authors weren’t “taking dictation.” Were the writers inspired? I believe so. But that inspiration wasn’t “dictation” word-for-word. That inspiration came to them through the lens of their own awareness and cultural understanding.

 

[sojourner]

I don';t think so. The Douay version is not that far from the NKJV, NIV, NEB. etc.

The friction is based upon the fact that Protestant belief is based on sola scriptura, the Bible only.

Catholics accept tradition as as valuable as the Bible. Tradition has led them into things that aren';t in the Bible, Popes, and many others. The Reformation was ultimately about discarding tradition.

You’re assuming that the Bible is the be-all-end-all. It wasn’t in the beginning, because, for the first 450 years of the church there was no bible as we know it, or as the Reformers knew it. Most people couldn’t read, and it’s highly likely that the gospels — at least the Synoptics — were orally transmitted long before being written down. I’m afraid the Bible is part of tradition, so, in throwing out tradition, the Reformers threw out a very important part of the equation.

 

[ChristineM]

Codex Sinaiticus contains over half the OT and all the NT (plus a couple more). It was written in the 300s.
I’d argue that the difference in rites is not due to the differences in the texts. RC doctrine and practice does not derive from the few apocryphal books they include in their canon. In fact, there are very few differences between RC rites, Anglican rites and ELCA rites.

Yes more, and with several differences.

Id argue that the whole of modern christianity is derived from bibles.

 

[ChristineM]

I don';t think so. The Douay version is not that far from the NKJV, NIV, NEB. etc.

The friction is based upon the fact that Protestant belief is based on sola scriptura, the Bible only.

Catholics accept tradition as as valuable as the Bible. Tradition has led them into things that aren';t in the Bible, Popes, and many others. The Reformation was ultimately about discarding tradition.

They dont have to be far to be different. And the Niv is a long way different.

Catholicism was around long before protestantism so who is right?

 

[sojourner]

Yes more, and with several differences.

Id argue that the whole of modern christianity is derived from bibles.

With the exception of evangelicalism, it really isn’t.

 

[ChristineM]

With the exception of evangelicalism, it really isn’t.

If you say so.

I can only take things as i see them.

 

[sojourner]

If you say so.

I can only take things as i see them.

I know for a fact that RCC, EO, Anglicanism, the ELCA, the United Methodists, UCC, an Presbyterian USA aren’t strictly “Bible-based,” because they all espouse scripture + tradition. Not to be argumentative, but there’s a marked difference between how these traditions approach ecclesiology and how the evangelical traditions approach ecclesiology.

 

[ChristineM]

I know for a fact that RCC, EO, Anglicanism, the ELCA, the United Methodists, UCC, an Presbyterian USA aren’t strictly “Bible-based,” because they all espouse scripture + tradition. Not to be argumentative, but there’s a marked difference between how these traditions approach ecclesiology and how the evangelical traditions approach ecclesiology.

Where do the traditions come from?

 

[sojourner]

Where do the traditions come from?

Most are derived from ancient practice. Most derive from common liturgical roots, quite frankly rooted in both Rabbinic Judaism and Roman/Gentile practice. The Eucharist is derived from the Roman Symposium or dinner party.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Christianity derive from Judaism. Islam derive from Christianity and Judaism. These 3 religion got the same god and is the only 3 religion that believe there is only one god. The 3 religions believe its god is one and only true god and believe their god is always right and all other gods are lying evil demonic false gods pretending to be god AKA Satan. However, what if there is a plot twist and those other gods are the real gods and the god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism Yahweh, is actually the one that is truly a lying evil demonic false god pretending to be god? This is especially considering the bible got many disturbing teachings which is why we need the Protestant Reformation and even after that there are still many problem, due to not been able to change the bible itself (it is no wonder the Mormons threw the bible out and write up a new book of Mormon.

**Hyperlinks removed by moderator**

Oh my.

1. Muslims make the very same claim against Christians and Jews, yet claim to be followers of the same tradition. Based on this, it's the village of truthtellers and liars riddle.
2. Only, we can be sure in fact that Muslims are liars when they say they believe in the same God as Christians and Jews, because by their own scripture they explicitly say that during times of war, it is permissable to lie, even to the so-called People of the Book.
3. If the other people who say the Bible has been corrupted are known liars, by simple logic, the Bible has not been corrupted. Can God still be evil? Sure, possibly. But one thing at a time.
4. 1 Samuel 24:13 and Matthew 7:16, essentially both the Old and New Testament, agree that a wicked person does wicked actions and so can be judged wicked. If then, God is evil, it would follow that we would see some of the effects of this evil. We have to turn to archaeology to figure out whether things improved from prior to Judaism, but we can assume they did. No more infant sacrifices, no sick sexual practices, poverty was low and people were educated in the Torah. What about Christianity? One of the first things that happened was a trying to free a slave (Philemon mentions a runaway slave who is sent back but note the important distinction here, Paul mentions him as having "become a brother" as in HINT HINT if you know what's good for you, you will also consider this guy a brother and not a slave), and contrary to historical revisionists, Christians did have a hand in abolishing slavery. Christianity also had a hand in better treatment of women, meanwhile atheism did not. Christianity was also a proponent of medicine and technology (it is a lie that the church has been against science, what Christianity doesn't support is unethical science, stuff that causes death or cruelty). So all of these things that make the world it is today are result of the progress caused by religious people.
   
5. How do I know that Bible is right or true or whatever you're asking? Because I wake up each morning and I live with clean water, modern cooking, I am not in chains, and I'm not oppressed by the Roman government.

 

[shmogie]

They dont have to be far to be different. And the Niv is a long way different.

Catholicism was around long before protestantism so who is right?

No. You may take a literal translation, say the NKJB
and a paraphrase, like the Living Bible, read a paragraph, and the words are different, the sentence structure may be different but the meaning of a paragraph is the same, You are trying to say that different translations having minor differences destroys the integrity of the meaning of the Bible, Absolutely not. In America traffic signs say yield, in the UK they say, give way, the meaning is exactly the same, indisputable.

My Catholic brothers and sisters have been led astray by their tradition. Does it affect their ultimate relationship to God ? None of my business, decisions like that are way, way above my pay grade, and a sin.

 

[shmogie]

You’re assuming that the Bible is the be-all-end-all. It wasn’t in the beginning, because, for the first 450 years of the church there was no bible as we know it, or as the Reformers knew it. Most people couldn’t read, and it’s highly likely that the gospels — at least the Synoptics — were orally transmitted long before being written down. I’m afraid the Bible is part of tradition, so, in throwing out tradition, the Reformers threw out a very important part of the equation.

Not Correct. The Gospels and most letters were in circulation by 100 AD. Letters from the Church Fathers of the immediate post Apostolic church, c. AD 150 prove this so. Though churches chose which documents to use, most used the Foundational Gospels, Letters of Paul, and Epistles. Some used additional Gospels later to be found non Canonical, most, if not all not written before AD 200. The Council of Nicea correctly identified the long used books, added the book of Revelation, written before Johns death c.100 AD, and eliminated those books identified as having been written by those not having any living connection with Christ. It cannot be overemphasized that early non canonical letters and other writings establish that what today is the canonical NT was in use very early.

 

[joelr]

Not Correct. The Gospels and most letters were in circulation by 100 AD. Letters from the Church Fathers of the immediate post Apostolic church, c. AD 150 prove this so. Though churches chose which documents to use, most used the Foundational Gospels, Letters of Paul, and Epistles. Some used additional Gospels later to be found non Canonical, most, if not all not written before AD 200. The Council of Nicea correctly identified the long used books, added the book of Revelation, written before Johns death c.100 AD, and eliminated those books identified as having been written by those not having any living connection with Christ. It cannot be overemphasized that early non canonical letters and other writings establish that what today is the canonical NT was in use very early.

No. If you read The Lost Gospels by Elaine Pagels you can see that those found scripture reveal a very different Christianity in those days.
There were what we today call Gnostic Christians with all sorts of different ideas.

Bishop Ireaneous wanted a church power structure where only the bloodline could teach and interpret the gospels.

Paul's original letters do not mention anything about any ministry or earthly life of Jesus, just revelation and knowledge of some scripture.

The later letters are considered forgery by scholarship (Acts as Historical Fiction by W. Purvue)

All of the gospels are re-writes of Mark and are highly mythic in structure and obvious re-writes of Moses and Elijah.

some of this is covered at 22:44

 

[joelr]

Could you please advise where i am inaccurate?

Many trust the bible to be accurate, faultless, the perfect book.

The only people who believe that are fundamentalist Christians.

Here are a panel of scholars including a Christian pastor going over all evidence and all extra-biblical mentions of Jesus or Christianity:

the bottom line is scholarship believes the gospels are highly mythicized and that Jesus was just a man.

Richard Carrier's latest work is arguing for the mythicist theory, but forgetting about that for now the field currently considers the supernatural aspects of the bible to be myth.
You may hear differently from the church but every church claims it's myth to be literal truth.
archeology and biblical history do not say that at all.