Is the Bible corrupt?

[Simon Gnosis]

How is it unacceptable for the 'pillar and ground of the Truth', the 'Body of Christ' to determine, in concensus and without haste, what is or is not canonical? Who would you rather have seen make the decision? Pagans?

James..whatever history you have been taught is only a partial glimpse of what really went on back then, winners write history, so anything you say about history I automatically file as 'Suspicious data' anyway.
You and I both know the Mother church has had the scriptures soley in her control since day one.
Please do not attempt to blind me with historical 'fact' there is no way in the medieval history of Europe that a majority or even a twentieth of the people could read.
The authority of the bible laid in the unquestionable authority of the catholic church and her vassals, literate Bishops.
People WHERE burned for heresy or imprisoned or tortured or as you say exiled by the Holy church, her inquisitors and state sponsors.

For me the Old testament is a historical narrative of the semites of the levant while the New testament is simply a tool of the Church.
It was not written at the time of Jesus's life or even soon after, so to pretend it is the empirical words of Christ and that the excluded texts and gospels are simply 'consensually' unsuitable for assimilation into the bible is erroneous and a blatant lie.

I dont need to read the entire bible to get the message.
The message I get from the Bible is this.

1 God judges (incorrect)
2 Jesus is the son of God and therefore God incarnate (pure speculation/fantasy)
3 There is a hell and heaven (this is definately false as the Jews adopted hell from an older arabic religion)
4 Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary the bible insists God created the earth in 6 days, somehow....(yeah right I would rather use the mind God gave me than believe something that is patently incorrect and demonstrative of the believers over zealous faith in the bible's divine authenticity to insist is absolutely true)
5 There will be a judgement day (Duh of course, thats nature, the caldera at yellowstone park is well over due for another almighty ecology smashing eruption)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You and I both know the Mother church has had the scriptures soley in her control since day one.

That's just silly. What texts have you actually read concerning the origins and transmission of scripture?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

It would be good if a Muslim could list for me which of the Bible passages are not corrupt.

From a muslim perspective all the verses that agree with what the quran says would be uncorrupt verses. For example. Isaiah 43:10, Exodus Chapter 20 and many others.

Were all the 'bad' passages corrupted together, or over time?

Both, some groups of the earlier Christians ascribed to only one gospel. some changed little by little over time. Some could have been more. That is not the issue as to when and how much. the issue is have they been corrupted. The answer is clearly some gospels more than others. Some versions of bibles more than others. It just depends. If you are a catholic then the protestant bible is corrupt because it is missing some gospels. The original KJV had 80 book in 1882 the bishop of cantebury removed them to give it the 66 it has now.

Why did Jesus quote the Bible if it was corrupted? I am not aware of Him stating that the Bible was corrupt, but I could be wrong. Or, maybe He said so, but this was later forgotten, or corrupted?

Jesus did not author the bible. If he did christians would not be arguing today.

 

[sojourner]

I was just wondering, if the Bible is corrupt:
1. why does Muhammad not mention this in the Quran or warn of people not to read it rather than actually recommending it.
2 Does this not contradict Sura 6:34 & 10:65 saying God’s word is uncorruptable.
3 Why did Allah not just make the Bible incorruptible and then he would not have needed to bother with the Quran (no disrespect intended).

I don't feel that the Bible is corrupt. It is a human document and revelatory in nature. It is exactly what it needs to be. What's "corrupt" about it?

 

[Simon Gnosis]

That's just silly. What texts have you actually read concerning the origins and transmission of scripture?

Silly?

Dont call me silly Jayhawker.

I am deadly serious.

The point I have been trying to make all along is that corrupted deliberately or accidently or whatever is overall meaningless anyway when one considers that the actual gospels themselves even if 100% accurate to the day they were first written in draft are still packed with doctrines and edicts that are woefully unsuitable for a modern holistically democratic and psychologically healthy society.

Can't you see the inherent problem of basing your faith solely on a set of documents translated copied and edited over centuries by a self appointed authority, these very same scriptures were supposedly initially written by a bunch of dudes several decades after christ died, and I have to accept they wrote with divine guidance?....cmon, wake up little suzie...smell the smelling salts!

Its obvious to me that the bible has to be corrupted as dictated by the laws of information degradation anyway...so end of conversation for me, I am bored with it.

Basically I dont care if the bible is accurate to the begining anyway (which it isnt) because it still doesn't make much sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is exactly what it needs to be.

That is a feeble statement of faith - nothing more.

Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament

​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Silly? Dont call me silly Jayhawker.

And don't you distort my comments.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

That is a feeble statement of faith - nothing more.

Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament

​

Great book. Did you read it Jayhawker

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am deadly serious.

Really? Well, then, for the 2nd time: What texts have you actually read concerning the origins and transmission of scripture?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Great book. Did you read it Jayhawker

Perhaps six years ago.

 

[Simon Gnosis]

Really? Well, then, for the 2nd time: What texts have you actually read concerning the origins and transmission of scripture?

Ok, If you insist..so forcefull.

A Crisis of Truth (forget author)
Shroud of secrecy (Millenari)
Amongst about 12 books i have read on the subject.

And other documents that I will not discuss now.

 

[sojourner]

That is a feeble statement of faith - nothing more.

Orthodox Corruption of Scripture

The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament

​

OK. In what way are the scriptures not exactly what they need to be? Does something have to remain pure of editing, copy mistakes and glossing in order to be what it needs to be?

The Bible, like faith, is a living document, not a dead artifact.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

OK. In what way are the scriptures not exactly what they need to be? Does something have to remain pure of editing, copy mistakes and glossing in order to be what it needs to be?

The Bible, like faith, is a living document, not a dead artifact.

Are you saying it is o.k. to change the bible.

 

[Simon Gnosis]

Are you saying it is o.k. to change the bible.

I think he is....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK. In what way are the scriptures not exactly what they need to be?

The question is cognitively meaningless. Ignorantly, it speaks of a single bible. Baselessly, it presumes a need. Preposterously, it suggests that you are the arbiter of that need. Preach elsewhere - this is a debate thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK. In what way are the scriptures not exactly what they need to be? Does something have to remain pure of editing, copy mistakes and glossing in order to be what it needs to be?

The Bible, like faith, is a living document, not a dead artifact.

If the redaction of the NT can demonstate consistent proto-orthodox insertions, then it does seem to me like the NT has been corrupted...

 

[sojourner]

Are you saying it is o.k. to change the bible.

It must be... it has been changed. We all know that. Are you saying that Islam has not changed one iota in all these years?

The definition of tradition: "What we're doing right now." 'Cause I gurantee you that we weren't doing that 100 years ago.

Stasis is unneccessary to authenticity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It must be... it has been changed. We all know that. Are you saying that Islam has not changed one iota in all these years?

The definition of tradition: "What we're doing right now." 'Cause I gurantee you that we weren't doing that 100 years ago.

Stasis is unneccessary to authenticity.

That depends on what you're claiming is authentic. For example, it is important to many orthodox folk that orthodox teachings are apostolic. If several specifically othrodox docrines were redacted into the NT - like the divinity of Christ, the church, etc - the claim to authentic apostolic authority is severely weakened.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... for the 2nd time: What texts have you actually read concerning the origins and transmission of scripture?

Ok, If you insist..so forcefull.

Thanks.

A Crisis of Truth (forget author)

No doubt. The author is, apparently, Ralph Martin.

There are no comments available from the publisher, while amazon.com offers "21 used and new available from $0.01".

Its lone Customer Review notes:

Reviewer: "young_preacher" (St. Louis, MO United States) - See all my reviews
Ralph Martin saw the crisis in modern Catholicism (and much of Christianity in general) way before most commentators. His warning and predictions have sadly been fulfilled. This is a good read if you want to see how the modern crises began. Ralph Martin is a good and well researched author.​

Mr. Martin refers to his book here. Nowhere can I find any indication of writing, much less scholarship, addressing the origins and transmission of scripture.

Shroud of secrecy (Millenari)

Shroud of Secrecy: The Story of Corruption within the Vatican

FROM THE PUBLISHER
Shroud of Secrecy offers an insider's account of intrigue, sex, and corruption within the Vatican. It is the treatise of written protest from within the Church since 1517, when Martin Luther posted his historic 95 theses on a church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Written by a small group of Vatican prelates who call themselves the Millenari, its publication breaks a code of silence that has allowed impropriety and hypocrisy within the Roman Catholic Church to flourish.​

What does a book that purports to address "the Church since 1517' have to do with the origins and transmission of scripture?

And other documents that I will not discuss now.

Fine. You've offered more than enough to demonstrate that quality of your position.

 

[sojourner]

The question is cognitively meaningless. Ignorantly, it speaks of a single bible. Baselessly, it presumes a need. Preposterously, it suggests that you are the arbiter of that need. Preach elsewhere - this is a debate thread.

Ref. the title of the thread: Is the Bible corrupt? If ignorance is displyed here, it is displayed by some who have forgotten the title of the thread.

The question is only cognitively meaningless to those who don't bother to think about the nature of the document in question and the implications inherent in the OP. The question at hand in this thread is the corruption of the Bible. I'm seeking to understand 1) the author's definition of "corrupt," and 2) the implications of "corruption." The OP seems to imply that changes = "corruption," and that such "corruption" = invalidity. I maintain that the Bible is what it is, changed or not, and that the extant changes have not corrupted what the Bible is, namely, a human document that is revelatory in nature. The changes did not make the Bible any less a human document (in fact, they make it the more so), nor did they render the Bible any less revelatory. In that sense, the Bible is not corrupt. It's original essence and intent remain intact.

Don't like my posts? Don't read them.