• 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!

No Wonder the Bible is Anybody's Guess

Akivah

Akivah

Well-Known Member
This is why missionaries have such trouble with Jews. We've got the straight line on the chart showing the Tanakh has been transmitted faithfully over time. They've got a bible that has undergone adulterations since its inception. There isn't one sentence in the Christian bible that hasn't undergone metamorphosis over the ages. So when they tell me that their scripture is more correct than mine, I can only laugh.
 
NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
rusra02 said:
I think this quote from W09 11/1 answers better than I could:
"Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera, a member of the team of experts charged with studying and publishing the ancient manuscripts known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, says: “The transmission of the text of the Hebrew Bible is of extraordinary exactitude, without parallel in Greek and Latin classical literature.” Respected Bible scholar F. F. Bruce says: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He continues: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” Certainly, the Bible is a remarkable book."
Despite endless attacks upon it, the Bible has endured and continues to endure and thrive. As Isaiah 40:8 affirms; "the word of our God endures forever.”
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I don't believe Isaiah 40:8 is referring to the modern holy bibbel which was not yet in existence. I'm sure that whoever originally penned those words, assuming those words were accurately translated and not added or altered, was referring to a deity; not a book. Soooo, not only is it faulty in its translations, revisions, etc; but it's also faulty because almost any verse can be inerpretted and construed to whatever we want it to say.

We can go from there: If the Bible is perfect, why is there debates among Christian theists about:

  • The Trinity
  • The Rapture
  • Speaking in Tongues/Prayer Language
  • Genesis 1 being literal or allegorical
  • Noah's Tale being literal or allegorical
And why does it contain so many glaring errors, such as:
  • Bats listed as "fowl"
  • Rabbits chewing cud
  • The moon being a light
  • The earth being supported by pillars
  • A firmament above the "heavens"
  • Windows from above (which god opened allowing in the water to flood the earth, so outer space is full of water?)
I'm sorry; I can't buy into this line of thought that the bible is perfect or that the bible is the word of anything except a bunch of superstitious men.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
DOMINICHI said:
Really? I guess I wasn't aware of that since you use them all the time. From now on I'll ignore everything you say.
Thanks for the tip, poindexter, you've been most helpful.
Click to expand...

Ive never used such an argument. I used it mockingly to point out that numbers are against you since you think 1/3 of people agreeing means anything. Go ahead and ignore what I say, fundamentalist often ignore anything which proves their views wrong
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
DOMINICHI said:
Oh do enlighten me, what's a 'fundamentalist'?
Click to expand...

I thought you were going to ignore my replies? So not only are you ignorant but you are inconsistent. It is good to get your flaws out in the open so others can see your illogical thinking.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
DOMINICHI said:
. As all of Christendom finds the translation sufficient the burden is yours to prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

Just so we're on the same page;

"The"
definite article
1. (used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an):​


So, which of all the following translations is the translation---English is your first or second language is it not?

 
Last edited:
NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
DOMINICHI said:
You wish you were all that. As all of Christendom finds the translation sufficient the burden is yours to prove otherwise.
Surely you are a super-genius and can succeed where 2000 years of misfits and malcontents have failed, so go ahead,
knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, the proof has already been presented, and most of the proof is found in the bible itself.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
DOMINICHI said:
You're the super-genius, you tell me.
Click to expand...
This is soooo sad. You can't even defend yourself on a simple religious forum. Makes one wonder how you'll survive once you leave home and are out on your own. Not that anyone cares, but just wondering.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Skwim said:
Which is followed by

"The Rabbinic scribes developed very exact methods so that, in spite of difficult conditions of transmitting in ancient times, the copy of a manuscript of the Bible would be as exact as possible."
(Source: The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Florentino Garcia Martines and Julio Trebolle Barrera. P 99.)​

Writings that date from about 408 BC to 318 CE., and at least a thousand years before the John Wycliffe Bible was published. So while these ancient Hebrew writings were passed along almost without change, since the Wycliffe Bible came out numerous changes have proliferated ( see the chart in the OP for just some of them). Therefore, while it's nice the Hebrews didn't change much of the copy in the successive manuscripts, this has certainly not been the case since the 14th century.


And just what was this evidence of? Bruce says that "the gospels and the Acts existed before the thirties of the second century AD."
(source: The New Testament Documents: are they Reliable? F.F. Bruce. p.9) Hardly germane to the thread's issue.


One other note: Bruce, a committed evangelical---he served as editor of The Evangelical Quarterly---is hardly an unbiased source, so his statements of affirmation certainly come as no surprise. It's little different than the Tennessee redneck who declares that "America" is the best &%$**&# country in the world!"
Click to expand...
The thousands of manuscripts of parts of the Bible can be compared to determine the correct text. That is why texts added or changed have been discovered and removed in modern translations. The text added to support the trinity doctrine at 1 John 5:7, for example, is clearly regarded as fraudulent.
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
NewGuyOnTheBlock said:
Hmmm. I don't believe Isaiah 40:8 is referring to the modern holy bibbel which was not yet in existence. I'm sure that whoever originally penned those words, assuming those words were accurately translated and not added or altered, was referring to a deity; not a book. Soooo, not only is it faulty in its translations, revisions, etc; but it's also faulty because almost any verse can be inerpretted and construed to whatever we want it to say.

We can go from there: If the Bible is perfect, why is there debates among Christian theists about:

  • The Trinity
  • The Rapture
  • Speaking in Tongues/Prayer Language
  • Genesis 1 being literal or allegorical
  • Noah's Tale being literal or allegorical
And why does it contain so many glaring errors, such as:
  • Bats listed as "fowl"
  • Rabbits chewing cud
  • The moon being a light
  • The earth being supported by pillars
  • A firmament above the "heavens"
  • Windows from above (which god opened allowing in the water to flood the earth, so outer space is full of water?)
I'm sorry; I can't buy into this line of thought that the bible is perfect or that the bible is the word of anything except a bunch of superstitious men.
Click to expand...
Regarding the debates among professed "Christians", Jesus himself said that many who claimed to follow him were, in fact, "workers of lawlessness " and false to the one they professed to follow. (Matthew 7:21-23) The fault lies not in the Bible, but in the false teachers prophesied to come. (2 Peter 2:1)

As to your supposed "glaring errors", the Bible lists bats as " flying creatures", which they are. Regarding hares, chewing the cud, "Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., in commenting on these findings, wrote: “There seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive tract.”
The rest of your supposed "errors" are based on misunderstanding what the Bible really says. For example, the Bible speaks of the atmosphere as the expanse.
 
jonathan180iq

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
As to your supposed "glaring errors", the Bible lists bats as " flying creatures", which they are. Regarding hares, chewing the cud, "Dr. Waldo L. Schmitt, Head Curator, Department of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., in commenting on these findings, wrote: “There seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive tract.”
The rest of your supposed "errors" are based on misunderstanding what the Bible really says. For example, the Bible speaks of the atmosphere as the expanse.
Click to expand...
Does Dr. Waldo Schmitt ever reference the ability of a mule to speak?
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
jonathan180iq said:
Does Dr. Waldo Schmitt ever reference the ability of a mule to speak?
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Balaam's donkey? Numbers 22:28 reports "Finally Jehovah caused the donkey to speak, and it said to Baʹlaam: “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
I personally do not have a problem believing that the Creator of the donkey could cause the donkey to appear to speak. The account clearly shows it was Jehovah, represented by an angel, that spoke to Balaam, using his animal to get Balaam's attention. 2 Peter 2:15,16 says that "Baʹlaam the son of Beʹor, who loved the reward of wrongdoing, ... was reproved for his own violation of what was right. A voiceless beast of burden speaking with a human voice hindered the prophet’s mad course." Thus the voice coming from the "voiceless" beast emanated from the spirit sent by Jehovah to Balaam.
 
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
rusra02 said:
Are you referring to Balaam's donkey? Numbers 22:28 reports "Finally Jehovah caused the donkey to speak, and it said to Baʹlaam: “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
I personally do not have a problem believing that the Creator of the donkey could cause the donkey to appear to speak. The account clearly shows it was Jehovah, represented by an angel, that spoke to Balaam, using his animal to get Balaam's attention. 2 Peter 2:15,16 says that "Baʹlaam the son of Beʹor, who loved the reward of wrongdoing, ... was reproved for his own violation of what was right. A voiceless beast of burden speaking with a human voice hindered the prophet’s mad course." Thus the voice coming from the "voiceless" beast emanated from the spirit sent by Jehovah to Balaam.
Click to expand...
most revealing you did not answer the question
 
Kenny

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I prefer
Skwim said:
Just so we're on the same page;

"The"
definite article
1. (used, especially before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of the indefinite article a or an):​


So, which of all the following translations is the translation---English is your first or second language is it not?

Click to expand...
I prefer the Greek and the Hebrew versions.
 
NewGuyOnTheBlock

NewGuyOnTheBlock

Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Leviticus 11:13-19King James Version (KJV)
13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,

14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;

15 Every raven after his kind;

16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,

17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,

18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,

19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

It is indisputable that the Bible lists "bat" as a bird.


As ar as rabbits chewing cud, to justify this as not an inaccuracy within the bible, one must really jump through some real mental gymnastics: Contradictions: Do Rabbits Really “Chew the Cud”? | Answers in Genesis -- though a rabbit does pass semidigested material through its digestive track a 2nd time, this is not the same as "chewing cud" as does the camel (mentioned in the scriptures); and interstingly enough, the rock hyrax (also mentioned) as no retrograde transport in its digestive track: The gastrointestinal tract of the rock hyrax (Procavia habessinica)... - PubMed - NCBI -- so even if it could be argued that rabbits chew cud (by doing mental gymnastics), how do you make the Rock Hyrax fit, I wonder?

Ref:
Nevertheless, of those that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, you shall not eat, such as these: the camel, the hare, and the rock hyrax; for they chew the cud but do not have cloven hooves; they are unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

Not to mention: The earth is not flat, the winds do not come from the corners of the earth, the moon is not a light, we do not rest above the waters of the deep on pillars, we can't cure leprosy by magical incantations and dove's blood, plants can't survive 24 hours without the sun, you can't have light without a light source, and rain does not come to us by god opening windows in a "firmament" letting it in from outer space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top