What makes the Bible so believable for people?

[BilliardsBall]

Most of the fallen angels are found in the NT, not the OT.

The quotes from OT are mostly just incompetent interpretations by Christian apologists.

Take Isaiah 1:23 for instance, if you think this verse is correct, and that “princes of rebels and companions of thieves” referred to fallen angels, then you and the person who wrote this webpage and quoted this passage would be wrong, because you both have taken the verse out of context.

If you both to read the whole chapter, Isaiah 1, then you would know that this passage related to the people of the kingdom of Judah, and of Zion, as in Jerusalem. 1:23 has nothing to do with fallen angels or demons.

Isaiah 14:12-14 is also taken out of context, ever since bloody Jerome translated the passages, and translated the “Day Star son Of Dawn” and wrongly used “Lucifer”. This whole passages is only a small part of the whole, in which the “Day Star” is really the “King of Babylonia” (see Isaiah 1:3-4) and his kingdom, not Satan/Devil or any fallen angel.

Try reading the most of the chapter (from 1 to 27) which concerned the king of Babylon, instead of selective verses.

Some of the OT quotes have to do with angels, but nothing to do with fallen angels.

And if you understand Judaism in regarding to angel lore, there are no “fallen angels”, because angels have no free will, so they couldn’t possibly rebel against God.

As I stated in earlier replies, the rebellion of fallen angels come from the Hellenistic Book of Enoch.

I'm unwilling to debate hermeneutics with you, further, you make it sound like Isaiah is the only source I cited in the OT. There were quite a few passages. Regardless, if you came to believe that there were fallen angels in the OT, it wouldn't change the fact that the OT is quoted hundreds and hundreds of the time in the NT, the apocrypha, arguably, once or twice at most.

 

[sojourner]

Oral tradition is bunk. All the things you say are correct, but they're irrelevant to the adherents.

Oral tradition isn’t bunk; it’s how the Tradition was transmitted in the biblical cultures, until the texts were finally written and codified. In fact, I’m firmly in the scholastic camp that posits that writing the stuff down changed the way we interact with it — and not in a good way.

These things are generally not on the radar of the laity, but they are most definitely relevant to the exegetical and critical processes that scholars utilize to produce and interpret the texts.

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

Oral tradition isn’t bunk; it’s how the Tradition was transmitted in the biblical cultures, until the texts were finally written and codified.

It is bunk, it is constructed in the 19:th or 20:th century to explain the embarassing facts that

1. there are 4 "gospels" which differs in embarassing details, such as to contradict each other — the existence of 4 gospels and numerous discarded gospels directly,
   
2. the "gospels" and the "book of revelation" has some vast discrepances in theology, such as the "gospels" attacking the jews and exonerating the romans, and the "book of revelation" attacking the romans and not saying anything particular about the jews.

This fiction about the "oral tradition" directly contradicts what Eusebius says about Papias of Hierapolis: Papias collected sayings and remembrances of Jesus by interviewing many persons, and having access to two logion sets (lists of sayings) provided by John Mark and by Matthew, the later written in Hebrew. If there was an oral tradition, why did Papias have to interview many persons? There were as many "oral traditions" as there were "christians" and these "oral traditions" were as unlike each other as sayings from communists and fascists.

 

[sojourner]

It is bunk, it is constructed in the 19:th or 20:th century to explain the embarassing facts that

1. there are 4 "gospels" which differs in embarassing details, such as to contradict each other — the existence of 4 gospels and numerous discarded gospels directly,
   
2. the "gospels" and the "book of revelation" has some vast discrepances in theology, such as the "gospels" attacking the jews and exonerating the romans, and the "book of revelation" attacking the romans and not saying anything particular about the jews.

This fiction about the "oral tradition" directly contradicts what Eusebius says about Papias of Hierapolis: Papias collected sayings and remembrances of Jesus by interviewing many persons, and having access to two logion sets (lists of sayings) provided by John Mark and by Matthew, the later written in Hebrew. If there was an oral tradition, why did Papias have to interview many persons? There were as many "oral traditions" as there were "christians" and these "oral traditions" were as unlike each other as sayings from communists and fascists.

Only because it was only then that people finally realized that ancient Palestine was Not. A. Print. Culture. Most people were illiterate.

What makes you think that all the storytellers had to be of the same mind? What makes you think that the texts all “tell the same story?” They don’t; they weren’t designed to. These aren’t news reporting, they’re stories from different traditions and different perspectives. None of that makes oral tradition “bunk.” It makes it a fact of the ancient world.