http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/canwetrustcriticismoftheBible

In this writing we are going to examine the reliability of the Bible, especially concerning the Gospels. For these matters may be problematic for many people and they may lose their faith because of the same matter. Often many researchers’ statements, in which they may doubt the history of the Bible, or in which they may say, that "In reality there has never been any miracles", may influence people’s minds. They may say, how the Bible is not reliable in those things, about which it tells.

However, it is good to notice, that these kinds of statements are not anything new, but those have been presented already almost during the last two hundred years. Actually it is interesting to notice, that simultaneously when the Darwin’s theory of evolution and the ice age theory became well-known among people, started also so said higher criticism against the Bible to gain ground. Into view started to come researchers, who started to question writings about the life of Jesus and other events of the Bible. For they perhaps thought, that if the creation and the Flood are not true in the light of the previous theories, so what reason we have to believe in information about Jesus. So certainly it is not any accident, that these all three matters came out almost simultaneously.

In any case it is good for us to go into this area. The purpose is to help especially those people, who want to know more about this matter, and how reasonable it is generally to trust in events, which have been mentioned in the Bible. If you struggle with this matter, it is worth your while to read the next lines.

What about the flaws and innacuracies and changed sections, those alone throw the Bible's reliability into doubt.

Do you have a specific example for discussion?

Examples....

Did Judas identify Jesus with a kiss?
Matthew 26:47-49 (yes)
47) And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.
48) Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
49) And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.

John 18:3-5 (no)
3) Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
4) Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
5)They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
--------------------------------

What were the last words of Jesus?
Matthew 27:46) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23:46) And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost

John 19:30) When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost
--------------------------------

The Gospel Story Quiz

zandore - I see what point you are making, but just because two different accounts emphasize different points of the story, does that make it wrong? You remember my Incomplete Data thread? (too tired at the moment to link it, I'll do it tomorrow, if I remember). One story. Two different accounts, both accurate.

Indeed, the sad thing is if all accounts in the Bible of Jesus were exactly the same, you would accuse the author's of collusion, of making it up. Talk about double standards! Pfft.

Sorry, this is the wrong thread to be arguing like this. I'll be quiet now

Regards, PA

I don't think it matters ultimately if the bible is true or false, every reader interprets it a little different than the next anyway. What matters is what the individual receives from the messages contained. Does it apply to their life? Does it give them guidance in times of troubles and doubts? That is what's important, I think.

Is this not what contradiction means? Different?

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
contradiction
1 : act or an instance of contradicting
2 a : a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b : a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other <a round square is a contradiction in terms>
3 a : logical incongruity b : a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another


different
1 : partly or totally unlike in nature, form, or quality : DISSIMILAR <could hardly be more different> -- often followed by from, than, or chiefly British to <small, neat hand, very different from the captain's tottery characters -- R. L. Stevenson> <vastly different in size than it was twenty-five years ago -- N. M. Pusey> <a very different situation to the ... one under which we live -- Sir Winston Churchill>
2 : not the same: as a : DISTINCT <different age groups> b : VARIOUS <different members of the class> c : ANOTHER <switched to a different TV program>
3 : UNUSUAL, SPECIAL <she was different and superior>
- dif·fer·ent·ness noun

As I said, I understand where you are coming from. But to say something is a contradiction just because the stories aren't EXACTLY the same, is just plain silly. Refer to my incomplete data thread for one example. Or the Penn and Teller thread recently gave me another - Elvis' fried chicken. What is the recipe? One biography states the recipe had 3/4 cup flour and paprika. The other asked for 1/2 cup flour and no paprika. Oooh, I guess Elvis never existed.......

Looking at those biographies' 2000 years in the future, I would surmise that the important detail is that Elvis had a recipe for fried chicken, regardless whether the details are exact. If a biography turned up however, claiming Elvis did not like chicken at all, in fact he was vegetarian, then there'd be something wrong......

See where I'm coming from?

Regards, PA

Almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations PA, but that still does not change the facts.

If I may jump into this discussion. I started a thread in the Conspiracies and Secret Societies section which touches on certain contradictions in the Christian Bible but I am not receiving much feed back. These contradictions involve writings in the Old Testament and the New Testament. A quick example....

Exodus 3:4 3:6

When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."

Moreover He said, "I am the God of your father--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.

but...

John 5:37

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.


Any thoughts?

Greatly put, that is what really matters.

Text would seem to indicate that the writer John believed that the being that Moses was afraid to look at was corporeal and thus could be construed as having close connection to what Moses thought of as God, but was not the spiritual entity that the writer John recognized as being God.

Or you could interpret this to mean that Jesus was directing this toward the people He was speaking to at the time. Notice that it says “Ye” as in you people and not “no man has”.

John 5:37

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

Fair enough. How about his one...

Old Testament

Deuteronomy 6:13

You shall fear the Lord your God and serve Him, and shall take oaths in His name.


Acts 13:26

Men and brethren, sons of the family of Abraham, and those among you who fear God, to you the word of this salvation has been sent.


Isaiah 63:17

O Lord, why have You made us stray from Your ways, And hardened our heart from Your fear? Return for Your servants' sake, the tribes of Your inheritance.


New Testament

Luke 12:32

Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.


1 John 4:8, 4:12, 4:16, 4:18-19

He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

We love him, because he first loved us.

What you are looking at here is the conflict between the priesthood that depended upon oaths and fear to control the people and aquire all of the wealth they desired to take from the people, and the representatives for God who were sent to tell the people that God had never asked this of them. The prophets and Jesus carried the message that God wanted love, compassion, ethics, economic justice, and morality, not animal sacrifices, sacrifices of gold or silver, and certainly not for them to be in fear that a family member would have to become a human sacrifice doomed to God if they were unable to meet the priestly demands as was once done. (See last page of Leviticus.)

In essence the bible is two records. One record is that of kings and priests and the other is the record of the prophets they they tampered with but were afraid out of fear for themselves to taper with too greatly. Enough is there of both to see the endless conflict between them that has never completely ended to this day.

One more for you....

John 1:17-18

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

“no man has” - "No one has". What do you think?

Old Testament

Numbers 11:32-33

And the people stayed up all that day, all night, and all the next day, and gathered the quail, he who gathered least gathered ten homers, and they spread them out for themselves all around the camp.

But while the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the wrath of the Lord was aroused against the people, and the Lord struck the people with a very great plague.


Psalms 94:1

O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongs-- O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shine forth!


Ezekiel 25:17

I will execute great vengeance on them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I lay My vengeance upon them.



New Testament

Luke 1:78-79

Through the tender mercy of our God, With which the Dayspring from on high has visited us;

To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace.


Luke 6:36

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Forgive me, however that is impossible by definition! Two different accounts would then preclude accuracy,
because they are two and different accountings ,they are then not accurate in common to one another. Thus accuracy in in-accurate measures of input is impossible to come by.


Further, in matters of accuracy in the New Testament and reliability, the first 4 books of the NT are the Gospels. (*starting with Mathew). A biographical accounting of the Christ, the message he shared, the crucifixion and resurrection. The subsequent books of the Apostles was written at least 40 years after the death of Jesus. And some say far longer. Acts, is quite literally the acts of the Apostles as they were in service to and with Jesus. And again, written well after the time of Jesus death, much less not alleged to have been written at the time of his teachings, as if he were possessed of a scribe amid his Apostles during his lifetime.

The discrepancy in the time line, not to mention the corollary to far older religious mythologies that make the Christian rendering in many respects as a composite of those older god's and prophets, executions and resurrections, also preclude any claim of reliability in that by definition the documented record of the NT (And OT) are not exact accounts without censure or amendment of content or context. Therefore, as cited above, the inaccuracy of the sources that culminate in the New Testament, prohibit it being defined as as accurate to being defined as "Very reliable", in any way other than to uphold what it defines after the fact of it's culmination , to a particular faith defined as Christianity.

In other words, it's not intended as history. It's faithful mythology.

No historical text ever written is infallible and many have bias inserted, but all are reliable clues and blocked out lines to something that did occur.
Almost virtually all ancient histories written contain relgious references and perceptions interwoven with events and accounts of people.
It is the challenge of those of us in the present to sort though all of it the best we can rather than dismiss it all as worthless, since it was the best they could do in their time and all we have to work with.

Ok here goes! No man has seen God because God is spirit, Moses saw a burning bush which was a manifestation of God. Jesus said “He has declared Him” He was pointing to the fact that He Himself was a flesh and blood physical manifestation of God the spirit hence the bosom of the Father.
All incidences of God manifest in the Old Testament were in the form of light energy or representing angels. Therefore no man has seen God the father because spirit can not be seen by physical eyes.
Irish

Considering that even Christian scholars agree that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and were in fact written generations after the supposed facts, it is a valid consideration to question the veracity and truth of the gospels. These books were not written as a biography, as they only cover a total of 8 weeks in a life that supposedly spanned around 32 years (1664 weeks), they were written primarily for “recruiting” new members. The people of that particular time were only interested in the spectacular and the unusual, the more devout Jews being the exception, flocking to the market places and meeting places to observe the “miracles” performed by charlatans, wizards and would-be Messiahs of every stripe. In order to make this new cult of Judaism palatable for the non-Jew (since it did not really appeal to the devout Jew and attracted only a very small Jewish following), miraculous occurrences were attributed to this new demi-god. As the cult severed it’s ties to Judaism and became a fledgling religion, full divinity was given to this “son of God” and in order to scotch Jewish charges of polytheism, the Trinity was borrowed from older religions to provide a “One in three, three in one” monotheistic god. The fact that the gospels have been altered over the first centuries is undeniable, comparisons of Mark alone shows at least 6 different endings from what is in the present version of that gospel and various other existing ancient fragments and Codice (Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus from the 4th century, fragment 2386 from the 12th century, Codex Bobiensis from the 5th century, Codex Regius and Athous Lavrensis from the 8th century, fragments 099, 0112, 579 from the 7th through the 13th century, fragment 274 from the 10th century, Codice Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus, Alexandrinus, and Bezae from the 5th century and Codex Freeianus from the 6th century). This begs the question, “Which one, if any, is the “true” Mark?
The matter of contradictions between the gospels cannot be explained as many Christian apologists attempt to, with a flippant, “It is the different views of different reporters”. Matthew and Luke each contain at least 90% of the material in Mark, most times nearly word for word and where they differ from Mark, they generally contradict each other. The Nativity stories doe not agree, the genealogies do not agree, nor does the stories of the crucifixion and resurrection agree (this last seems to be a problem with all of the gospels and would be evidence of rewriting at the time of deification) Based on these few items, I would seriously doubt the reliability of the Gospels as reports of a Messiah/Son of God/Savior.

John 1:33

I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'


"He who has eyes, let him see."

"Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?

But again the Dove was a manifestation of the spirit unless you believe God to be a bird!

Manifestation of the supernatural as a sign or marker.
It is not natural for a wild bird to fly down and perch on a human.

John 1:32-33

And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him.

I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'

No I don't believe God is a bird.

Perhaps in the form of light or energy but still a manifestation of the spirit in order for it to be visable.

Pope in Cuba: clash of the titans

Fidel Castro is also credited by many Santeria followers as someone touched by destiny. In the early 1960s Cubans watched on television when at a political rally a white dove landed on Fidel's shoulder, apparently a sign of someone who is chosen by the Gods.

Link

I've seen the video but unfortunately can't find a still image on the net.

Different people have different opinions.
Some even think it was a U.F.O.

it's striking how christian people completely ignore the personality change between the God of the OT and the one of the NT.

From being a God of wrath, anger, punishment, plague and torment, he suddently becomes one of live, peace, health and forgivenes.
That doesn't make any sense to me, and you can all say that Jesus caused the change, or WAS the change, but by your own definition Jesus is God and vice versa. What triggered this change in gods personality?
The priesthood. They realized that their old god didn't suit well with what jesus said, so everything got changed.

Christians today don't put much into the OT, because it's the NT that really matters, it's all about Jesus. What about his father? is he still sitting up in a mountain casting plagues upon men?

before you start: don't flame me. these are my opinions, I'm not saying it is facts, and neither am I trying to convince you it is.

Could be something to it, I mean Bush had something from a pigeon drop on his shoulder during his inaugural speech.

In the post that I mentioned earlier I go into this topic a little further....

Jesus Son of the Most High

For anyone interested.

The reason for the seemingly personality change is because in the Old Testament man was under God law and was punished under law. Since Christ fulfilled the obligations of the law man is now under Grace. It is however all part of His overall plan for redemption. There is no need to flame you, you are initialed to your opinion like the rest of us and well Christianity is simply a believe it or not.

I had never heard that before, interesting. Thanks.

This does bring up a point I would like to make.

Certain people with power claim to be Christians. They use that power and the Old Testament to spread their wrath and hate onto other people.

Without the vengeance and fury of YHWH attached to Christianity these people would lose their "justification" for making war.

If the God of the Old and the New Testament was seen for what it really is, two seperate deities, the message of YHWH would cease to be a justifiaction for dragging the message of Christ through the mud.

If Jesus really means something to you, not just your faith or what you have believed for a long time, seperate these two.

I agree with you totaly. And look so does Jesus!
Mat 7:22 "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?"
Mat 7:23 "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

I would like to thank everyone for the discussion, especially you Irish. I feel it is appropriate to leave this discussion on this note. Thanks again.

Luke 6:35-37

But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.

Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

Would you prefer New testament or Old?

In that case, have the courage to take my quiz. (the TRUE STORY is the first post on that page, the quiz based on that story, the last post on that page).

oh, but you claim:On the contrary, all the answers I gave are correct

Regards, PA

Feel free to take my quiz too, my Imaginary Friend. They are both quite accurate. One is more detailed than the other, but neither is wrong, though putting them up against each other they appear that way

Translational differences. Go grab a copy of the original language and check the translation. The word translated as "fear" has different roots, and DIFFERENT MEANINGS!

ירא את (Deuteronomy 6:13)
φόβος (1 John 4:19)
מנּי מנּי מן יראה (Isaiah 63:17)
φοβέω (Luke 12:32, Acts 13:26)

Hope that helps.

Regards, PA

DOn't worry, I won't flame you. I will say you are misinformed. THe God of the Old Testament is NOT a God of wrath/anger/etc. People look at the acts of God, the cities destroyed, nations ruined, and say "Oh, he's so vengeful". But they fail to look at the circumstances surrounding those events, and most importantly, the Loving Grace shown afterwards. Every act of vengeance is a direct result of sin. God punishes the sin, man repents, God forgives. THe cycle is repeated.

In the NEw Testament, it is NO DIFFERENT! God still promises to punish Sin. And still provides Loving Grace for those who honestly and truly repent.

THe Old Testament is far from useless for CHristians.

Regards, PA

You know that is bull manure! All too often Yahweh destroyed for little or no reason and topped it off my adding insult to injury; as in the case where he had everyone in that one city killed except for those females that had never known a man - these his followers could keep for themselves as sex slaves, Yeah mate, that is really loving grace that he showed there!

(sic)"...As is stated in Ecclesiastes: "Everything has its season, and there is a time for everything under the Heavens: A time to be born and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot the planted. A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to wreck and a time to build. A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to wail and a time to dance. A time to scatter stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to shun embraces. A time to seek and a time to lose; a time to keep and a time to discard. A time to rend and a time to mend; a time to be silent and a time to speak. A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace. What gain, then, has the worker by his toil? I have observed the task with which God has given the Sons of Man to be concerned: He made everything beautiful in its time; He has also put an enigma into their minds so that Man cannot comprehend what God has done from Beginning to End." (Ecc. 3:1-11). *source*

God himself says he is a jealous god, a vengeful god, a wrathful god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. If he is the only one, how can there be? And so he exhibits the vicious abuse of punishing for disobedience, then rewarding for supplication!? And that is a benevolent god?

"Now that I've murdered your babies, you'll pay attention to my laws? Awww ok, I love you too. "

If god knows every hair on one's head, and when a sparrow falls in flight, nothing can then can possibly gain the wrath of one that created it to happen and knew it would. So then , it is that god needs an excuse of free will exercised by his creation , that then made him kill their babies, or women,or anything else that "earned" his wrath!? Just because it is necessary to gain obedience!?

What a travesty to imagine the creator of all things could possibly be made jealous by it's creation. Further still is the apologetic accord that it is for our own good we are killed by our father for being as he made us, and knows us to be. It's akin to the abused spouse or child cleaving to the fist and beseeching; please forgive me, I am heartily sorry for having made you hurt me.

Can you provide the reference for that? I don't recall exactly where that happens.

Perhaps it is a reference to the genocide under god's command, revealed in the passage in Numbers, regarding the Midianites!?

Numbers 31:15-18
after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns. If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"? He claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a false god.



King James Bible passage: Numbers 31:15-20 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day. 31:20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood.

HMM....

Irish for obvious reasons (too long of a post) I will just post the verses to look at.

Genesis 12:7
Genesis 17:1
Genesis 18:1
Genesis 26:2
Genesis 26:24
Genesis 32:30
Genesis 35:9
Genesis 48:3
Exodus 3:16
Exodus 4:5
Exodus 6:3
Exodus 24:9-11
Exodus 33:11

Exodus 33:23
And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.

Numbers 14:14
Deuteronomy 5:4
Deuteronomy 34:10
Judges 13:22
1 Kings 22:19
Job 42:5
Psalm 63.2
Isaiah 6:1
Isaiah 6:5

Ezekiel 1:27
And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.

Ezekiel 20:35
Amos 7:7
Amos 9:1
Habakkuk 3:3-5

Well I did post two verses

From my Morals from the Bible link.

Numbers 31
17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Hey Mako

Numbers 31!!!
I direct you now to verse 1 and 2 of that chapter - THe Lord spoke to Moses, saying "Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites. Afterwards you shall be gathered to your people".

Right now i'm too tired to look into exaclty what the avenging was for, but obviously the Midianites had done wrong against the Israelites, God's chosen people. The Bible isn't saying, "oh look, an innocent tribe of peace loving, kumbaya singing hippies, let's kill them and take their virgins for slaves". There was a very real and obvious reason for why the Midianites were punished. I'll look into specifics tomorrow, but for now, the concept should suffice. My earlier statement remains - whenever God punishes it is ALWAYS with cause, and ALWAYS proceeded by Grace.

Regards, PA

But PA the Bible is the "WORD OF GOD".....remember?


BTW: The young virgins (from that passage) were still little girls regardless.....

And???

Numbers 31
17) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18) But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
^^As I said "little girls".^^

How little are we talking about, zandore? 7 or 8? No! (at least, I doubt it, even in ancient times it was forbidden that young). It is FACT that people got married about 13 or 14 in that era (young kids by all accounts). Unlike today, that is not disgusting, that is social convention. Note the male's getting married were also the same age, it's not a case of paedophilia.

My point is still the same however (hence why I asked "And?") - verse 1 and 2 clearly state that there is a strong and valid reason for this punishment on the Midianites. And if you look back through this thread, that is the point I was making in the first place!

To focus on the punishment and judgement and ignore the rest is to ignore 2/3rd's of the Bible - one third dedicated to humanity and their sin towards God, and one third dedicated to God's Loving Grace.

Regards, PA