The Bible

[PapaToad]

I have been reading post for sometime now. I have read many of the communities’ viewpoints and discussions, and believe that a healthy discussion encourages and stimulates the mind.

The Bible

I believe in the bible, I take it as the Word of God. End of discussion (for me), do I personally and emotional agree with everything no, but it is the in the bible. I do strive for obedience to Gods Word. ( Because I am limited by my understanding, I accept that God knows better than I do)

I once had a revelation when talking with my wife (I am witnessing here) we were talking about when The king of England  that changed something in the bible (I can not remember the details, and they really do not mater)

I was explaining this to a young girl when my demure wife looked at me and said “it doesn’t matter, God would not allow his word to be changed! I stopped.

If I believe God is infallible, then King, pauper nor poet, could change what he wants us to know and seek in his book. some things could be removed, or changed, but the core message of what God wants you(us) to know, could not be changed by man)

So yes you could argue that man wrote it and man is fallible, there fore the bible could be. But no! That is insinuating that man’s will is greater than Gods and that is impossible.  Man could not change Gods word, any more than He would allow it.

Our God gave us a tool in the bible to have a personal and fulfilling relationship with Him. The bible can do more good that ten thousand science books.  Now some of you will get hot about that but the Fact is, the bible can save your soul, bring you right to the throne of Daddy God and make you whole, make you as He original designed.

A science book will never get me closer to God, it does not show me how to forgive, or even love someone, I would normal dislike. It can not show me how to apologize when I offend my brother.  It will not bring me to the only truth that matters. Jesus Christ took a beating for each and every one of us. For every sin we have committed and are going to commit (and we will) there is a scar on our Saviors body, “”for by His stripes we are forgiven.

There is nothing wrong with science, with it I am able to write to you. My brothers, and share and encourage your walks in Christ. I do not shy from science; I am an IT profession with dual degrees in Networking and programming.  I am also working on my masters in Biblical studies/Theology.  

Science can be used by God,  

It does not matter who discover what
It does not matter  What other religions say
Read the bible
Know the Gospels
Know Christ
Befriend Him
Fulfill the great commission
Walk in Christ

My point is you can be misguided enough to take part of the bible and not all of it. But it will not bring benefit you. You can have diehard Ideas about the meaning of life and what your human limited wisdom will get you. But it is through Christ we know Father God.

I guess that’s it

Its my opinion I felt moved to share

I Serve
Montrez Anthony

 

[Avesther]

 

[Drelin]

You make some interesting points, but all rely on the supernatural existing, your God being the true God, the Bible being God's book and God being unwilling to let man change his book. Not that there's anything wrong with that; we all have to make some assuptions, otherwise we couldn't say anything. Just saying.

 

[Icthus]

Yes Drelin that is the problem people have with the Bible. It seems to say there is only one God. It says there is only one way to that God, Jesus Christ. It is a very difficult thing. Anthony left aout a few things about the Bible that point to its uniqueness in history.

Did you know that we have only 5 manuscripts (written copies)of the Homer's Oddessy? The earliest one we have is 500 or 600 years after his orginal was written. Yet no one doubts its authencity?

The Bible has over 1000 manuscripts in greek (I am low balling because I do not have the numbers here). The earliest being dated as little as 30 years after the orginal was penned (some say as late as 100 years). <Note here: I have studied these documents at the University of Texas in Austin (note not a Christian school, with professors who were not Christians) the conclusion of the professors i had was that the Bible was the most accurate document from ancient times there is>

You can say a lot of things about the Bible. But, its uniqueness in human history is undeniable. I think that is what Montrez is trying to communicate.


PS- If you would like more information on the Bible, feel free to email me at Icthuusathotmaildotcom.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

That was a very odd post to read MontrezAnthony...your language is definitely different from the type I'm accustomed to.

And that's all I say on that.

Interesting. Interesting stuff. Basically you're saying that a.) it doesn't matter if I edit God's Bible or b.) God won't let me edit God's Bible?

 

[Drelin]

Okay, but I don't understand what you mean by 'uniqueness of history.'

I don't mean to get into a debate, but I think that the authenticity of Homer's works isn't questioned because they don't claim to be authoritive; they are literary works.

Also, I don't see how the widespread nature or publication of any belief necessarily has anything to do with how valid it is.

 

[PapaToad]

I posted because I felt called to. I do not believe that if you tried to edit God’s work you would be terribly successful. The bible unlike another literary work, it the word of God.

Now these are my beliefs, I do not think I have been call to validate, and prove its authenticity. There are thousands who could. Itchuus for example probably could. I feel called to just post what I did.

I read the bible daily, God personally speaks to my spirit, I try my best to walk a Christ centered life. Which is not easy. But friends its true, the bible is the word of God. But I do as I can. The only way you can understand God and Jesus is by reading the Bible. And Even then you will have a glimmering of understanding and will be compelled by the Holy Spirit to reach out and do whatever Gods plan is for you.

Yes Test Evolution vs. Creation from both sides
Test The Authenticness of the bible
Pray, try and fulfill the great law Jesus gave us in your heart

But after all I did, it would have been easier just to believe. I tested and studied and proved this. My head hurt, evolution was wrong, Creation is right. And Gods Law and Word are still in effect today. The Lord has never failed me in His Plan for my life; I MIGHT have gotten it confused
But that is me, God is faithful

Faith is the cornerstone of a Christians walk, The Bible our Sword
Without it we try and interpret Gods will with no standard
With the bible we can stand thru, Pain, hurt, confusion and even abuses of all kinds

I am a follower of Christ, I resign to that fate, and I live it faithfully and cheerfully
Even now some of you are just fuming over reading this post
I read them everyday and my heart goes out to the Lost, angry, confused and Lonely

I have been where many are right know questioning the bible. Struggling to understand it. You have a Father in God, one who cares about you personally, individually. One that is Good and wants you to be what He designed you to be. You have a Brother in Lord Christ, who forgave you of your sins, who knew them be for you came in to the world and is just waiting for you to set things right in your heart.

I feel compelled to say this here (YOU NEED A SERVANTS HEART) no matter how painful that might be for you! (Biblical servant)

But to do that you must read His word, walk as he is calling you to walk.

His can be done only thru Prayer, Reading His word (bible) and actively seeking Him

I could go on, but I think that’s enough for know.

I will not post on this thread anymore, you are always welcome to contact me through PM I said what I was lead to say

Pray to Him, Read His word, and Seek Him

This way you will know what to do

If you are going to read start with the new testament
Start with John


May God Bless you all

PS (Yes there is a lot to being a Servant of GOD, besides what I put here, But I felt that for some struggling Christians, it was enough to get them going)

Your Servant
Montrez Anthony

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]The Bible has over 1000 manuscripts in greek (I am low balling because I do not have the numbers here).

15,000 is the number I am remembering off the top of my head, pretty sure thats accurate.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]Also, I don't see how the widespread nature or publication of any belief necessarily has anything to do with how valid it is.

oh man, there are tons of reasons. If there are many original publications, that means many people know about it right off the bat. If anyone knows that the scripture is wrong , they would speak up because they know about it being how wide spread it is. If there is only one copy, it can be a seceret untill anybody who knows its wrong and would speak up died. *cough mormonism *cough Also just because of the vast number of copies, it is impossible to edit/change the Bible. If someone got one and changed it to thier likeing, that would leave 14,999 copies  telling how the one copy is changed.  Thats just a couple reasons off the top of my head, but the list goes on.

 

[Drelin]

Before I respond, Master~Plan, I seek clarification.

Quote[/b] ]The Bible has over 1000 manuscripts in greek (I am low balling because I do not have the numbers here). The earliest being dated as little as 30 years after the orginal was penned (some say as late as 100 years).

30 (to 100) years after the first Bible was penned? When was the first Bible penned?

 

[Master~Plan]

^I couldn't find the page from a book I have, so I got a clip from a web site:

Quote[/b] ]... Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians

(here is the site incase you wanna see )
there is no exact date, but there is a limit on the oldest the first one could possibly be. Keep in mind Christ died around 30-35 AD. The very oldest the first one could possibly be is 50 years after Jesus' death.

 

[Avesther]

The gospels themselves were penned within the lifetimes of those who knew and walked with christ.  Them, the letters of Paul, James, John etc... and what we call the old testament, were not canonized into what we call the bible until later.

 

[Drelin]

Yeah, I know the popular estimates that date the writings of the gospels and other major books.

But when claims were made of 1000 plus greek Bibles, they were in reference to an actual Bible, no? Well, I'm asking what sort of Bible they were, what frame of time these Bibles came from, what books were in them, etc.

 

[Master~Plan]

I don't believe the earliest Greek manuscripts were in the form of a 'Bible'.(dont quote me, I could be wrong) I think they are just copies of differen't letters to different churches from the Apostles. There were a few councils later by the church to cannonize a Bible, and I'm sure there were original greek manuscripts that were copies of the cannonized Bible. The Bible is a collection of letters from different apostles to different churches of history of what they witnessed, and telling the early churches how to live. And of course the Tanak(old testament) is in there too. That is the recordings of the Jewish history. Sooo what frame of time? anywhere from around 70AD until the original letters were lost. What books? all of them...

 

[Icthus]

The differences in the 1000 and 15000 numbers is a manuscript is a complete copy of an entire book.

There are 15000 reminants that are around written in hand in greek.

And we are using the historians system of determining a reliable text from ancient times. Christians did not determine what makes the bible a reliable source, archeologist and historians did.

1. A copy as close to the orginal date as possible. IE Homers Odyess was written in 500 BC, earliest manuscript is from like 1000- 800 AD, 1500 years between when it was written by Homer and an actual document we can date.

2. More copies of manuscripts is better so we can compare them to each other. It is without question in archeology and historians who care to know. That the Bible is the most accurate to the orginal text humanity has.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I think Drelin may be asking about the earliest occurance of the Bible you have in your house.

The difference between Homer's works and the Bible is that Homer's works consisted of ONE author, the Bible has had an untold number of authors, editors, reviewers, translators, etc.

So let's limit our discussion to the canon of the Bible, canon being "a body of books accepted as authoritative by some religious body". For instance, Protestants include 66 books in their canon, Roman Catholics include 15 more, etc etc.

The question then becomes, what is GOD'S canon? If this is truly the word of God, exactly what did GOD want included?

What we know for sure, for a fact, is that the books that were included in the canon that we are familiar with were voted on by a council.

If you've never done any research on this, you really should. Ask yourself some questions. Like why was the book of Thomas excluded? The answer is political, it had Gnostic influences and since the Gnostics lost the political war, it was deemed noncanonical or heretical. But with historic hindsight, it is no less authentic than anything else. What about the Gospels? Matthew was not written by Matthew, Mark by Mark, Luke by Luke or John by John. Technically, all four gospels are anonymous, MAN attributed authorship to the books at a later date to give them more credence. In fact, Modern scholarship can demonstrate that more than half of the books of the New Testament were not written by apostles, nor by the persons named in tradition. For instance, C. F. D. Moule writes that the authorship of John is widely disputed, "And Matthew, in its present form, can hardly have been written by an apostle."

I daresay the majority of people have no clue about the origins of the book they have dedicated their lives to.

 

[Drelin]

I was talking about Bibles, as in compilations of Christian or Christian-claimed scriptures. That's what the word is taken to mean, I thought.

The Homer versus Bible comparison also falls over on a number of other counts. For example, I don't know of anyone who claims that the cyclops (mythical beasts, naysayers) ever existed, or still exists, based on the references in Homer's literature.

 

[Icthus]

One of the things that makes the Bible unique is that there is nothing like it.

You are correct in saying that no one considers cyclops to be true creatures. However, his telling of greek history is not questioned, out side of obivious hyperbole.

One thing you do have wrong is that there was one Homer. That was probably not the case. It was more likely a group of writers working under one name.

 

[Dark Virtue]

We're talking about Homer, not Shakespeare  

While it's true that a critical debate exists over authorship, the classical belief remains, there was a man named Homer who codified the oral tradition of the siege of Troy.

The big difference here is that although there are still many manuscript variants, the format and the story have remained the same.

Can you say the same about the Bible?  How many different versions and translations are there?  And no one is basing their life on Homer's works.  No one has waged wars and had lives lost over the Iliad or the Odyssey.  The Iliad and the Oddyssey weren't written by a perfect, omnipotent being.

I found a great paper, here's a quote from it...

Quote[/b] ]"Would not that, then," I ventured to ask, impatiently, "make Jesus as much of an idol as Apollo? And are not these people on their knees before a god of whose existence they are as much in the dark as were the Greeks of fair Apollo, and of whose past they have only rumors such as Homer reports of our Olympian gods -- as idolatrous as the Athenians? What would you say," I asked my guide, "if I were to demand that you should produce Jesus and prove him to my eyes and ears as you have asked me to produce and prove Apollo? What is the difference between a ceremony performed in honor of Apollo and one performed in honor of Jesus, since it is as impossible to give oracular demonstration of the existence of the one as of the other? If Jesus is alive and a god, and Apollo is an idol and dead, what is the evidence, since the one is as invisible, as inaccessible, and as unproducible as the other? And, if faith that Jesus is a god proves him a god, why will not faith in Apollo make him a god? But if worshipping Jesus, whom for the best part of the last two thousand years no man has seen, heard or touched; if building temples to him, burning incense upon his altars, bowing at his shrine and calling him "God," is not idolatry, neither is it idolatry to kindle fire upon the luminous altars of the Greek Apollo, -- God of the dawn, master of the enchanted lyre -- he with the bow and arrow tipped with fire! I am not denying," I said, "that Jesus ever lived. He may have been alive two thousand years ago, but if he has not been heard from since, if the same thing that happened to the people living at the time he lived has happened to him, namely -- if he is dead, then you are worshipping the dead, which fact stamps your religion as idolatrous."

And, then, remembering what he had said to me about the Greek mythology being beautiful but not true, I said to him: "Your temples are indeed gorgeous and costly; your music is grand your altars are superb; your litany is exquisite; your chants are melting; your incense, and bells and flowers, your gold and silver vessels are all in rare taste, and I dare say your dogmas are subtle and your preachers eloquent, but your religion has one fault -- it is not true."

 

[Avesther]

Quote[/b] ]How many different versions and translations are there?

There is only one, so to speak.

Much like there is only one "Hamlet". It has been translated into many languages and dialects within those languages. The variations between the different translations do not take away from the others or the original.

Much like the bible, there are different translations and different languages. They were all written to serve a form and purpose. The variations between them do not detract from each other or from the original manuscripts and texts.

The NIV and NAV are the same except for prose and colliquisms. The variations between them are explained by under which purposes they were written.

There is only one Holy Bible...its just be translated so everybody can have access to it.

Quote[/b] ]if I were to demand that you should produce Jesus and prove him to my eyes and ears as you have asked me to produce and prove Apollo?

Seeing is believing eh!, I've never seen Queen Victoria, she must not have existed. But we do have history books that say she did. And because the history texts pass specific tests, we call them reliable and trust in what they have to say about Queen Victoria. Thus, without ever seeing her, I believe that she existed.

The same is true with the Bible. It too has passed the tests that determine the reliability of historical text. We can reliably say and trust what the Bible has to say about a man named Jesus who lived about 2,000 years ago in Gallillea (sp?).

There are some text in the bible that is hard to verify for historical purposes, such as the creation account or Jesus walking on water. Just because the biblical account of creation is different then science theories on creation doesn't mean that the biblical account is incorrect. Its taken on faith to be correct, just like scientists take their theories on faith to be the most accurate theories. Nobody was there to measure, observe and repeat.

The same is true of Jesus walking on water, or changing water into wine. Either it did or it didn't. Either believe requires faith as nobody alive today can verify with their own eyes seeing these events as happening or not.

And the same is true of Jesus' claims to be God. Either he is or is not. If you accept that the bible is accurate in its recording of history and the events that surround Jesus' life, you will also accept Jesus' claim to be God. If you don't accept the accuracy of the bible, then, you also don't accept the claim of Godhood by Jesus.