Who dun it?
Moderator: Moderators
-
cookiesusedunderprotest
- Student
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:15 pm
- Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Re: Who dun it?
Post #240+ God-inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) authors over the period of appoximately 1600 years.adherent wrote:Who do you think wrote the Bible?
-
canadianhorsefan
- Student
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 12:55 pm
Post #3
The Bible was originally revealed to Jesus(pbuh). However, over the years, it has changed, being modified and simplified, parts added and removed. It has numerous contradictions, maybe exceeding 100. The Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, has not changed, even though people have been trying to change it for 1400 years. I myself have proved that contradictions about the Qur'an are, in fact , not true.
canadianhorsefan
canadianhorsefan
who dun it?
Post #5It was my understanding that the bible wasn't necessarily written by any one person, but rather was compiled from a number of different spoken tales told by a number of different persons. This raises the question of how accurate any one tale which appears in the bible could be (we've all played the "telephone game" when we were younger in which a group of children sit in a circle, a message is wispered into the ear of the first child and it is to be told secretly all the way around the circle. The "secret" inevitably becomes completely distorted, probably much like the stories which appear in the bible). Having argued about this with one christian friend of mine, he said that it is true that the bible is merely a compilation of spoken tales, many of which may be false, but the truth in the bible lies in the ten commandments. I am still very skeptical. Why put so much faith and trust in a book which we agree is full of false tales??? Its beyond me.
Side note: If it is true that the bible is merely a compilation of stories which are likely false, does this not make it the greatest work of fiction ever written?
Side note: If it is true that the bible is merely a compilation of stories which are likely false, does this not make it the greatest work of fiction ever written?
"I would never want to be part of a club that would have someone like me as a member"
- Woody Allen
- Woody Allen
-
Angry McFurious
- Student
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:24 pm
Post #7
I think they are just asking for a basic author list. Kinda like the Torah (First 5 books or the bible) were written by Moses.
-
anontheist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:56 pm
- Location: Contra Costa County, CA
- Contact:
adherent asked.
Post #8"adherent" asked for some mistakes in the Bible, so here are just a few.
There are mistakes in the Bible. There are also answers to some of these mistakes. The question then follows are the answers that are given, good or bad. Or are they simply weak justifications or rationalizations so that one could continue to believe in the Bible?
1. It has been suggested that the original manuscripts, the autographs, were, and are, inerrant. But we do not have the original manuscripts. All we have are the copies (actually copies of copies, etc.). And all of them have mistakes. So, it is an assumption without justification that the autographs were without mistakes. (Just a note: no two manuscripts are identical.)
2. One of the most common answers to the problems I will raise is, copyists' error. Meaning that in the copying of the manuscripts human error tends to creep in. Now there are a couple of points about this response. One, there is an unjustified assumption that the original was not in error; which there is no evidence that this is the case. This is a mere assumption with no justification. Two, there is still an error. Copyists' error is still an error.
3. Sometimes it is suggested that one cannot always interpret the BIble literally. There are times that the Bible is being figurative. Of course the problem is how does one determine when something is figurative and when is it not. This can be seen as a convenient means of rationalizing an obvious problem with the Bible.
4. It is suggested that perhaps the problems are verses taken out of context. But I would suggest that before this tactic is used and accepted, one look at the context for themselves and determine if such a problem really exists. Or if it is just a means of deflecting the issue.
5. Sometimes it seems that no matter what kind of answer is provided for a Biblical mistake, it will be accepted because one holds the assumption that the Bible cannot be in error. Point being, just because an answer is provided does not mean it is a good one. One must look at the mistake itself and determine for themselves whether this is a mistake or not. And the most obvious question is, if there are mistakes, aside from the ones we find, how many are there that we are simply not aware of?
Apologists' have a tendency to suggest that there is either really no mistake or that there is a mistake, but it can be easily reconciled. It is easy to accept both of these points if you wish to maintain your belief in the Bible, but I find it is often not true that there is no mistake or that the mistake can be easily dealt with.
For example, 1 Kings 5:16 vs. 2 Chron. 2:18.
Let us pick up the story at verse 13. King Solomon has made slaves of his people to build some of his projects. They are called "forced labor" in the NASB. In verse 15, 70,000 transporters, 80,000 hewers of stone are counted. in verse 16; 3,300 chief deputies who were over the project and who ruled over the people who were doing the work.
So, there are 3,300 overseers. Historically we know there were 3, 300 of these men. Or do we?
In 2 Chron. 2:18 we have the same story retold. There are 70,000 to carry loads and 80,000 to quarry stones. But the supervision was done by 3,600 men.
A difference of 300 men. So, how many men were there? A mistake of 300 men. Which account is correct?
In 1 Kings 4:26 vs 2 Chron. 9:25.
King Solomon had an amazing 40,000 horse stalls in 1 Kings 4:26. Can we bet on this number being correct? In 2 Chron. 9:25, the King only has 4,000 stalls. A big number, but not as big as 40,000. Which of these accounts is correct?
Some apologists have suggested that the number in Chron. is at the beginning of King Solomon's reign and the number in Kings is at the end of his reign. But of course, there is nothing in the Bible that suggests such a thing. This is a kind of reading into the Bible in the hopes of correcting any possible errors.
Some have suggested that 4 and 40 look very similar in Hebrew. This may well be the case, but the fact remains, we have a mistake. Which account is correct?
1 Kings 7:26 vs. 2 Chron. 4:5.
So, are there 2,000 baths or are there 3,000?
One of the things I have noticed, is that when people are shown these mistakes, they tend to want to put words into the Bible that are simply not there. In other words, they do not want to read it literally at this point.
2 Sam. 8:4 vs. 1 Chron. 18:4.
How many horsemen were there?
2 Kings 8:26 vs. 2 Chron. 22:2.
The question to be answer is, how old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Now, there is the question of Michal. Does she have any children?
2 Sam. 6:23 vs. 2 Sam. 21:8.
How many men drew a sword? Exactly how many, and if you are rounding out the number, in which direction are you doing so?
2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5.
Which day was it? The seventh or the tenth?
2 Kings 25:8 vs. Jer. 52:12.
How many chief officers were there?
1 Kings 9:23 vs. 2 Chron. 8:10.
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? 8 or 18? And how do we know?
2 Kings 24:8 vs. 2 Chron. 36:9.
How long did Jehoiachin reign?
2 Kings 24:8 vs. 2 Chron. 36:9.
By the way, how did King Saul die?
1 Sam. 31:4; 2 Sam. 21:12; 2 Sam. 1:10.
Again, how many men drew their swords?
2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5.
This is a short list, the list goes on. Now again, there are "answers" to these problems. But simply come up with an answer does not always resolve the issue. One can ask, "Does the answer make sense?" Or is it simply a means to rationalize a mistake? In other words are we trying to find a answer to an obvious mistake no matter how irrational?
These are mistakes found in the Bible. These are the ones that we have found. But a better question is, what about those we have not found or are unaware of? How many are there? And how do we know?
anon
There are mistakes in the Bible. There are also answers to some of these mistakes. The question then follows are the answers that are given, good or bad. Or are they simply weak justifications or rationalizations so that one could continue to believe in the Bible?
1. It has been suggested that the original manuscripts, the autographs, were, and are, inerrant. But we do not have the original manuscripts. All we have are the copies (actually copies of copies, etc.). And all of them have mistakes. So, it is an assumption without justification that the autographs were without mistakes. (Just a note: no two manuscripts are identical.)
2. One of the most common answers to the problems I will raise is, copyists' error. Meaning that in the copying of the manuscripts human error tends to creep in. Now there are a couple of points about this response. One, there is an unjustified assumption that the original was not in error; which there is no evidence that this is the case. This is a mere assumption with no justification. Two, there is still an error. Copyists' error is still an error.
3. Sometimes it is suggested that one cannot always interpret the BIble literally. There are times that the Bible is being figurative. Of course the problem is how does one determine when something is figurative and when is it not. This can be seen as a convenient means of rationalizing an obvious problem with the Bible.
4. It is suggested that perhaps the problems are verses taken out of context. But I would suggest that before this tactic is used and accepted, one look at the context for themselves and determine if such a problem really exists. Or if it is just a means of deflecting the issue.
5. Sometimes it seems that no matter what kind of answer is provided for a Biblical mistake, it will be accepted because one holds the assumption that the Bible cannot be in error. Point being, just because an answer is provided does not mean it is a good one. One must look at the mistake itself and determine for themselves whether this is a mistake or not. And the most obvious question is, if there are mistakes, aside from the ones we find, how many are there that we are simply not aware of?
Apologists' have a tendency to suggest that there is either really no mistake or that there is a mistake, but it can be easily reconciled. It is easy to accept both of these points if you wish to maintain your belief in the Bible, but I find it is often not true that there is no mistake or that the mistake can be easily dealt with.
For example, 1 Kings 5:16 vs. 2 Chron. 2:18.
Let us pick up the story at verse 13. King Solomon has made slaves of his people to build some of his projects. They are called "forced labor" in the NASB. In verse 15, 70,000 transporters, 80,000 hewers of stone are counted. in verse 16; 3,300 chief deputies who were over the project and who ruled over the people who were doing the work.
So, there are 3,300 overseers. Historically we know there were 3, 300 of these men. Or do we?
In 2 Chron. 2:18 we have the same story retold. There are 70,000 to carry loads and 80,000 to quarry stones. But the supervision was done by 3,600 men.
A difference of 300 men. So, how many men were there? A mistake of 300 men. Which account is correct?
In 1 Kings 4:26 vs 2 Chron. 9:25.
King Solomon had an amazing 40,000 horse stalls in 1 Kings 4:26. Can we bet on this number being correct? In 2 Chron. 9:25, the King only has 4,000 stalls. A big number, but not as big as 40,000. Which of these accounts is correct?
Some apologists have suggested that the number in Chron. is at the beginning of King Solomon's reign and the number in Kings is at the end of his reign. But of course, there is nothing in the Bible that suggests such a thing. This is a kind of reading into the Bible in the hopes of correcting any possible errors.
Some have suggested that 4 and 40 look very similar in Hebrew. This may well be the case, but the fact remains, we have a mistake. Which account is correct?
1 Kings 7:26 vs. 2 Chron. 4:5.
So, are there 2,000 baths or are there 3,000?
One of the things I have noticed, is that when people are shown these mistakes, they tend to want to put words into the Bible that are simply not there. In other words, they do not want to read it literally at this point.
2 Sam. 8:4 vs. 1 Chron. 18:4.
How many horsemen were there?
2 Kings 8:26 vs. 2 Chron. 22:2.
The question to be answer is, how old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
Now, there is the question of Michal. Does she have any children?
2 Sam. 6:23 vs. 2 Sam. 21:8.
How many men drew a sword? Exactly how many, and if you are rounding out the number, in which direction are you doing so?
2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5.
Which day was it? The seventh or the tenth?
2 Kings 25:8 vs. Jer. 52:12.
How many chief officers were there?
1 Kings 9:23 vs. 2 Chron. 8:10.
How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? 8 or 18? And how do we know?
2 Kings 24:8 vs. 2 Chron. 36:9.
How long did Jehoiachin reign?
2 Kings 24:8 vs. 2 Chron. 36:9.
By the way, how did King Saul die?
1 Sam. 31:4; 2 Sam. 21:12; 2 Sam. 1:10.
Again, how many men drew their swords?
2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5.
This is a short list, the list goes on. Now again, there are "answers" to these problems. But simply come up with an answer does not always resolve the issue. One can ask, "Does the answer make sense?" Or is it simply a means to rationalize a mistake? In other words are we trying to find a answer to an obvious mistake no matter how irrational?
These are mistakes found in the Bible. These are the ones that we have found. But a better question is, what about those we have not found or are unaware of? How many are there? And how do we know?
anon
-
Angry McFurious
- Student
- Posts: 87
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:24 pm
Post #10
so it is because of man that the current bible is faulty. Well shucks, if there were just 3300 or a million overseers, does it discredit the whole Bible? So some ancients scribe's mistake warps the Bible into trash? it seems taht most of your points are either numerical or typographical in nature. isn't enough to convince me old chap.
