The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[1213]

...If you acknowledge Jesus didn't write it, then how do you know every word in the Bible, which was written many decades after he perished, which was also done so by many anonymous writers, was always perfectly preserved to what Jesus actually said?

I have no reason to believe you really know when it was written, but I believe Bible is accurate enough. The reason why I believe so is that it forms coherent text, which is quite impressive, if we believe it was written by several people. And I beleive it was written by several people, because of the differences in the details.

Further, don't you think if Jesus authored the entire thing himself, it would be clearer, versus to instead allow for fallible humans to take on this task?

I believe it was done in guidance of God, which is why it is as clear as if Jesus would have done that. But, maybe the Biblical idea that matters should have more than one witness is the reason why it was allowed to be done by several people.

at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Matt. 18:16

However, I think Bible is clear. In my opinion there is no problem in that it was not written by Jesus himself.

Hmm? I have to ask... What denomination are you? Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, other? If you instead say you are non-denominational, then you basically fall under the subcategory of a Protestant. What specific brand do you fall under?

I think I am a disciple of Jesus (a "Christian"). Meaning, I try to be loyal to what Jesus said, instead of following doctrines of other men.

Are you then saying that anyone who does not translate the Bible, like you do, and has performed this prayer, is a liar?

Not necessary. Things don't necessary happen instantly. Sometimes it may take time to understand everything correctly. I don't think that even I understand yet everything perfectly. And I don't think understanding everything instantly perfectly is even demanded.

[JehovahsWitness]

...one of the point(s) of this thread is to question whether or not the Gospels are in error and/or corrupted by humans?

From an examination of its present contents, I see no reason to believe that to be the case.


FURTHER READING Has the Bible Been Changed or Tampered With?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... n-changed/

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COMPILATION and ... CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE

[TRANSPONDER]

It's just denial, dismissal and self - deception.

I hate to keep raising the same old arguments but our pal's efforts to try to prop up the failed prophecy of Tyre (test case failed prophecy), with false claims and guesses based on hoping I don't know the archaeology better than he does.

It is why Bible - apologists look so bad - if they get called on it.

Which is why the Mission statement from the start has been "Atheists, please shut up and go away."

Like Maga propaganda, which is the same not an analogy, it relies on telling what is not true and hope is that nobody knows better, and then accuses the Other side of doing the bad apologetics they do themselves.

Denial of contradictions is the obvious one. Denial of history and science that doesn't work is another.

Pretending that a God is somehow validating a book of contradictions, disharmony, revision, addition and fabrication because it is about a god, or rather two gods, as the one in the NT is quite different from that in the old. "Same God, the message has changed". No, same god but the religious demographic changed. Believer denial aside, let the doubter and questioner realise that one, as it is basic to understanding the Bible, Christian Jesus and Christianity.

And yet they blithely declare it is all wonderfully integrated as though a single Being was behind it, despite the myriad authorship.

Like I say, tell the fallacy and fingers crossed the Public don't know better or care.

Of course, if we flip to the end of the book, or end credits, the objective is to be done with the power over society and politics that religious tosh has (especially Islam folks, even worse than Christianity) but then we would have no need for forums like this, or discussion within the Box.

But we are either here looking for truth through debate, or discussion within the belief, likeSci fi conventions, except that nobody but total nutcases c takes the dressing - up and learning Klingon seriously.

[POI]

It would be way above humans' ability to understand, and grasp.

What you are saying here is that the God you believe in, is incapable of expressing a clear message for all to understand. So instead, his best alternative was to allow for an extensive amount of oral traditions to take place, only to later be written down to paper by fallible humans. In essence, here is the failed dichotomy:

A) God would write an incoherent message system to humans

Or...

B) God allowed for a widely non-unifying message

********************************************************************

When it comes to communication, this does not prove to be a problem for God, as seen from the preceding.

Yes, it does prove a problem of communication. I demonstrated the problem only after your first given point. There is no need to address any more of your points. Your argument here is that we only have two choices. A) Confusion because of God's inability to convey a coherent message to all humans. Or, B) leave it to fallible humans to muck it up.

Sounds like a terrible strategy, unless God really did not want to convey a clear message to all humans.

[POI]

The reason why I believe so is that it forms coherent text, which is quite impressive

If it is so coherent, then we would not instead have countless denominations, which conflict with one another.

I believe it was done in guidance of God, which is why it is as clear as if Jesus would have done that.

So, what you are effectively saying, is that God is pleased with the fact that we have many conflicting denominations? All of which have formulated after much earnest study? That is illogical.

I think I am a disciple of Jesus (a "Christian"). Meaning, I try to be loyal to what Jesus said, instead of following doctrines of other men.

This tells me nothing. If I were to ask 100 "Christians" what Jesus said here, or here, or here, I would get many conflicting answers. I know this, because I have asked many Christians what it actually says in many various places in the Bible. And many earnest answers conflict. This is why, aside from the denominations problem, we also have young earthers, old earthers, flat earthers, ones who believe in a literal eternal hell, others don't, Genesis literalists, Genesis non-literalists, etc...........

So, I ask again, what denomination are you? Meaning, when you go to a church, what denomination is it, and do you always agree with what the preacher is preaching, (who is well studied), 100% of the time?

Not necessary. Things don't necessary happen instantly. Sometimes it may take time to understand everything correctly. I don't think that even I understand yet everything perfectly. And I don't think understanding everything instantly perfectly is even demanded.

Until you tell me what actual doctrine you follow, I do not yet have a response here. Which of the three main umbrellas do you reside 1) Catholic, 2) Protestant 3) Orthodox?

[POI]

From an examination of its present contents, I see no reason to believe that to be the case.

I think you missed part of my point. Let's say we found the originals. Okay. All this would mean is that we found the first written document. But we still have (2) large problems:

1) The first document was taken only after much oral traditions had been floating around. And oral tradition is objectively not a reliable pathway, when the goal is to convey truth.

2) Since humans are fallible, how would we know the fallible human is recording what Jesus actually said?

********************

BUT, these are two hypothetical questions, or non-starters, anyways. Because we do not have the originals....

Which gets us back to the original problem of communication.

[JehovahsWitness]

From an examination of its present contents, I see no reason to believe that to be the case.

I think you missed part of my point.

I was responding to the specific point you wrote , namely whether the gospels are in are in error and/or corrupted .

...one of the point(s) of this thread is to question whether or not the Gospels are in error and/or corrupted by humans?

[1213]

The reason why I believe so is that it forms coherent text, which is quite impressive

If it is so coherent, then we would not instead have countless denominations, which conflict with one another.

Yes we would, because there are people who want to exploit the book and the message to gain own power and money.

I believe it was done in guidance of God, which is why it is as clear as if Jesus would have done that.

So, what you are effectively saying, is that God is pleased with the fact that we have many conflicting denominations?

No.

If I were to ask 100 "Christians" what Jesus said here, or here, or here, I would get many conflicting answers.

And yet, what is said in the Bible is clear to see to anyone reading it. It is amazing how many people want to twist it to mean something else.

Meaning, when you go to a church, what denomination is it, and do you always agree with what the preacher is preaching, (who is well studied), 100% of the time?

I have attended to events in different denominations. All of them have something Biblical and many of them have non-Biblical teachings. Because I want to be loyal to Jesus, none of the denominations are in my opinion correct entirely. And I think the whole idea to have many denominations goes against what is said in the Bible. There should be just one group of disciples of Jesus.

Until you tell me what actual doctrine you follow, I do not yet have a response here. Which of the three main umbrellas do you reside 1) Catholic, 2) Protestant 3) Orthodox?

Why you don't accept my previous answer?

[JehovahsWitness]

The reason why I believe so is that it forms coherent text, which is quite impressive

If it is so coherent, then we would not instead have countless denominations, which conflict with one another.

Yes we would, because there are people who want to exploit the book and the message to gain own power and money.

I have to agree, the way the world is at present, anything that can be used for power and money, will be exploited.

[POI]

Yes we would, because there are people who want to exploit the book and the message to gain own power and money.

Though I too agree that many are in this for power and money, earnest translations still exist which completely conflict. Case/point, the existence of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism all derive from a specific translation of the text. And these three translations alone conflict with one another. See below, as I address the rest of what you say...

No.

But your answer would have to logically be (yes) to my question 1213. Why? God would have to be pleased that many earnest followers, you included, have conflicting conclusions about what the Bible says. Case/point, Jehovaswitness is following along here, and I'm fairly certain you two would not agree on all facets of what the Bible says. Thus, if JW does not agree with you, does this mean JW is about money and power, and not about translating what the Bible says? I doubt it. I think both of you are earnest. And yet, have differing translations. Which means the Bible is NOT clear.

And yet, what is said in the Bible is clear to see to anyone reading it. It is amazing how many people want to twist it to mean something else.

1) See my response directly above. Neither you, nor JW, are attempting to twist some passages.

2) And yes, I'd say you are guilty of some twisting, when it comes to the ('slavery' in the Bible) topic You are clearly twisting or ignoring passages there, which you do not like. It's funny how skeptics seem to sometimes read this book more honestly than the ones who believe. But I guess this is why so many eventually fall away from the Bible over time. Meaning, they can no longer continue to twist some passages, which disagree with one's own logic and/or one's own morals.

I have attended to events in different denominations. 1) All of them have something Biblical and many of them have non-Biblical teachings. 2) Because I want to be loyal to Jesus, none of the denominations are in my opinion correct entirely. And I think the whole idea to have many denominations goes against what is said in the Bible. 3) There should be just one group of disciples of Jesus.

1) Give me an example of one teaching for which you think is not Biblical?
2) Thus, you are likely non-denominational. Which means you fall under the sub-category of the Protestant camp.
3) One of the reasons this does not happen, is because many attempt to read what the Bible says, in earnest, and disagree with one another. Hence, differing groups form and exist. Case/point, JWs.