Does this need further documentation?

[Zzyzx]

Does this need further documentation?

In one of the threads someone challenged my characterization of the bible as (words to the effect) “a collection of writings of questionable authors by questionable churchmen -- then later translated, transcribed, modified, revised, and rewritten unknown times by unknown people”. The member said that I was wrong and asked that I justify what I said. Here is my justification:

First: It is unethical, IMO, to ask for justification for something that one already understands is true. Asking for proof that the Earth is spherical is an example. It is a disreputable debate tactic to ask for justification of what is generally known. Let’s examine the points that might have been questioned.

1. “Questionable authors”: Theologians debate who actually wrote the gospels. We know the names – but not necessarily who the people really were. If one accepts the traditional names as being absolute proof of authors that is a personal decision. Reason, however, says that there is doubt. Does this need further documentation?

2. “Questionable churchmen”: Unless one claims to know exactly which churchmen selected which writings for inclusion into what became the bible, the identity of those churchmen is questionable. More important, if we cannot be certain who was involved in decisions, we cannot learn anything about why certain writings were selected and others rejected. Does this need further documentation?

3. “Translated”: There should be no difficulty understanding that the bible was translated. English was not spoken at the time the bible was originated. The process of going from one language to another is known as translation. Does this need further documentation?

4. “Transcribed”: Is there any doubt that prior to invention of the printing process bibles were produced by copying them by hand. That process is known as transcription. That is the only way bibles were produced for a thousand years. Does this need further documentation?

5. “Modified, revised, rewritten”: Most are probably familiar with the “King James Version” of the bible. Perhaps it is not clear that the title denotes that the “version” represents a revision, a rewriting of the bible under direction of King James. That is one obvious example. Different versions of the bible used by various religious denominations are evidence that modification, revision and rewriting have occurred. Does this need further documentation?

6. “Unknown times by unknown people”: Unless one can claim to be aware of each time the bible was modified and know the identity of each person involved, the statement is obviously correct. Knowledge of some of the people or a few people involved in biblical modification does not account for any or all unknown people involved. Does this need further documentation?

Unless there is something incorrect about the six points above, I stand by the original statement without need for further clarification.

All of this, however, leads to another question. Since the bible is “a collection of writings of questionable authors by questionable churchmen -- then later translated, transcribed, modified, revised, and rewritten unknown times by unknown people”, how can it be touted as “the word of god” or “inerrant” or “infallible”?

[Metatron]

All of this, however, leads to another question. Since the bible is “a collection of writings of questionable authors by questionable churchmen -- then later translated, transcribed, modified, revised, and rewritten unknown times by unknown people”, how can it be touted as “the word of god” or “inerrant” or “infallible”?

Unless one assumes divine intervention at every step along this thousand year plus process, there is virtually no possiblity of the Bible being "inerrant".

[Cathar1950]

If the bible is the "Word of God”, “inerrant” or “infallible” then it would be a belief and not a fact.
I would wonder how anyone could even recognize such attributes that alone make the claims given we are humans with limitations.
Of course they can always claim the "Holy Spirit" Tells them or makes it known.
But of course that has the same problems.

Having read the works, like many others I do not see these qualities.
I have read others that claim it is true and if any problems are found then it is either they are not looking at the writing correctly, or they don't understand and then go thru great pains reconciling the problems even to the point of creating a new fiction.
This is do to their insistence everything else is wrong.
So in short I guess I would have to agree with your assessment Zzyzx.