Bible inaccuracies

Started by jgiant8 pages
jgiant Subject is Lethal

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
These are simply beliefs on your part, and not facts. Why would the bible be more correct then the Koran? It also has historical facts written into it's pages, and it also claims to be the word of god.
The reason I do not accept the Koran as the Word of God is because it makes claims about Jesus's life and death 500 years after he was alive. Muhhammad also believed that the Old Testament was the Word of God, but he violated the original purpose that God had for marriage (one man and one woman to become one flesh) by taking multiple wives. Not to mention his other things in the Koran that are not in harmony with the Old Testament.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by jgiant
The reason I do not accept the Koran as the Word of God is because it makes claims about Jesus's life and death 500 years after he was alive. Muhhammad also believed that the Old Testament was the Word of God, but he violated the original purpose that God had for marriage (one man and one woman to become one flesh) by taking multiple wives. Not to mention his other things in the Koran that are not in harmony with the Old Testament.

The NT was written at least 90 years after the death of Jesus (and that is being very forgiving, most likely they were written much later).

Again I'm not talking about your belief. There is a possibility that your interpretation of the bible is wrong. I'm asking you, why would one religion be right, while another one is wrong when the appear to be the same form the macroscopic point of view?

jgiant Subject is Lethal

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The NT was written at least 90 years after the death of Jesus (and that is being very forgiving, most likely they were written much later).

Again I'm not talking about your belief. There is a possibility that your interpretation of the bible is wrong. I'm asking you, why would one religion be right, while another one is wrong when the appear to be the same form the macroscopic point of view?

It just seems the from what I've seen the Bible is very unique in comparison to other religious texts. Again you are right that is just my interpretation. When all is said and done the only way to know for sure is to die. As to your other comment, even if the gosples were written 90 years after Jesus, they were not 500 years later. But since the evidence points to earlier dates for all the New Testament that isn't a problem. The book of James and Galations were written around late 40's early 50's AD. The book of Matthew, Mark, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians and the book of Romans were written around the 50's to 60's AD. The book of Luke and Acts were written in the early 60's AD before Paul is executed in Rome. The earliest book of the New Testament is Revalations and the Gosple of John both written around early to late 90's AD. These dates can be attested because of the early 1st Centrury Church Father's quote from the New Testament in their letters. Clement of Rome who was a Bishop of Rome from 88-99AD quoted from from Titus, Acts, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, quotes 1 Cor 2:9 and calls it scripture, Romans, Hebrews, uses "Church" as a body metaphor (as in 1 Corinthians). He quotes from
James, and uses the Jesus' “millstone” quote (which is present in Matthew, Mark and Luke). Ignatius of Antioch a student of the Apostle John lived from 35-110AD and quotes from the majority of the New Testament Books as well, most likely the letters were towards the end of the 1st century.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by jgiant
It just seems the from what I've seen the Bible is very unique in comparison to other religious texts. Again you are right that is just my interpretation. When all is said and done the only way to know for sure is to die. As to your other comment, even if the gosples were written 90 years after Jesus, they were not 500 years later. But since the evidence points to earlier dates for all the New Testament that isn't a problem. The book of James and Galations were written around late 40's early 50's AD. The book of Matthew, Mark, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians and the book of Romans were written around the 50's to 60's AD. The book of Luke and Acts were written in the early 60's AD before Paul is executed in Rome. The earliest book of the New Testament is Revalations and the Gosple of John both written around early to late 90's AD. These dates can be attested because of the early 1st Centrury Church Father's quote from the New Testament in their letters. Clement of Rome who was a Bishop of Rome from 88-99AD quoted from from Titus, Acts, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, quotes 1 Cor 2:9 and calls it scripture, Romans, Hebrews, uses "Church" as a body metaphor (as in 1 Corinthians). He quotes from
James, and uses the Jesus' “millstone” quote (which is present in Matthew, Mark and Luke). Ignatius of Antioch a student of the Apostle John lived from 35-110AD and quotes from the majority of the New Testament Books as well, most likely the letters were towards the end of the 1st century.

Still even 20 years is enough time to distort the story enough to be unreliable. However, that doe not remove the possibility that the information is correct, but it does weaken your point. Also the Council of Nicea in 325 AD was far more of an influence then when things were written.

jgiant Subject is Lethal

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Still even 20 years is enough time to distort the story enough to be unreliable. However, that doe not remove the possibility that the information is correct, but it does weaken your point. Also the Council of Nicea in 325 AD was far more of an influence then when things were written.
The Gosple of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses as well as the Epistle of James, who was the brother of Jesus. The Gosple of Mark was written by Mark who was a follower of Peter (an eyewitness) and accompanied him during his ministry. The Gosple of Luke was written by Luke who accompanied the Apostle Paul (I'd say he was an eyewitness, others may not) and did extensive historical investigation (most likely interviewing many of the eyewitnesses and family of Jesus) in his Gosple and the book of Acts, which if you read it you can see what I mean. I don't understand how this weakens my point considering you said the Gosples were written much, much later. Also, can you expand how the Council of Nicea fits in here, considering they took the most reliable manuscripts, which could be traced to authors who were either Apostles or worked with Apostles of Jesus.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by jgiant
The Gosple of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses as well as the Epistle of James, who was the brother of Jesus. The Gosple of Mark was written by Mark who was a follower of Peter (an eyewitness) and accompanied him during his ministry. The Gosple of Luke was written by Luke who accompanied the Apostle Paul (I'd say he was an eyewitness, others may not) and did extensive historical investigation (most likely interviewing many of the eyewitnesses and family of Jesus) in his Gosple and the book of Acts, which if you read it you can see what I mean. I don't understand how this weakens my point considering you said the Gosples were written much, much later. Also, can you expand how the Councile of Nicea fits in here, considering they took the most reliable manuscripts, which could be traced to authors who were either Apostles or worked with Apostles of Jesus.

No, they were not. You are projecting your beliefs as if they were fact. This is fine for you, but not for me. The truth is, we do not know who wrote the four gosples. There is evidence that they may have been copied from an older source, see Q gosple.

jgiant Subject is Lethal

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, they were not. You are projecting your beliefs as if they were fact. This is fine for you, but not for me. The truth is, we do not know who wrote the four gosples. There is evidence that they may have been copied from an older source, see Q gosple.
Yes Mark's Gosple is a good example of that Q. If they were using Q as a reference to refer to then its fine and takes nothing away from their accounts. I have no problem with a Q if it exists. Luke states in the beginning of his Gosple he used sources. But from my understanding there is no evidence of this supposed "Q" just alot of speculation, which is not in anyway reliable.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by jgiant
Yes Mark's Gosple is a good example of that Q. If they were using Q as a reference to refer to then its fine and takes nothing away from their accounts. I have no problem with a Q if it exists. Luke states in the beginning of his Gosple he used sources. But from my understanding there is no evidence of this supposed "Q" just alot of speculation, which is not in anyway reliable.

Do you have any idea were the speculation comes from? You should look into it, and get back with me.

jgiant Subject is Lethal

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you have any idea were the speculation comes from? You should look into it, and get back with me.
There is no manuscriptual evidence of this "Q" and the idea was first brought up in the early 1800's by Herbert Marsh.

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by jgiant
There is no manuscriptual evidence of this "Q" and the idea was first brought up in the early 1800's by Herbert Marsh.

You are still not getting the profound point behind the Q gospel. If the Q gospel did exist, then the four gospels were not written by their name sake. More likely, they were written by scribes many years later.

You can dismiss the Q gospel if you like, but I think it is compelling that parts of Mark and Luke seem to be copied from the same source.

jgiant Subject is Lethal

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are still not getting the profound point behind the Q gospel. If the Q gospel did exist, then the four gospels were not written by their name sake. More likely, they were written by scribes many years later.

You can dismiss the Q gospel if you like, but I think it is compelling that parts of Mark and Luke seem to be copied from the same source.

Or it could be that there were some things in Jesus's life that were profound moments that needed to be told. Just like if a few people who were close with Martin Luther King wrote about him, they would mention the "I have a dream speach", the time he spent in jail in Birmingham, his assasination all from different perspectives of course, but the core must remain the same. Which in the Gosples it does. In fact that is why so many people have a problem with the Gosples, the different perspectives make it seems as though they contradict one another, but in reality they are not. That gives me further affirmation of their reliability because they are not identicle to each other, but have their own unique perspective on the remarkable life of Jesus.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by jgiant
The reason I do not accept the Koran as the Word of God is because it makes claims about Jesus's life and death 500 years after he was alive. Muhhammad also believed that the Old Testament was the Word of God, but he violated the original purpose that God had for marriage (one man and one woman to become one flesh) by taking multiple wives. Not to mention his other things in the Koran that are not in harmony with the Old Testament.

Lol, wtf are you going on about here? In the old testament many of the most important followers of god had multiple wives. It was not until the NEW testament that it was stated that only monogamy was acceptable.

jgiant Subject is Lethal

Originally posted by King Kandy
Lol, wtf are you going on about here? In the old testament many of the most important followers of god had multiple wives. It was not until the NEW testament that it was stated that only monogamy was acceptable.
Just because they had multiple wives, it doesn't mean that it was right in the eyes of God. Those patriarchs in the Old Testament who had multiple wives: Solomon, David and so forth, did so for reasons that are not mentioned in the Bible specifically. Some theories have it that God allowed this because women back then who could not find husbands were very vulnerable to poverty and death. Having a husband who could provide and support them could be the acceptable alternative. Though most of the time those who violated the nature of marriage were punished as shown by Solomon. I am just reasoning this out because from my understanding scripture is not too clear on this, but the Bible is clear right from the beginning the intent of marriage, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become ONE flesh." In addition when Solomon took all those wives it was in direct violation of Deuteronomy 17:17 which states that kings shall not multiply wives for himself. Solomon's wives brought idolatry into Jerusalem, resulting in the kingdom being divided (1 Kings 11).

jgiant Subject is Lethal

Sorry for the double post, but I have not studied in depth the issue of polygamy in the Old Testament and it is fairly interesting to see how God works with sin. Its truely remarkable he makes it painfully clear that what he did with Adam and Eve was the right way to do it. The first practice of polygamy is seen in the line of Cain (who we know committed the murder of his brother), Lamech had two wives and we later see that Lamech lead the Cainites in an open rebellion against God, we can see that sin begets sin here. Abraham was not really a polygamous, but committed adultery with Hagar, which caused his household to fracture. David's problem with women also lead to his downfall and repentance of his sin. God ended up taking all of David's wives away from him and leaving him with Bathsheba to become his only wife. Very interesting and awesome how God works.

King Kandy Senior Member

Originally posted by jgiant
Some theories have it that God allowed this because women back then who could not find husbands were very vulnerable to poverty and death. Having a husband who could provide and support them could be the acceptable alternative.

You do realize, that that is the exact same thing the Koran says...

jgiant Subject is Lethal

Originally posted by King Kandy
You do realize, that that is the exact same thing the Koran says...
Yes but does it make it right in the eyes of God? The Bible makes it perfectly clear that it is not. If every time we see the end result a disaster.

King Kandy Senior Member

David had multiple wives and he wasn't bad.

Lord Lucien Lets all love Lain

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well according to his FULL quote he was describing more than just "sense"

stop trying to bring the man down.

Never. Picking and choosing is what democracy's all about.

Autokrat Unknown

Where did Cain get multiple wives? Where did he get a wife at all? Did he bang his sister?

Shakyamunison Nam Myoho Renge Kyo
Originally posted by Autokrat
Where did Cain get multiple wives? Where did he get a wife at all? Did he bang his sister?

Difficult answer = Yes

Easy answer = Cain did not exist.