Authenticity of the Bible

[Pontifex Maximus]

I wanted to share my thought on the bible and hopefully get some feedback from people:

The bible (CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES) was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, then translated to Greek, specifically Koine, then Latin, then English and trhen from there the list goes on.

My question is this,

During all the early translations of the bible, is it possible that the politicians and translators themselves could have twisted the bible t support their idealogies and beliefs? Could they have made the bible support them?

In it's purest form, the Bible is essentially Jewish, being experienced by Jews, written in Hebrew and being preached by Jews, but as time went on, Greek and ROman culture influenced the bible and could have tainted it's meaning. This would mean that many of the teachings that Christians live by today could be false or not as Jesus would have preferred.

I believe that the bible was tainted by these cultures and the true meaning of Jesus' life and story (and even teachings) suffered from it.

That's part of the reason why the Bible is so hard to read and understand, we are literally lost in translation.

[Thanatos]

This is why you get my Bible, as documented in my first TTT (in my sig). It's got a ton of explanation form Catholic saints.

[Pontifex Maximus]

But by the time the saints were explaining, it already could have been tainted.

OR

The saints were pushing their own agendas in their commentaries.

[Thanatos]

But by the time the saints were explaining, it already could have been tainted.

OR

The saints were pushing their own agendas in their commentaries.

Except that my Bible has other saints commenting on the comments made by earlier saints, giving it kind of a group discussion feel.

Either the saints were right, or we're in a massive conspiracy theory here, Pontifex.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Except that my Bible has other saints commenting on the comments made by earlier saints, giving it kind of a group discussion feel.

I suppose, except for the fact that the discussion feel would be basically ended after the new saints realized the old saints were cold and dead.

Either the saints were right, or we're in a massive conspiracy theory here, Pontifex.

Damnit. I knew it.

[André Masséna]

You would have to find me some passages that show some sort of bias that might have been held by someone. Why would you want to change it? Wouldn't that just land you in a big bucket of hellfire? Plus, it's all got that message of "turn the other cheek" not "kill the romans in their beds" kind of thing.

[Dayman]

The problem with those Saints Thanny is that they don't question the premise.

[Georgy Zhukov]

From my limited knowledge, over the years priests and the catholic church removed sections they didn't like, their was even a large amount of rather sordid material removed in an edited version.

[Pontifex Maximus]

From my limited knowledge, over the years priests and the catholic church removed sections they didn't like, their was even a large amount of rather sordid material removed in an edited version.

As far as Catholocism is concerned, that would be quite impossible. The Canon was closed in the third century.

Protestants I'm nt too sure of.

[The Big Red 1]

From my limited knowledge, over the years priests and the catholic church removed sections they didn't like, their was even a large amount of rather sordid material removed in an edited version.

Entirely true. Remember the Event in BI the Bible is written. It says it may have been twisted by church officals. Well we know the left somethings out.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

From my limited knowledge, over the years priests and the catholic church removed sections they didn't like

This is incorrect.

their was even a large amount of rather sordid material removed in an edited version.

And this is pure fantasy.

The canon was hastily thrown together following the council of Nicea I believe after Constantine ordered 30 or so coppies of the bible, it has been closed ever since.

The canon was not "hastily thrown together" - it evolved by consensus over about 150-200 years. It was already more or less established before Constantine was even born, so his sponsoring of 50 copies had zero to do with it. And, for about the 1245th time, the canon was not even discussed at the Council of Nicea and that Council has NOTHING to do with its establishment.

It's kind of distressing using words such as 'hastily' when talking about the compilation of the bible as it now is the basis of worship for well over a billion people.

There's no need to be distressed, as this didn't happen.

EDIT: Further research shows that two were authored by Apostles, but it was however, not criteria to be put into the canon.

The evidence that any of the gospels were actually written by disciples is highly dubious. The fact that author of Matthew used 75% of Mark's gospel, almost word for word, clearly indicates that this author was not actually Matthew, since it doesn't make sense that an eyewitness would follow the account of a non-eyewitness so closely. And the final chapter of John makes it perfectly clear that it was not written by John but by people who claimed to be his followers.

In my opinion until it was official, it didn't really matter.

The Council of Nicea had zip to do with it being made official. For the 1246th time, it had NOTHING to do with its establishment.

anything is possible since we do not, and cannot ever find all the right evidence to prove it one way or the other.

Actually, we have plenty of evidence on what books were chosen, how they were chosen, which ones were rejected and why. And we have good evidence that, with the exception of some variant words and a couple of added passages, the Biblical books we have today are what they had in the Second to Third Century. And from the Fourth Century we have entire Bibles that show us this is the case.

And another thing, people will believe what they want to.

You can say that again.

The Gnostic Bible was pushed down by the Catholics.

There was no "Gnostic Bible" to be "pushed down" and "the Catholics" didn't exist at this stage anyway. There were Gnostic gospels and other texts, but they were never even considered for the canon because they were well known to be late in date and have no apostolic pedigree.

One thing is for sure, there's a hell of a lot of muddle-headed crap written on this subject. For a good introduction to the evidence and what we can and do know, read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew

[Pontifex Maximus]

The canon was not "hastily thrown together" - it evolved by consensus over about 150-200 years. It was already more or less established before Constantine was even born, so his sponsoring of 50 copies had zero to do with it. And, for about the 1245th time, the canon was not even discussed at the Council of Nicea and that Council has NOTHING to do with its establishment.

If it had nothign to do with it at all, how come we saw the compilation of the bible finally occur after it's conclusion?

I don't understand.

There's no need to be distressed, as this didn't happen.

The couinil of Nicea ended in 325.

Constantine ordered the bibles in 331.

In comparison to the formation of the Old Testament, this is the blinking of an eye.

The evidence that any of the gospels were actually written by disciples is highly dubious.

THat's because we can't be sure of the identity of the authors...Doesn't mean they couldn't have been disciples.

And, well, chances are if they were Christians, and followers of Jesus, they were disciples.

The fact that author of Matthew used 75% of Mark's gospel, almost word for word, clearly indicates that this author was not actually Matthew, since it doesn't make sense that an eyewitness would follow the account of a non-eyewitness so closely.

And since they were written at completely different times for different communities...

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

If it had nothign to do with it at all, how come we saw the compilation of the bible finally occur after it's conclusion?

We don't see this at all. The Muratorian Canon - a canon list that dates to the late Second Century - lists 23 of the 26 texts later accepted as fully canonical (it probably listed all 26, but the beginning of the list is missing). And most of the Third Century debate about the canon centred around lesser NT works like some of the shorter epistles and Revelation: that the four gospels were canonical was fully accepted since the late Second Century as well.

I don't understand.

What I don't understand is this weird insistence that the Council of Nicea had anything at all to do with the canon debate. Leaving aside the fact that we know a general consensus had already been reached on the canon long before Nicea, the discussion of the canon or any subject even vaguely associated with it wasn't even on the agenda at that Council. And it's not like we lack information on what was discussed there. So the mystery for me is why people insist that the Council of Nicea had something to do with the compilation of the NT when it wasn't even discussed there.

Roger Pearse's webpage, "The Council of Nicea and the Bible", fully debunks this persistent myth and gives all the relevant sources on the Council that shows that this idea is total nonsense. And the relevant section on my site on The Da Vinci Code (which perpetuates this myth) - The Formation of the Christian Bible - summarises the process by which the canon evolved.

The couinil of Nicea ended in 325.

Constantine ordered the bibles in 331.

In comparison to the formation of the Old Testament, this is the blinking of an eye.

Why you think the Council of Nicea had anything to do with Constantine ordering those Bible I have no idea. See above. The first time we get a full list of the NT canon is Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter in AD 367. It's very likely that the Bibles that Eusebius organised at Constantine's order contained the same 27 texts (we don't know actually), but that's only because the consensus on this list of 27 had already been reached the century before. Nicea had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

THat's because we can't be sure of the identity of the authors...Doesn't mean they couldn't have been disciples.

Only two of them are said to be by two of the twelve, though the evidence indicates that this is wrong. The other two are said to be by non-eyewitnesses, who were followers of the two of the twelve. We have no evidence that any of the gospels were written by anyone who was actually around when Jesus was alive.

And, well, chances are if they were Christians, and followers of Jesus, they were disciples.

We still have no evidence that any of them were written by anyone who had even met Jesus, let alone been there when the events they describe took place.

And since they were written at completely different times for different communities...

Pardon?

[Pontifex Maximus]

Why you think the Council of Nicea had anything to do with Constantine ordering those Bible I have no idea.

...Because that's when the Canon was closed.

Only two of them are said to be by two of the twelve

Tat's all I said.

We still have no evidence that any of them were written by anyone who had even met Jesus, let alone been there when the events they describe took place.

Why would non-believers write the bible..

Pardon?

The Gospels.

[André Masséna]

Protestants I'm nt too sure of.

Most Catholics would agree with me when I say our bible is a coloring book.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I wanted to share my thought on the bible and hopefully get some feedback from people:

The bible (CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES) was originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, then translated to Greek, specifically Koine, then Latin, then English and trhen from there the list goes on.

My question is this,

During all the early translations of the bible, is it possible that the politicians and translators themselves could have twisted the bible t support their idealogies and beliefs? Could they have made the bible support them?

In it's purest form, the Bible is essentially Jewish, being experienced by Jews, written in Hebrew and being preached by Jews, but as time went on, Greek and ROman culture influenced the bible and could have tainted it's meaning. This would mean that many of the teachings that Christians live by today could be false or not as Jesus would have preferred.

I believe that the bible was tainted by these cultures and the true meaning of Jesus' life and story (and even teachings) suffered from it.

That's part of the reason why the Bible is so hard to read and understand, we are literally lost in translation.

Ehhh, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (with a few bits in Syriac/Chaldean if I'm not mistaken) but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. When you read the Greek NT you are reading what was written by the authors (wether you think they were crazy or for real).

From my limited knowledge, over the years priests and the catholic church removed sections they didn't like, their was even a large amount of rather sordid material removed in an edited version.

Please give some facts if you want to make a bold assertion like this.


Oh, and Ponti, don't you turn into a commie now.

[Pontifex Maximus]

It's a good question, but copies of the letter were to wide spread by the time they made the cannon(well the cannon/ existed prior just not officially) to even both to make a fake one and alter them. There actually was a flood o fake apostolic letter int he 1 and 2 century, which is what forced them to make an offical cannon. This wasn't need prior because there was enough of an understanding of the baisc premise of the faith. It's actually monatisism, gnostisism, marcinism(sp?), and later arianism, that pushed the need for an official cannon. The bs.s that you see in the "Div. Code" just makes me laugh. It's true the best ones to read are in original languges, and there are always problems with translation, but there have been some very good attemps to combat those problems resently(quite a few bad attemps too....).

Well there were alot of Gospel accounts that didn't make the cut for the Canon simply because they did not meet certain standards..

1. Had a widely accepted story.

2. The tradition had been used by a large community of believers.

The canon was hastily thrown together following the council of Nicea I believe after Constantine ordered 30 or so coppies of the bible, it has been closed ever since.

It's kind of distressing using words such as 'hastily' when talking about the compilation of the bible as it now is the basis of worship for well over a billion people.

Ehhh, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew (with a few bits in Syriac/Chaldean if I'm not mistaken) but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek.

Mental fart on my part, you're right.

Oh, and Ponti, don't you turn into a commie now.

You to me say something, comrade?

[wannaleadguitar?]

original Quote by _pontifex_

Mental fart on my part, you're right.

nice choice of words ponti.

[zrweber]

The canon was hastily thrown together following the council of Nicea I believe after Constantine ordered 30 or so coppies of the bible, it has been closed ever since.

The cannon already existed prior to the councle it just wasn't official. yes there ar some differences between this and that place, but most contained the same. The work of thew councle was more to mark it down specifically. Also to futher regect the hearicies of monastisism(the belief in three fold primary human composition and that the spirit is mystical and not reasonable. It's very dualist), Gnosticism(very similar to realitivism, pluralism, and aclectisism), and a few others like Arianism, which argued that the Logos is created and a sort of demi-god.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The cannon already existed prior to the councle it just wasn't official.

In my opinion until it was official, it didn't really matter.