Why do Protestants believe in the Bible (not a troll)

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't need to prove that they weren't. There's simply no proof that they were.

The Gospels were copied down over te centuries by the Early Church. There is every reason to believe that they were written by their true authors.

Some people just want to rewrite history cause they don't like the Bible.

[Dom Pedro II]

Why, according to themselves of course, and since they were eye witnesses, their word should be good enough!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by The diplomat


That is not a good analogy. We have canonical proof that the 4 Gospels were written between 50 and 70 AD by their true authors.

We don't have original manuscripts. We have guesswork about when they were written (and, by the way, the dates I've heard most commonly are 65-90 A.D., not 50-70), but not original sources (as someone here pointed out, the "originals" are translated from the Greek, not the Aramaic, which is pretty good evidence that they're not originals). This is exactly why the Life of Johnson analogy holds. If you picked up the Life of Johnson today, you could tell that it was probably written in the 18th century -- but without any extant 18th century versions of the text, could you ever be sure?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What makes Luke's gospels more legitimate than other gospels that have been left out ?

Because Luke's Gospel is consistent with the other Gospels which were eye witness accounts. The gnostic Gospels were newer and contradicted the older accounts.

If you have an autobiography or a biography written decades later that contradicts the autobiography, which would you rely on?

You go with the older texts that are the closest to the specific events, and preferably primary sources rather than secondary ones. This is what the Church Fathers did. They went with the oldest texts that were closest to the actual events, and dismissed newer texts that were not as reliable.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by The diplomat


The Gospels were copied down over te centuries by the Early Church. There is every reason to believe that they were written by their true authors.

Some people just want to rewrite history cause they don't like the Bible.

An analogy: is the Iliad true? It's certainly been copied down over the centuries, but the question of whether or not the Trojan War even occurred is still hotly disputed by historians -- and the Trojan War should be a lot easier to document the the ministry of a no-name rabbi at a time in history when no-name rabbis were a dime a dozen. That's the central problem.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
We don't have original manuscripts. We have guesswork about when they were written (and, by the way, the dates I've heard most commonly are 65-90 A.D., not 50-70), but not original sources (as someone here pointed out, the "originals" are translated from the Greek, not the Aramaic, which is pretty good evidence that they're not originals). This is exactly why the Life of Johnson analogy holds. If you picked up the Life of Johnson today, you could tell that it was probably written in the 18th century -- but without any extant 18th century versions of the text, could you ever be sure?

I can go with 65-90 AD.

[Dom Pedro II]

Some people just want to rewrite history cause they don't like the Bible.

Only if you consider the Bible history.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
The Gospels were copied down over te centuries by the Early Church. There is every reason to believe that they were written by their true authors.

Then name one.

Why should I believe that Matt, Mark, and John were the true authors of the Gospels which carry their names, yet the Gospels of Thomas or Mary Magdelene are not?

Why shouldn't I believe that the Gospels were altered over the centuries? One only needs look at the King James Bible to see what happens when the Bible is recopied, especially from one language to another: Aramaic --> Greek --> Latin.

For example what the King James Bible translates as, "Our Father which art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven," Douglas-Klotz translates as, "O Birther, Father-Mother of the Cosmos, Focus your light within us�make it useful: Create your reign of unity now�Your one desire then acts with ours, as in all light so in all forms."

http://www.selfknowledge.org/resources/bookreviews/prayersofthecosmos.htm

Here's a nice page of translations: http://www.songofhome.com/Klotz.htm

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The diplomat
If you have an autobiography or a biography written decades later that contradicts the autobiography, which would you rely on?

Depends on the research. Why should I necessarily believe what is purported to be an autobiography? Was the autobiography of Hitler true? Was the autobiography of Jack the Ripper true? According to the researchers I've read, all of the Gospels seem to point to an earlier work referred to academically as "Q," which is supposed to have been a "book" of the sayings of Jeshua.

Anyway, the fact that the accounts are contradictory doesn't mean the "earliest surviving" ones are correct. It means they are contradictory. Given the passage of time between the life of Jeshua and the written accounts, there was plenty of time for memories to have altered, oral changes to have taken place, mistranslations, and differering opinions on what Jeshua did or meant. Heck, look at all the varients of Marxism where there is a clear written record, and the actual manuscripts of the founders of the movement. It takes no time for people to start aruging what you really meant after you're dead.

[Japher]

The Gospels were copied down over te centuries by the Early Church. There is every reason to believe that they were written by their true authors.

Some people just want to rewrite history cause they don't like the Bible.

Yup, go read the Book of Mormon. You'll get a kick out of it After reading it I denounced all religion and wipped my asss with the pages...

[Dom Pedro II]

Just checked out that translations page...


I think the original document actually started "Mix one cup of flour with..."

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
and the Trojan War should be a lot easier to document the the ministry of a no-name rabbi at a time in history when no-name rabbis were a dime a dozen. That's the central problem.

No, you're wrong. Recent events are easier to verify than older ones. The Gospels are much more recent in time that the Iliad. So, they would be easier to verify than the Iliad.

Furthermore, this "no-name rabbi" as you say, was not obscure. He spawned an entire religion. The events of te early church affected even the Roman Empire. Paul was taken to Rome and spoke the Gospel. The strong impact that Jesus had on the society of his day, also makes it easier to verify the events. And, we have many sources, like Josephus, who can help us collaborate our findings.

[Chemical Ollie]

The Swedish bible was re-translated in 2000, from as early sources as possible, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I am amused how the PC "thy shall not covet your neighbours servant" now has been changed to the more frankly "you shall not desire your neighbours slave". (Forgive any errors while I translated this to English)

[Rufus T. Firefly]

About the passage of time:

The general agreement is that John's Gospel was written last, probably around 90 ad. In 90 ad, Christ would have been 96 years old, so John was, what, maybe in his late 80s? And the structure of John's gospel is generally agreed to reflect Greek modes of rhetorical expression ("In the beginning was the word..."), not Aramaic/Judaic modes. So we are to believe that John lived well into his 80s, then recorded his memories in the rhetorical form of a language not his own. Sure, it could have happened; but if you were weilding Occam's Razor, it this what the shave would look like?

[Japher]

I am amused how the PC "thy shall not covet your neighbours servant" now has been changed to the more frankly "you shall not desire your neighbours slave". (Forgive any errors while I translated this to English)

Yeah, in the English versions we say "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife", not slave... sick-o