(October 28, 2015 at 12:00 am)Irrational Wrote: The Bible is not really a book. It's a collection of books.

Just like the Islamic Hadiths; "collections of volumes and books".

Judge not lest ye be judged.

I'm not saying I'm Jesus. That is for other people to say.

(Richard Herring)

(October 27, 2015 at 11:53 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: The question is "which version is identical" ? I put forth this claim once since it's very logical : at which point, did the bible became "unified" and so "spread" ?

In other words; the parts which are scattered left and right and found identical might not actually be the "real thing". The real book was gone long ago, and all is left, is the madness & forgery of corrupted Roman monks. The book is so full of nonsense, because the real religion got to be suppressed by the government of that time (i.e Rome).

AtlasS, I've mentioned this to you many times. Modern scholarship has long-since disproved that theory. That's why the MT is now preferred above the LXX, and why Textus Receptus is preferred over the "majority text".

(October 27, 2015 at 11:53 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: History repeats itself, but can you trust dates ? did Jesus really showed up 2000 years ago, or is it before that ?
History is written by the victors, and Rome was the victor. The bible of today is the Roman version..

That's why God sent Mohammed peace be upon him anyways. One who trusts history, is the same person who shed a blind eye on the "dark side" of humanity. Humans love to lie & forge after all, to turn things into their favor.

There is no doubt, whatsoever, that Jesus showed up and taught in the first century. Exactly what he taught, what his beliefs were, and what his focus was is a matter that will be debated for many centuries to come, but we know that he did make teachings. The teachings in the synoptic gospels most likely come from two pre-existing written sources, one of which (the sayings document) probably goes back to the 40's or 30's AD.

(October 28, 2015 at 12:03 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 12:00 am)Irrational Wrote: The Bible is not really a book. It's a collection of books.

Just like the Islamic Hadiths; "collections of volumes and books".

So what's that real Injeel book you're talking about then?

(October 26, 2015 at 10:29 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 7, 2015 at 7:52 am)Ben Davis Wrote: On top of the issue of 'errancy' in the bible, your position ignores the fact that many of those groups, based on different interpretations, have a history of violence towards others, using the interpretations as a pretext for that violence. These are not petty or trivial matters of distinction; people have died over them. These are not 'unified' groups, these are independently functioning cells of differing belief, not to be glossed over in an apologetic.

Care to put a number on that? Maybe one that cannot otherwise be more accurately attributed to geopolitical disputes?

That's a poor attempt at a dodge and you know it. Religions, where theocratic, are inextricably linked with politics. Many religions, the Abrahamic ones especially, are explicitly politico-cultural. Where the geopolitical disputes are an emergent property of religious doctrine or the result of the use of doctrine by a theocratic leader to achieve objectives, criticism of the religious aspects is wholly appropriate. Basically, you're side-tracking because I'm making a good point.

Do you accept the well-established fact that differences between religions, particularly different denominations within each of the Abrahamic religions, have been used as a pretext for violence, resulting in multiple deaths.

(October 7, 2015 at 7:52 am)Ben Davis Wrote: On top of the issue of 'errancy' in the bible, your position ignores the fact that many of those groups, based on different interpretations, have a history of violence towards others, using the interpretations as a pretext for that violence. These are not petty or trivial matters of distinction; people have died over them. These are not 'unified' groups, these are independently functioning cells of differing belief, not to be glossed over in an apologetic.

Actually I agree with you, although that may have been a Freudian slip on your part.

(October 28, 2015 at 12:03 am)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 12:00 am)Irrational Wrote: The Bible is not really a book. It's a collection of books.

Just like the Islamic Hadiths; "collections of volumes and books".

who exactly wrote the hadiths ?

(October 28, 2015 at 7:59 am)Aractus Wrote: AtlasS, I've mentioned this to you many times. Modern scholarship has long-since disproved that theory. That's why the MT is now preferred above the LXX, and why Textus Receptus is preferred over the "majority text".

From my understanding the Qumran texts date to the last 2 centuries BCE & a century forth in CE. The MT is compared against the Qumran scrolls more than anything in terms of similarity; my problem is who wrote them, how, and to serve whom.

In other words : the original version itself that was kept in the temple mount can be itself forged. That if there was a kept original version in the first place.

Who can say for certain, that they are the same tablets of Moses peace be upon him ? the Jewish texts themselves, points a finger to the sins of Moses's followers : the golden calf story. How many Aaron were there to forge after Moses's death ?

That for Old Testament though.. how many Aarons could there be within Jesus's followers ?

And still, I never hold dates for granted.

Quote:There is no doubt, whatsoever, that Jesus showed up and taught in the first century. Exactly what he taught, what his beliefs were, and what his focus was is a matter that will be debated for many centuries to come, but we know that he did make teachings. The teachings in the synoptic gospels most likely come from two pre-existing written sources, one of which (the sayings document) probably goes back to the 40's or 30's AD.

Quoting a wikipedia link :

Quote:Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are similar to John: all are composed in Koine Greek, have a similar length, and were completed within a century of Jesus' death.

Being completed a "century" after his death, is a main disaster in terms of the accuracy of the text..I understand that this was never written directly; rather it was based on the memory of the writer..exactly like the Muslim "Hadiths".

And the Q source seems lost; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

The year of the Q source is hypothetical, since the source itself is hypothetical.

(October 28, 2015 at 8:48 am)Irrational Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 12:03 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: Just like the Islamic Hadiths; "collections of volumes and books".

So what's that real Injeel book you're talking about then?

The real teachings of Jesus peace be upon him; taken directly from his mouth. What God told him.
Not what a scholar wrote about what he thought he heard.

(October 28, 2015 at 4:54 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:

(October 28, 2015 at 12:03 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: Just like the Islamic Hadiths; "collections of volumes and books".

who exactly wrote the hadiths ?

Scholars who came after 300-400 years after the Prophet's death.  Each scholar traveled the land and collected what people heard the prophet says.

So, a Hadith would be something like : "Khalid told us, that Ahmed heard from Saad, that Fatima quoted Aisha, that the prophet of Islam said : "...hadith comes here...".

The volumes contain thousands of such text.