After all, the Sacred Scriptures spent a thousand years in the hands of the Vatican (half of that if you count the Eastern Orthodox churches) . How do we know that the cabal didn't alter, add or supress anything important on them in all those years, that's also not counting the other supposedly reformed editions that were made by people with ties to Freemasonry and the City of London ?
I might also be in dire need of some time out of the news and the digging. Feel free to call me out if that's the case.
Because the scrolls found at Qumran were carbon dated to the 1st century and are substantially the same as a well translated modern version.
Nailed it. The Dead Sea scrolls corroborate almost 100% similarity between Biblical manuscripts dating 1000 yrs apart from each other.
-- Dr. Bryant Wood
Add that to the fact that the Bible possesses well over 25,000 manuscripts in its corner (all other books from early antiquity pale in comparison). The more manuscripts a specific work has, the harder it is to manipulate what the manuscripts say. Furthermore, all those manuscripts aren’t all stored in one location. A group of people can’t simply change the text of some manuscripts without being caught.
Keep this in mind, too: In order to know that an ancient manuscript has been changed or altered, one must first be in possession of the original, unchanged, manuscript(s).
We can be 100% confident that the versions of the Bible we possess today are, indeed, what the original authors wrote down.
"We can be 100% confident that the versions of the Bible we possess today are, indeed, what the original authors wrote down."
We can not be 100% confident about anything today and why, just because something was written down in antiquity does that make it unassailable truth that came straight from God's lips to these peeps stenopads?
Here is your leap of faith and that is exactly what it is. You choose to believe this is the case but you can not point at these text and establish a chain of custody to God's lips.
It is an article of faith to believe these translations dripped like honey straight from God's mouth into the ears of these protagonists.
It is an article of faith to pretend to know that the very forces that keep us ignorant today were not stymieing the human spark in Biblical times.
To pretend all this is knowable and science is to deceive yourself.
Any language in existence is a set of pigeon holes, words with finite meanings, that are interpreted differently even by contemporary people with agreed upon definitions.
To me the fallacy is that an ancient static, social and moral code can explain or even try to vaguely encapsulate a dynamic, infinite universe.
The Bible paints a limited, anthropomorphic and pedestrian look at the infinite and those who claim to 100% know the chain of custody of this screed all the way to God's mouth are deluding themselves.
You're entire response misses the point.
The authenticity/reliability of the NT documents (which I have 100% shown to be light years above any other book from early antiquity) is not an argument for whether or not the content in the Bible is true. All the information I provided does is prove that we can ascertain with a very high level of certainty (99.8%) that what we have in our hands today IS what the original authors wrote down - whether you believe that message came from God or not, or is true or not.
Do you see the nuance?
If you don't see the nuance, then maybe you should ask some clarifying questions to make sure you understand what is being said, before spouting off at the lip trying to wax eloquent.
By the way, your attempt at casting doubt on the ability of language to communicate meaning to another is a self refuting attempt. You say here:
You either believe the words you are using have some sort of common understanding and can communicate the intent of what you are trying to say to me, in which case your argument fails, or, what you are saying about the nature of language is true and no one can truly understand what it is you're trying to say because "words can be interpreted differently."
You can't have it both ways.
The facts that I have presented (and others) above in the previous comments show, without a doubt, that there is no other book from early antiquity that can claim the level of reliability/trustworthiness that the NT can claim.
Hands down.
I see your point and did not intuitively pick up that you were advocating for Christianity only to the point that someone wrote it down once.
That does not seem like a very profound statement. It carries somewhat less impact that God's words but I am certainly feeling you.
As to the words, "You either believe the words you are using have some sort of common understanding and can communicate...."
Dude, even the color "Red" does not have common meaning to someone who is color blind and we are talking about highly abstract concepts here. you were just posting about the limits of human understanding we are not talking about a chair or a table.
The word "God". It means something completely different to you than it does for me. In fact everyone in the world has some abstract notion of God that differs from everyone else. This is completely self evident.
Well, establishing the reliability of the New Testament is pretty profound in that we can be sure that the Bible we have in our hands today is, indeed, what the original authors wrote down. We can argue about whether what they wrote down is true or not, but we can't say that the Bible has been changed so much that it's impossible to determine what it originally said.
The only way you can observe that the word "God" means something different to you than it does to me proves that words can be understood properly, otherwise you wouldn't be able to conclude that our meanings are different!
Just because people disagree on definitions does not mean communication is impossible.
"Just because people disagree on definitions does not mean communication is impossible."
The definition of God not a table cloth.
You really need to take a heroic dose of LSD and then try and describe the experience to me, maybe then the concept that words are a crap form of communication would have more weight.
Why don't the Zen masters just tell you what the meaning of life is?
Communicating by words is like Neaderthal's monosyllabic grunts in the universal scheme of communications.
We are fucking peasant/prisoners on a backward shithole and don't know the first thing about how to deport ourselves in this universe.
In reality vast conceptual edifices can be instantly grokked without a word said and no translation issues. This is how God would talk to you.
Excellent. Thank you.
This and the Textus Receptus New Testament and Hebrew Masoretic Old Testaments were preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Churches during the 1260 years of darkness known as the Dark Ages.
Those are the manuscripts the Geneva Bible and King James are based on, not the edited Alexandrian manuscripts preserved by the Vatican.
This right here. This anon gets it.
You're not supposed to ask those kind of questions! Back in line, you!
I know you're saying this tongue in cheek, but people are more than welcome to ask this question.
Who controlled the narrative when it was written?
Hint: They had Jesus executed by the Romans.
The old, old guard.
John Wycliffe hand-wrote the first English translation from Latin in 1384. It was illegal for a Bible to be in the common man language. He had to flee for his life. More things like this happened. During dark ages only the church had bibles to control the narrative. I feel God protected it during that 1200 years as we have it today because nothing in it agrees with the tyranny they imposed for so long. Ten Commandments (written constitution) and Exodus 18:21 republic government. Just a pinch of my learning from the last year.
Old Testament also explicitly calls out child sacrifice
Yeah, you know.
This book is one of their most important pieces of propaganda and one of the seminal cuts or divisions in this propaganda is the separation of man and God and the shoe-horning of Jesus between man and God.
Jesus as the bridge to God is some very old and very damaging propaganda indeed.
It has you looking outside of yourself for what is within, begging for what is innate and what cannot be lost and holding steadfast to a static social and moral code in a dynamic and evolving universe.
God's will and the mind of God makes the Bible look like a pamphlet on Jewish sporting heroes.
You have a misunderstanding with the bridge concept. That is not what Christians have believed throughout the ages. Christians believe Jesus is God not a bridge.
How many times does the Bible say Jesus is the "son of God?" Why say this if he is not God's son but actually God?
Who did Jesus pray to on the cross then if he is God?
Who did he ask to alleviate his suffering if he is the omnipotent "all-father"
Why does the concept of the holy trinity make not a lick of sense as the Bible describes it? Why does it obfuscate instead of enlighten?
"That is not what Christians have believed throughout the ages."
Christians do not have a single working theory they all share. The curriculum of Christianity is not standardized and Christians believe a whole host of disparate things.
There are heaps of interpretations of the Trinity and not one has ever made any sense to me whatsoever within the framework of Christianity.
The Trinity is a Mystery. We can understand it in part, but not in it's entirety. There are good examples that explain the nature of the Trinity, but at some point all analogies break down. The Trinity is not a contradiction - that would be foolish. But it is a conundrum. However, it does explain why God is Love. Love can only occur in a relationship. A relationship is precisely what the Godhead is, from eternity past.
There are many explanations/concepts in Physics that I would say obfuscate instead of enlighten. But that doesn't make the concept false.
If God were infinite, then by definition, a Finite creature would not fully be able to comprehend Him. Furthermore, if one could fully understand God, then that would mean God isn't very Great.
"If God were infinite, then by definition, a Finite creature would not fully be able to comprehend Him."
I do love this concept.
Another way of saying it :- "Trying to understand the universe is like trying to measure the ocean with a tea spoon"
...and I recognize the truth in it.
This is the very type of Christianity I am more tolerant of. A Christianity that leaves room for mystery and awe (which is surprisingly close to love when truly experienced) and acknowledges that it does not have all the answers.
Correct. I would argue that, although Christianity doesn't have all the answers, it's does have the most among the World Religions.
I like what CS Lewis once opined:
― C.S. Lewis
The early church fathers were in agreement that Jesus was god and were killed for their belief. Perhaps you should take a second look at early writings of the church fathers.
"The early church fathers were in agreement that Jesus was god and were killed for their belief."
This sounds a hell of a lot like politics, violence and coercion changing the "prevailing wisdom" or dominant message of Christianity. This is exactly what I am maintaining has happened and why you can not trust your contemporary Bibles.
With that said I do say to all on this thread that I don't think your faith is in vain even if much about Christianity has been subverted. The human being is in contact with something at his core which is primordial and could be described as a vast reservoir of conscious love. People love to use labels and to write dogma about what really defies words, time, space and the intellect.
The fact is when you are at you darkest moment, when you are completely dumbfounded as to the answers to the problems in your life, when you feel more alone than you ever have and hope leaves you, something breaking inside, you find you are not alone. If you are lucky, this moment of absolute capitulation and misery can be followed instantly by the most joyous moments you have ever experienced in your life, the gaping maw of total loss separated by mere seconds from profound religious epiphany. An experience that in less that a second has already transformed you into someone who acts with true virtue.
This is part of the human experience, but it can only be experienced, not understood. This is what the Tao is referring to when it says "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name."
I believe that devout Christianity can lead to genuine spiritual experiences and I welcome Christians onto our side in this battle for truth. Ultimately though, the world's religions are frameworks or forms for that which has no form.
It will be a good time when humans are not so dominated by a subject/object based metaphysics and start to relearn and acknowledge the magic and mystery of this universe. No-one has all the answers.
I don’t have all the answers however both Q and Trump have pointed towards Christianity. I have spent countless hours trying to find the truth about what Christ preached while he walked the earth and have some agreement with you.
We agree that many modern bibles from all varieties of christianity have purposefully changed or even removed texts to push the modern day cultural narratives. The church is infiltrated just as the government and nearly all other large organizations of importance worldwide.
Thank you for explaining a little more about where you're coming from. I was beginning to think you were simply trolling.
No probs. You have made some good posts too.
This is demonstrably false. Historical Orthodox Christianity has always held as true:
That God exists
That He is Triune in Nature
That Jesus was God in the Flesh
That Jesus Died, was Buried, and Rose again from the Dead on the 3rd day
That the Bible is the Word of God
The majority of other doctrines (which comprise the differences between most Denominations) are secondary in nature to the above mentioned primary issues.
Historical Christianity does, indeed, have more than one working theory they all share
This is true, there a many elements that seem agreed apon. There are, however many elements that differ from denomination to denomination and region to region.
Due to the sheer amount of contradictory messages in the Bible peoples personal interpretations of the whole affair differ widely.
Can you give us some examples of the analogies you have encountered? Maybe I might be able to provide one you havent hear before and may shed some light on the issue for you?
You need to look into how 1st century, 2nd Temple Jews understood these words. What you are essentially doing is trying to understand a first century text while wearing 21st century glasses.
The Religious leaders of the day knew exactly what Jesus was claiming when he said things like this - which is why they picked up stones to kill him. Blasphemy - equating yourself with Yahweh - was punishably by death.
Almost every title or name that Yahweh attributed to himself in the Old Testament Jesus attributed to himself:
The Bread of Life
The Light of the World
The Great Shepard
I Am...
The Door
The Gate
The Way
The Truth
The Life
etc....
By attributing these titles to himself, Jesus claimed to be God on more than one occasion. The Jews and the religious leaders saw this. You can too. You just need to remove your 21st glasses and put on your 1st century Jewish glasses.
Jesus was actually quoting the first verse of Psalms 22 while on the Cross:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
~ Psalms22:1
When Jesus cries out this phrase, it is a reference to Psalm 22. This Psalm is held to be a messianic psalm and one where the author (King David) appears to be sharing in some vision of what will happen to the Lord’s Messiah. Jesus only shares the first verse of the Psalm, but because of the scriptural literacy of Jesus’ day, most people would have assumed he was referring to the entire Psalm. We can examine it and find tie-ins to the crucifixion narrative.
In Psalm 22:6-8, it says that David’s enemies are mocking him, specifically because he trusts in the Lord that the Lord would rescue him. Matthew 27:35-44 and Mark 15:29-32 both say that the people mocking Jesus claimed that if God loved him so much, then God should save him in that moment.
Psalm 22:18 states that the clothing of the author was divided up and the oppressors were “casting lots” (a game of chance) for the possession of it. Matthew 27:35 tells us that Jesus’ garments were divided up and the new owners were decided by casting lots. How amazing is it that across the approximately 1,000 years difference between King David’s vision—recorded in Psalm 22—and the recorded actions of the death of Jesus, should be so similar?
Historical Orthodox Christianity holds that Jesus was both 100% God and 100% Man. Fully Human, yet fully God. He had two natures - the Hypostatic Union. So Jesus, as a man, could experience pain and suffering, like us. He could also heal the blind, walk on water, control weather, bring dead people back to life (Lazarus), and resurrect from the Dead himself - as only God can do.
Historical Orthodox Christianity also hold to the teaching of the Trinity. God is a triune being with three persons in One nature. The 2nd person of the Trinity is speaking to the 1st person of the Trinity. There is similar language found in the Creation account (and the account of the Tower of Babel) pointing to this plurality within the Godhead:
~ Gen 1:26
Nice response, respect for the depth of your knowledge and the effort of your post.
Interesting list of names both Yahweh and Jesus used.
I would argue that you are painting a picture of a man and a religion already under political persecution by a regime that sought to maintain control over it's subjects.
This is the very definition of the organ that rewrites history and perpetrates Orwellian crimes against it's populace.
The fact is, like the Q drops that no longer have the entire thread attached or link to working videos Christianity has lost context and meaning over the centuries. It is not possible to know what was and was not changed either, particularly the New Testament for this very reason.
I would be willing to accept that maybe that human consciousness is comprised of three parts and the Holy Trinity is an attempt to describe them. These are just labels but for arguments sake lets say :- (the observer), the mind and the soul.
Whenever I have read Jesus words they always made more sense to me through the lens of Eastern Mysticism, Taoist or Zen philosophies. He sounded enlightened. He sounded like every single thing ever said sailed clean over everyone's heads not schooled in the fore mentioned philosophies.
It actually is possible to determine this. This is where the school of Textual Criticism comes into play.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempt to distort the Bible. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the inconsequential differences among the manuscripts.
Follow me for a minute here....
Pretend your Aunt Sally learns in a dream the recipe for an elixir that preserves her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs to the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days Aunt Sally is transformed into a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of “Sally’s Secret Sauce.”
Aunt Sally is so excited she sends detailed, hand-written instructions on how to make the sauce to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages–no photocopier or email). They, in turn, make copies for ten of their own friends.
All goes well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps, so the alarm goes out to the others in attempt to recover the original wording.
Sally rounds up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When she spreads them out on the kitchen table, she immediately notices some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, however, one has misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted (“mix then chop” instead of “chop then mix”) and one includes an ingredient none of the others has on its list.
Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she can. The misspellings are obvious errors. The single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then strike the extra ingredient, reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item in error than 25 people would accidentally omit it.
Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if Sally had enough copies.
This, in simplified form, is how scholars do “textual criticism,” an academic method used to test all documents of antiquity, not just religious texts. It’s not a haphazard effort based on hopes and guesses; it’s a careful linguistic process allowing an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work
Good post.
At this juncture, in the middle of the Great Awakening, right here on GA no less I am physically incapable of sharing in the sheer level of confidence you have in contemporary historical fact.
Un-Able.
When the thousands of copies of manuscripts (far more than for any other document of antiquity) are compared, we can know that the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.
Even if all the manuscripts in the whole world were to disappear, the New Testament is so comprehensively quoted by early church letters, essays and other extra-biblical sources that we could still reconstruct almost the entire testament.
I use GNV - Geneva 1599
Because it's one the Founding Fathers would have been familiar with, seeing how the Anglican-hating Protestant Pilgrims came here and it doesn't have all of Francis Bacon's bullshit in it like the original KJV from 1611.
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/1599-Geneva-Bible-GNV/
Same, I use this one. The fact it mentions unicorns makes it even better. I usually cross reference new translations with Geneva to see differences. Sometimes the are much different. Geneva is always better.
I do too, the Geneva Bible has such an interesting history. have found this site helpful;https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/the-“god”-of-arminianism-is-not-worshippable/
This guy’s name is Voddie Baucham. He’s an evangelist who came to our church a long time ago. He gave a sermon that is in my top three favorite sermons. This is that same sermon, but at another church and time. He completely answers your question. https://youtu.be/qceHdLlwQj4
It’s only 26 minutes. The best time you’ll spend today.
Great question. I asked the same thing a long time ago and i have the answer.
Like everything we have to build trust. When you put your trust a little bit in God based on the Word, you see it's right and learn to trust a little bit more in God. You keep doing this and after many years you realize that you can trust the Bible.
I know that even if the most evil people altered the Bible (which is not likely as the dead sea scrolls proved it hasn't changed in over 2000 years) there's still enough of God's word in it to help anyone to find, trust, and lean on God.
It's not just words put together by man, it's the living word of God. If you not only read your bible but study it, meditate on it you'll understand what I'm talking about. I used to ask this exact question a lot, back when I had doubts. All I can say is, dig in and see for yourself. It's a mind-blowing experience. The way scripture resurfaces in your minds eye right when you need it, how the meaning deepens as you journey through life living in faith instead of fear. Answering your question is like describing the sun to a well frog, you just don't understand till the word lives inside of you. You don't just read it, you plant it and it grows you.
I agree with this but I do t feel that way about the whole Bible yet. I also feel this way about things that aren’t the Bible. In my mind it’s just truth and your soul can sense what is truth and it blooms.
Hey I can't argue with that. You have to follow your path and use discernment along the way. I definitely have a long way to go but man I sure do like growing.
Absolutely. It’s my honest opinion that society attempts to suppress the spirit. That the big things that confuse the body are eating too much, caffeine, sugar, masturbation, and alcohol. That once you realize you actually can feel the spirit, and it’s a way to understand the natural laws as God intended Man to follow, your growth is manifold. Oh - and money distracts the spirit as well. Because the wealth of heaven is not something that can be bought but must be earned through positive works and is absolutely possible right now. Thanks for your wisdom and I pray your growth is limitless and eternal.
Oh wow that was well said I appreciate you!
IDK, King James Bible was ostensibly the first English translation, and I think they tried to stay true to the Latin version at that time, to finally give the people a version they could actually read.
Old testament may be able to be researched against Hebrew versions, but new testament may have been dickied around with, by the transcribing monks.
Try reading several versions?
You can mostly trust the new testament, as it was written in Greek and can easily be referred to and compared with King James and other Eng translations.
Old Testament however has quite a few inaccuracies of Hebrew words with English translations that can be completely misleading in its intended meaning. Especially in Genesis where a few key mis-translations can really alter the entire conceptual basis of the writings. There's a lot of resources out there if you're looking to dive deeper. Might be tougher now on the modern web, but focus in on old hebrew and the old testament to get started.
Fair warning though: always be prepared for some dogmatic fundamentalists to lash out with pure hatred and acidic vitriol when even attempting to discuss this topic with christians in America.
See my posts.
I've noticed something about this movement: everything is corrupted except for their precious religion. All the truth relevant to this world means nothing when you're blatantly blind to the truth concerning the Lord. That's a guaranteed L.
Unless you are blind to how subverted everything is you should know that you absolutely cannot trust the Bibles you are holding.
One of them even has King James' name on it.
It might as well have a pentagram and a goat's head on it.
I am hoping for an origin story more like Prometheus and less like Genesis because it would be the best thing that ever happened up to that point in the history of man.
Just think of all the motherfuckers who think they know how everything will play out to the point where they act like the Bible has transferred to them direct knowledge of the mind of God. Think how suddenly they would all become silent. It would be music to my ears and hear's to hoping this strange possibility pans the fuck out.
Maybe then we could have some authentic, practical spiritual knowledge in the main stream instead of the archaic banter that passes for spirituality at the moment.
Godspeed !....though, just not Yahweh/Jehovah/Muhammed or some such deep state anthropomorphism.
Having read almost all of your posts on this topic, it sounds as if you derive your Theology from a mix of Zeitgeist and Ancient Aliens and New Atheism? I mean, you're all over the place! lol.
KEK. That's classic because probably looks like that in part. (apart from the atheist)
It's not true, but that is classic. Georgie
lol
This is a good book to read on the subject.
The Shining Ones
https://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/shining.php
My husband, who I respect the most in the world recommends:
THE HOLY BIBLE - DOUAY- RHEIMS VERSION
He owns many versions, including King James. He has talked to many based priests about this too, and that's what they recommended.
That's the Jesuit version. It's a translation from the Vatican Latin version based on the Alexandrian texts.
Oy vey. Just believe what it says about the chosen people and hand over your money, your economy, and your future.
At the minimum, centuries after Jesus' death, powerful worldly men ("church leaders") repeatedly got together (e.g. at the first seven ecumenical councils) to decide which arbitrary selection of the many gospels circulating at the time were to their liking*, thus creating the Bible and Church we've known ever since. In the process throwing away the gospels that many Christians at the time held sacred, suddenly branding them "apocryphal."
Everything the Bible has been since then has been based on that early process of editing out what they didn't like.
* along with a bunch of other political stuff
The wages of sin is death, so God gave the death to his son so we may have eternal life and the cabal or elite came up with that why? How does it benefit them? I 1000% believe my bible it is amazing when God opens your eyes to the word.
If I have a question about any particular passage, I refer to "Young's Literal Translation" for varying interpretations. You have to remember that EVERY version is an INTERPRETATION, as a lot of passages in their original script could have had multiple meanings. I find that the Old KJV is the closest, while NIV should be banned..
Trust yourself and you'll find every answer you're looking for.
Fuck yeah !
Looking for answers in ancient texts that have done unknown numbers of iterations of "Chinese whispers" through multiple languages across a span of some time and with many authors as opposed to looking within is retarded and a product of deep state indoctrination.
I'm beginning to think your just trolling in here.
Me so horny GI !
Me love you long time !
lol
Yeah, sorry I was reply to some comments out of order so there is no need to repeat yourself, like about the New Testament.
We can't
10 Commandments is all God asked of humanity. It's all we need.
Lamsa from peshitta text - is least interfered with from Greek and Latin sources
This exact concept popped into my head just yesterday. Nice topic!
Book of Enoch was removed
Holy spirit guides you. Listen and you will know what is valid and what is bs. Works for me
A better question might be: How do we know we can trust the preachers, pastors, priests, and teachers that tell us what the bible says?
More:
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/book-of-luke-corrupted-deathbed-conversion-tale.htm
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/book-of-matthew-corrupted.htm
What about living your life Christ-like would cause you to think its a bad thing?
Sure religion can be bad. Any institution is corruptable.
Trust your relationship with Christ. Having a personal relationship with God is where its at. Pray often. Pray for guidance and pray for strength. Put on the full armor of god and set about going through the doors he opens in front of you.
This man explains it well. Oh, KJV 1611, do your research, discern. The Bible Is... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE8tDhoSOF4
Found this on the subject:
https://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/is-king-james-version-perfect-word-of-god.htm