Disproving the Bible

[sojourner]

I've never heard of any challenge to the validity of either the Latin Vulgate Bible or the Douay-Rheims translation. If there are such things, tell me about them.

I didn't say they weren't valid. I said that there are more reliable translations. The Douay-Rheims and Vulgate are both honorable, and I've nothing against them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes.

Yep.

There are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 Christian denominations, depending on how you count all the subdivisions. That leaves us with the one Church that the infallible Christ established among the many thousands of spin-offs established by fallible humans from around the year 1500 onward to this very day. They all claim to be right, but only one of them can be. So would it be the one that Jesus called "my Church," or would it be one of those that rejects it?

Or they could all be wrong.

I've never spoken to two Christians who viewed their religion in the exact same way. I have a feeling that whichever one that Jesus supposedly called "his church" is as open to interpretation as the rest of it apparently is.

It strikes me as odd that in view of the Bible being infallible that we could barely find 2 people who interpret it in the exact same way. You'd think an infallible god would be able to communicate an infallible book in a way that is not open to thousands of different interpretations.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

There's not much evidence that Jesus was able to read and write, or that he could read and write Greek. Certainly, if that was the case, he managed to fail to record his own message. So I have no idea how you would discern that Jesus used the Septuagint, apart from the much later narratives of the gospels relying on it (in an often humorous way that amuses Jews to no end).

Jesus was entirely literate, which is evident in scripture, and he certainly spoke Greek. Everyone living in the region spoke Greek at that time along with whatever their first language might have been. Greek had become the dominant language following the conquests of Alexander the Great and the spread of Greek culture into Asia Minor, the Near East, and North Africa. As Hellenistic culture became more pervasive, more and more Jews adopted Greek as the international language and Jews, especially those living outside the Holy Land, became less fluent in Hebrew.

By the year 250 B.C., the Hebrew texts had been translated into Greek for this reason, with some newer books added to make up the Septuagint. By the time Jesus was born, Greek was the dominant language even in the Holy Land, and the Septuagint was the bible in use by Jews there as everywhere else. Hebrew was only being used for liturgical purposes. This is also why the New Testament books were all written in Greek.

In addition to Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, Jesus would surely have spoken Latin because he engaged with Romans. Actually, we can be certain that he spoke any language he needed because there is no human language unknown to God.

Jesus changed the world forever in a three-year ministry without writing a book. And since most of the common people were illiterate at that time, he reached many more through interacting, preaching, and oral teaching than he would have by writing, so it would not have been as effective. He didn't need to write books anyway. He gave his authority to the apostles and directed them to "teach all nations" what he had taught them. He gave the continued teaching and writing responsibilities to members of his Church.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

I've never spoken to two Christians who viewed their religion in the exact same way. I have a feeling that whichever one that Jesus supposedly called "his church" is as open to interpretation as the rest of it apparently is.

It's not open to interpretation because it's verified both scriptually and historically, not to mention by a direct and unbroken succession of bishops through hands-on ordination beginning with the apostles and continuing today. There was only one Christian Church for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That one is "his Church."

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not open to interpretation because it's verified both scriptually and historically, not to mention by a direct and unbroken succession of bishops through hands-on ordination beginning with the apostles and continuing today. There was only one Christian Church for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That one is "his Church."

The fact of the matter is that it is open to interpretation. Hence the thousands of different Christian denominations that exist in the world, both past and present.

You just happen to think the interpretation you follow is the right one. I bet I could find a bunch of Catholics that disagree with you about something in that "infallible" Bible. Take a look around this forum.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus was entirely literate,

We don't know that

which is evident in scripture

No it is factually not.

and he certainly spoke Greek

We don't know that, there is no reason to think he did.

It's not open to interpretation because it's verified both scriptually and historically

Factually not true.


Sir its obvious you don't have and education on these topics, and your arguing with people who are highly educated on these topics, including a few that teach the topic.

I can recommend a few links if you would like that can teach you the real history not in dispute if you would like to learn, or you can keep making historical errors one after the other like your currently engaged in.

 

[outhouse]

There was only one Christian Church for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That one is "his Church."

You have no idea what really happened in the evolution of what would become Christianity. There was never one true church or "his church".

by a direct and unbroken succession of bishops through hands-on ordination beginning with the apostles and continuing today

His real followers never wrote a single word. They were illiterate fishermen who spoke Aramaic and lived lives below that of common peasants.

Yes some bishops had hands on ordination to the point of editing some text. Our current text is not the original text, and the text has been copied so many times we don't know what the original version even was.

Now it did no change much, but many parts origi9nally were compiled previous traditions both oral and written.



Its sounds like no matter how truthful or patient we are your not going to listen to what academia has to offer, but that doesn't mean we wont correct your errors here.

 

[outhouse]

As Hellenistic culture became more pervasive, more and more Jews adopted Greek as the international language and Jews, especially those living outside the Holy Land, became less fluent in Hebrew.

This is not entirely correct but your right Hellenism did permeate much of the geographic region, but many factually did resist and it did not permeate as much as you stated.

many Aramaic Jews did not embrace Hellenism, it snot up for debate.

By the year 250 B.C., the Hebrew texts had been translated into Greek for this reason

False. It was translated into Koine because many different cultures were starting to embrace aspects of monotheism in Judaism. NOT because there was a widespread conversion.

Greek was the dominant language even in the Holy Land,

No it was not, Aramaic was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

the day-to-day language of Yehud Medinata and of Judaea (539 BC – 70 AD), the language that Jesus probably used the most

It is generally believed by Christian scholars that in the 1st century CE, Jews in Judaea primarily spoke Aramaic with a decreasing number using Hebrew as a native language.

the Septuagint was the bible in use by Jews there as everywhere else

No it is not, your wrong.

Your making a critical error in thinking Judaism was only one culture during Jesus time.

This is also why the New Testament books were all written in Greek.

The books were written in Koine because they were ALL written in the Diaspora far removed from Israel and Jesus life in Hellenistic communities that had long been Proselytes to Judaism but would never fully convert.

 

[sojourner]

It's not open to interpretation because it's verified both scriptually and historically, not to mention by a direct and unbroken succession of bishops through hands-on ordination beginning with the apostles and continuing today. There was only one Christian Church for the first 1500 years of Christianity. That one is "his Church."

That's not quite true. You're forgetting that the church was abysmally split between East and West long before the Great Schism of 1054.

 

[Unification]

Point 1

If Yahweh demands that the punishment for Sin is Damnation/Eternal Death then why did he have to send himself in the form of a man to die in order to change forgive his believers?

Why could he not have said that all of those who follow the Jewish faith are now forgiven?

My points are not to argue, but to reason, and help make you aware that it's the common, mainstream, dogmatic, doctrine, and theology of the interpretations that you oppose.

Punishment for sin(missing the mark of truth) is death(separation of conscious and subconscious minds into duality) for eternity(an age, period of time.)

Form of a man, "God" is represented in three forms, not three persons. Consciousness, matter, and energy.

A "man" or "manchild" in scripture is a "thought." That resides within us, in our conscious brain and physical body made of matter in forms of energy.

In the form of conscious thought, sent into the world(subconscious), in earth(physical brain made of matter) a seed of self awareness is revealed, revealing what the mind needs to die to.

 

[Unification]

Point 2

If evil exist so that Yahweh could give humans free-will, and in heaven there is no evil, then that means there is no free-will in heaven.

If the absence of free-will is a good thing as heaven is clearly made out to be, then why would he make free-will in the first place.

Heaven is a state of conscious. We either have a mind of peace and bliss(no evil) or are in a conscious state of hell(evil.)

 

[outhouse]

Heaven is a state of conscious

Only in some theist.

Not for everyone or even all theist.

 

[Unification]

Point 3

In the new testament at Mathew 5:17, Jesus declares that he is not going to destroy the laws of the old testament but to fulfill them.

Later in in the bible Jesus is asked if they should stone an adulterating woman, he asks for the first without sin to throw the first stone, clearly implying that no one should do this but Yahweh.

However the old testament law clearly states to stone adulterating woman and he says not to do so, therefore he did destroy the old laws.

Therefore either the Bible has false information in it, Jesus was a liar, or both.

Either way this proves that the bible is fallible.

Throwing stones is judging or condescending on someone.

The adulterous woman(mind) is adulterous because it is cheating on truth with lies.

 

[Unification]

In John 14:6 Jesus states that you can only go to the Father through him, therefore if you do not go to the father you go to Sheol/Sulfur Lake (whichever one you choose to believe from scripture).

Then why did he create evil? If it was not for free-will then he just unleashed evil on this earth becuase he likes to see people suffer. Making him evil.

Congratulations either Yahweh created evil becuase he wanted to and that means that their is an Omnipotent Evil Yahweh. Or that the entire religion is wrong.

Take your pick.

One can only reach pure consciousness by being in truth, and within the physical body and brain made of matter and blood. Within themselves. Not by looking "out there."

 

[Unification]

Only in some theist.

Not for everyone or even all theist.

True.

If you would choose, which makes more objective and rational sense?

 

[Unification]

One can only reach pure consciousness by being in truth, and within the physical body and brain made of matter and blood. Within themselves. Not by looking "out there."

Too much sulfur in the brain and body could never be a positive thing, cognitively or physically.

 

[Neo Deist]

Which ones?

For starters...

The Garden of Eden: satellites have mapped every inch of the earth. I have yet to see a picture of the infamous garden with an angel barring the way with a flaming sword.

Adam & Eve: genetically, it is impossible for all of us to have come from a single pair of humans. The estimate is around 10,000 unique humans would be needed to account for all of the diversity in the human race. And it sure as heck did not happen just 6,000 years ago.

Noah's Ark: there was not a global flood. Ken Ham's explanation is not "science." Ever wonder why/how all the marsupials wound up in Australia? How is it that western civilizations did not die off in that flood? There is evidence of maize (corn) farming dating back to 5,100 BCE.

The Exodus: not a shred of evidence exists for the event, period. Archaeologists, scientists, etc. have pretty much exhausted their efforts on this for centuries. It has been fruitless. Not to mention any English translation that says "Red Sea" is wrong...it is the Sea of Reeds (a marshland).

Jonah: so a man was thrown into the sea which calmed the storm (voodoo, magic???), swallowed by a big fish, lived in its belly for 3 days, was not harmed by stomach acid, did not need air to breathe, and was eventually puked back up onto land. Right...

Chew on those for a while.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here I will submit points to try to disprove the infallibility of the Bible primarily used by Christianity and it's contents, and I would like to see if my points can be countered.

Infallibility cannot be disproven. That's what infallibility means.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Everyone living in the region spoke Greek at that time along with whatever their first language might have been.

This isn't at all true.

Greek had become the dominant language following the conquests of Alexander the Great and the spread of Greek culture into Asia Minor, the Near East, and North Africa. As Hellenistic culture became more pervasive, more and more Jews adopted Greek as the international language and Jews, especially those living outside the Holy Land, became less fluent in Hebrew.

This is inaccurate, but not as wholly false as the first claim.

This is also why the New Testament books were all written in Greek.

So why the Aramaic transliterations?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This isn't at all true.

This is inaccurate, but not as wholly false as the first claim.


So why the Aramaic transliterations?

Because the reader / hearer did not understand Aramaic. All of the Aramaic in the NT is translated - and I believe transliterated (Greek letters for Aramic words).