Disproving the Bible

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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).

It was something of a rhetorical question. The point was that if everybody (including Jesus) spoke Greek, why do we find Aramaic transliterations and Semiticisms (this too is a rhetorical question; I don't agree with Casey on many points, but in his two SNTS monographs on the underlying Aramaic of Mark and Q, I think he sufficiently demonstrates that clearly Aramaic was an integral, fundamental, and essential component of the early Jesus tradition). I also find Emanuel Tov's work to be quite solid. I have also found that the scholarship has tipped in favor of perspectives/views such as Chancey's:
Chancey, M. A. (2002). The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Vol. 118). Cambridge University Press.

Not that you need to or haven't already, but see also e.g.,
Vonder Bruegge, J. M. (2011). Mapping Galilee: Josephus, Luke, and John in Light of Critical Geography. (Yale University, Doctoral Dissertation).
Chancey, M. A. (2005). Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 134).
Freyne, S. (1980). Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 BCE to 135 CE: A study of 2nd Temple Judaism (No. 5). M. Glazier.
Grabbe, L. L. (Ed.). (2001). Did Moses speak Attic?: Jewish historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series No. 317). Sheffield Academic Press.
Johnson, L. T. (2009). Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. Yale University Press.
Kovelman, A. (2005). Between Alexandria And Jerusalem: The Dynamic of Jewish And Hellenistic Culture (The Brill Reference Library of Judaism). Brill.
Root, B. W. (2009). From Antipas to Agrippa II: Galilee in the first-century CE. (UCLA Doctoral Dissertation)
Savage, C. E. (2007). Et-Tell (Bethsaida): A Study of the First Century CE in the Galilee. (Doctoral Dissertation).
van der Horst, P. W. (2006). Jews and Christians in their Graeco-Roman context: Selected Essays on Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity. Mohr Siebeck.
Young, I. (2003). Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (JSOT Supplement No. 369). T&T Clark

etc..

I have found that the archaeological studies and the scholarship on these (among other things) has made positions that are exemplified in popular literature by Crossan & Mack (among many others) obsolete.

 

[Hawkins]

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.

As predicted by Genesis, that is the Tree of Knowledge, humans like you will finally lose their lives for relying on their limited intelligence.

God can foresee what would happen in the future heaven, He will only bring those who will not sin into the future heaven.

 

[Hawkins]

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?

If the Law says so then it is so. If in Law of God says that the self-sacrifice of God in a form can save humans then it is so.

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

What's the point of Law if someone can say at will that "you are forgiven"? If someone can pardon at will it simply means it's realm of lawlessness. God needs self-sacrifice to justify sin from a legal point of view.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

If the Law says so then it is so. If in Law of God says that the self-sacrifice of God in a form can save humans then it is so.



What's the point of Law if someone can say at will that "you are forgiven"? If someone can pardon at will it simply means it's realm of lawlessness. God needs self-sacrifice to justify sin from a legal point of view.

But he does pardon, therfore the law has no meaning.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

As predicted by Genesis, that is the Tree of Knowledge, humans like you will finally lose their lives for relying on their limited intelligence.

God can foresee what would happen in the future heaven, He will only bring those who will not sin into the future heaven.

1: According to the Bible all fall short of the glory of God (so see you in Hell)

2: If humans have limited intelligence then guess who made us that way if the Bible is true

3: I do believe life is a search for self improvement, much of that improves intelligence. You seem to have just said I choose to beilive this nonsense, defend it becuase it gives me comfort and stagnate my soul in stupidity.

 

[Seeker of Ka]

point 1. because the punishment for sin is death, then someone had to die for our sins. by having the only man with out sin be the one to die then that pays the price for every man's sin.

If that rule exist then an omnipotent being could easily change it.

 

[leibowde84]

point 1. because the punishment for sin is death, then someone had to die for our sins. by having the only man with out sin be the one to die then that pays the price for every man's sin.

I'm not sure this makes sense. Why would the death of a man without sin help those with sin?

 

[outhouse]

, I think he sufficiently demonstrates that clearly Aramaic was an integral, fundamental, and essential component of the early Jesus tradition).

And I find his statement guessing more then anything else, and stating the obvious.

He sufficiently demonstrates that clearly Aramaic was in use and used in Jesus traditions. Earliest or origin would be a guess.

What I personally see is Hellenism adopting and plagiarizing Aramaic and Hebrew customs in the Diaspora. I see returning Hellenist coming to Passover after the Martyrdom and gathering different traditions from these multi cultural people's religious customs.

I agree we did have Aramaic origins, here. But we cannot trace these traditions to Galilee or even separate what was Johns teachings or Jesus teachings actually were, or just those learned from Aramaic people at Passover decades after the movement started, and after Paul.


Our earliest traditions are Koine in nature, and I truly wish we could peak into the Aramaic early Galilean movement, but we cannot attribute anything sadly with any certainty what so ever.

I wish I could place Aramaic before Koine, but in my heart I know were are getting but a sliver of the picture of Galilean Aramaic apocalyptic Judaism that was in that geographic region before John learned it and taught it to Jesus.

I think there's much more to it then simply removing obvious plagiarized Koine Judaism from the gospel text, and then guessing the remaining Aramaic transliterations go back to a single Aramaic man.


The gospel of mark was a compilation and he explains Jewish traditions and translates Aramaic terms for Hellenist in the Diaspora. But there is little beyond explaining multi cultural traditions, of who or what was first here, or many questions that plague todays studies would be answered.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It was something of a rhetorical question. The point was that if everybody (including Jesus) spoke Greek, why do we find Aramaic transliterations and Semiticisms (this too is a rhetorical question; I don't agree with Casey on many points, but in his two SNTS monographs on the underlying Aramaic of Mark and Q, I think he sufficiently demonstrates that clearly Aramaic was an integral, fundamental, and essential component of the early Jesus tradition). I also find Emanuel Tov's work to be quite solid. I have also found that the scholarship has tipped in favor of perspectives/views such as Chancey's:
Chancey, M. A. (2002). The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Vol. 118). Cambridge University Press.

Not that you need to or haven't already, but see also e.g.,
Vonder Bruegge, J. M. (2011). Mapping Galilee: Josephus, Luke, and John in Light of Critical Geography. (Yale University, Doctoral Dissertation).
Chancey, M. A. (2005). Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 134).
Freyne, S. (1980). Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 BCE to 135 CE: A study of 2nd Temple Judaism (No. 5). M. Glazier.
Grabbe, L. L. (Ed.). (2001). Did Moses speak Attic?: Jewish historiography and Scripture in the Hellenistic Period (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series No. 317). Sheffield Academic Press.
Johnson, L. T. (2009). Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity. Yale University Press.
Kovelman, A. (2005). Between Alexandria And Jerusalem: The Dynamic of Jewish And Hellenistic Culture (The Brill Reference Library of Judaism). Brill.
Root, B. W. (2009). From Antipas to Agrippa II: Galilee in the first-century CE. (UCLA Doctoral Dissertation)
Savage, C. E. (2007). Et-Tell (Bethsaida): A Study of the First Century CE in the Galilee. (Doctoral Dissertation).
van der Horst, P. W. (2006). Jews and Christians in their Graeco-Roman context: Selected Essays on Early Judaism, Samaritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity. Mohr Siebeck.
Young, I. (2003). Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and Typology (JSOT Supplement No. 369). T&T Clark

etc..

I have found that the archaeological studies and the scholarship on these (among other things) has made positions that are exemplified in popular literature by Crossan & Mack (among many others) obsolete.

We might be two ships passing in the night on this issue. Please do pardon me if it's my fault - I am joining the conversation late - and perhaps I'm not speaking directly to you but answering the question for the more general reader...

I don't think that the original readers of the NT were Aramaic readers/speakers. Otherwise it would have been written in Aramaic -- to me that's not a difficult argument to make.

Then there's the question - why were Aramaic transliterations and Semiticisms? Have you considered that it was the author who employed earlier traditions from a different cultural/linguistic heritage (i.e., he knew Aramaic sayings of Jesus, etc) from the audience (who knew only Greek)?

 

[outhouse]

Chancey, M. A. (2002). The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Vol. 118). Cambridge University Press.

And he makes excellent point we have both gone over for years. I do agree with most.

You definitely helped me understand the Hellenistic Judaism in Sepphoris. Until socioeconomic studies are settled and they are still all over the board here, we really are left with more questions then answers.

One thing is certain, the Hellenistic city of Sepphoris would have been primarily been a Koine speaking city during this time, with plenty of Aramaic being used as it was Antipas headquarters.

While Nazareth would have been primarily Aramaic, is such a little poor hovel.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And I find his statement guessing more then anything else, and stating the obvious.

He sufficiently demonstrates that clearly Aramaic was in use and used in Jesus traditions. Earliest or origin would be a guess.

What I personally see is Hellenism adopting and plagiarizing Aramaic and Hebrew customs in the Diaspora. I see returning Hellenist coming to Passover after the Martyrdom and gathering different traditions from these multi cultural people's religious customs.

I agree we did have Aramaic origins, here. But we cannot trace these traditions to Galilee or even separate what was Johns teachings or Jesus teachings actually were, or just those learned from Aramaic people at Passover decades after the movement started, and after Paul.


Our earliest traditions are Koine in nature, and I truly wish we could peak into the Aramaic early Galilean movement, but we cannot attribute anything sadly with any certainty what so ever.

I wish I could place Aramaic before Koine, but in my heart I know were are getting but a sliver of the picture of Galilean Aramaic apocalyptic Judaism that was in that geographic region before John learned it and taught it to Jesus.

I think there's much more to it then simply removing obvious plagiarized Koine Judaism from the gospel text, and then guessing the remaining Aramaic transliterations go back to a single Aramaic man.


The gospel of mark was a compilation and he explains Jewish traditions and translates Aramaic terms for Hellenist in the Diaspora. But there is little beyond explaining multi cultural traditions, of who or what was first here, or many questions that plague todays studies would be answered.

Well done, my friend!

 

[outhouse]

Well done, my friend!

How often do we get to discuss the details and state of scholarship in these areas?

I think your both extremely valuable to my research, and both further my knowledge.


If we all agreed I'd learn less

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I wish I could place Aramaic before Koine, but in my heart I know were are getting but a sliver of the picture of Galilean Aramaic apocalyptic Judaism that was in that geographic region before John learned it and taught it to Jesus.

I agree - but I would say 'less than a sliver.'

First, there cannot be more than 20 Aramaic words in the NT (as a guess, I did not confirm this) -- and half of those words are proper nouns (titles, names, places, etc) that don't really count in my opinion.

Second, and this is most important, the Gospels were not written for or by Galileans. We're dealing with a fictive context that addresses foreign issues and concerns.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I hope I'm not stating the obvious, but in reconstructing early Galilean traditions - be they Jewish or Christian, the NT isn't all that valuable. We are looking through eyes that - honestly - were not as interested in that topic as we are.

 

[Marllo111]

Hallo everybody. I am a Muslim who happened to be passing through and saw your forum and question. Let me try to answer your question and I assure you I mean no insult to anyone and I respect everyone on this forum who had shared their answers and I am just looking for a civilized adult conversation from civilized Christian brothers and sisters. In Islam we believe in the original bible that was sent down to Jesus and we believe in one God and in all the messenger which Christians believe in including Jesus and that he is one of the mightiest messengers sent to humanity and without believing in him we are not accepted as Muslims. He is mentioned 25 times in the Quran and there is a chapter in our Quran called Mary. The Quran tells us that all the messengers are from the one God and all the holly books as well. We also know that the original bible was sent down in Aramaic and that it was first written down in Konie Greek few decades later and then translated to the many languages of today. There are more than 24 thousand original biblical scriptures found till today and they are all different in content from each other. In the Quran it is told to us that the mission of preserving the bible was appointed to human being and they had failed to preserve it hence today there are so many different bibles and Christian faiths as well. Eventually because God was not going to leave the human race wandering and lost without a detailed preserved final scripture he sent down his last and final messenger with a last and final revelation which in it he promised to preserve the scripture himself and not leave it to us. We have only one copy of the holly Quran in the Arabic language (a living language) and it has not been changed since 1436 years now although many have tried to change it but all trials to do that had failed so far. In the Quran God says that he has given us the answer to everything in details and this was mentioned in the bible as well when Jesus said onto his disciples that he has yet many things to say unto them but you cannot bear them now and that when the comforter comes he will explain all in detail and that he will not speak of himself and that he shall glorify me (Jesus). Prophet Muhammad did all that and in the Quran we have the answer to everything we need and every problem. This is why you have so many contradictions in the bible because it was manipulated by Christian scholars and this is what they say they did and not my story. For example you can find in the beginning of the Standard revised version of the bible in the introduction that it says that King James bible (which was the main bible for many for so many years) had great errors and that it had to be revised and corrected and that this was done by 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence. The current bible in general contains some of Gods words, Jesus' words and narrators' as well all in one. The Quran is supposed to be Gods words only. We have a separate book for the sayings of the prophet validated in a very scientific way (to make sure he said them) and another book for the narrations by his disciples. Quran was memorized and written down during the prophet's life while the bible was written down in few decades with a different language than the one it was already revealed in. As we all know translations are personal efforts and some meaning might be lost during the process. In my trip to finding if Islam was a true faith or not (which took me several years as well as looking into the bible as well and finding the many contradictions and the confessions of the Christian scholars that they have removed that and added this whether chapter or words while the Quran was one and only one all over the world in Arabic) after I tested the Quran and tried hard to find mistakes and contradiction instead I found lots and lots of undeniable scientific facts that could have never been known to the illiterate messenger who lived in the desert 1436 years ago like the big bang theory, the constant expansion of the universe, that the beginning the universe was in smoke after the big bang, that Iron was sent down to earth in meteors because it was not from this planet (earth capability and core cannot manufacture Iron) and that the seas do not actually mix and that there is a membrane between any 2 water bodies whether a sea and another sea, ocean or river and how the embryo is formed in exact detail also that God has saved the body of the pharaoh of Moses after his drowning to keep it as a sign for everyone else and that this was there in the Quran more than 1436 years ago and the body was only found few decades ago and many many other signs that shows it is a true revelation and that this man could not have know these fact by himself. On the point of the Pharaoh's body being found a Prof. of Surgery named Maurice Bouchille has converted to Islam and written one of the very famous books called "The bible, the Quran and Science" which took him 10 years to write in which there are many undeniable facts that prove the divine revelation of the Quran. Sorry for the long introduction about Islam and the Quran but it is where I will get the answer for your question. In Islam no one has to bear anybody else's sin. You and only you are accountable for what you do and you will face judgment according to what you do here in this life and according to what was requested by God from us through his prophets. In Islam also we know that we were all asked if we want to participate in this earthly test or not before hand in a previous life and those who agreed were sent here in return for getting into heaven, the level in heaven depends and is according to our deeds here. The stronger your faith and knowledge about God and his commandment and the amount of deeds will decide for you at the end provided God's mercy. We have free will here to be able to chose our actions and kind of faith. In heaven as well there is free will but the urge and the tendency to do useless things is not there anymore. In heaven you can do whatever you wish but God takes away hate and the desire to sin and puts instead the ability to chose from many unimaginable pleasures. He promises pleasure that we cannot imagine in our human form or understand with these fleshy minds, things if we see know we would not comprehend but to make the image closer to our minds he mentions that we will have all we wish for from lands, houses, places besides all kinds of foods, fruits, Siren wives, rivers of honey milk and wine but different in taste and effect from that which we get in this world. Your reward again depends on your deeds here. It is said that if we taste win here we can never touch it in heaven except if we repent. I hope I have answered your question as much as I could according to my faith.

 

[outhouse]

I agree - but I would say 'less than a sliver.'

First, there cannot be more than 20 Aramaic words in the NT (as a guess, I did not confirm this) -- and half of those words are proper nouns (titles, names, places, etc) that don't really count in my opinion.

Second, and this is most important, the Gospels were not written for or by Galileans. We're dealing with a fictive context that addresses foreign issues and concerns.

Agreed. I knew the Aramaic transliterations were far and few between, and full well understand the rhetorical prose as the unknown authors built a pseudo history that matched their theological motives.

I see the gospels as a product of the Temple fall as Jews were turned into villains and rebels which accelerated the divorce of Hellenistic Judaism. Early Hellenistic sect members following these new traditions were in a habit of going to Passover ever year, and sharing the traditions with others every year, and the theology/mythology;/dogma/legends grew every year.

With the temple down, and no more large multi cultural religious gatherings, these early sects found it important to compile the traditions before they were lost. So instead of seeing any center for the religion in any one geographic location, we see the movement starting all over the Diaspora in multiple hotspots of activity.

Passover was responsible for the rapid dispersion of the movement as Hellenist returned home from Passover with new tales of the martyrdom. And for me it was responsible for any Aramaic and Hebrew transliterations as well with the loss of the temple, a need for preserving multiple traditions in use.

 

[outhouse]

I hope I'm not stating the obvious, but in reconstructing early Galilean traditions - be they Jewish or Christian, the NT isn't all that valuable. We are looking through eyes that - honestly - were not as interested in that topic as we are.

Agreed.

Look at how little we actually know about Zealots and their traditions, since we only have a Hellenistic lens of much of Judaism during this periods history.


I think we all wish we had real Aramaic or even Hebrew writings from this exact period.

 

[outhouse]

The Quran is supposed to be Gods words only.

Welcome to the forum.

Your not really being a part of the discussion, your simply proselytizing your faith which has no historical credibility at all.

Your book is not historical or valuable in any way to the discussion of disproving the bible.

Not a single credible historian or scholar in the whole world uses the Koran as a credible historical source when dealing with biblical history, and most view it simply as plagiarizing the earlier biblical text you denounce as not credible. "wiki"

If you would like to start a thread of your own on the historical value of the Koran please do so in your own thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Agreed. I knew the Aramaic transliterations were far and few between, and full well understand the rhetorical prose as the unknown authors built a pseudo history that matched their theological motives.

It's not just theological motives, but also economic, cultural, geographic, and a host of other contexts that shaped how the original contexts were changed to fit the contemporary needs of both the author and audience.

 

[outhouse]

It's not just theological motives, but also economic, cultural, geographic, and a host of other contexts that shaped how the original contexts were changed to fit the contemporary needs of both the author and audience.

Agreed.

Everything was centered around the Pater Familias, not any church. Just like your work showing the importance of women early on, buried in the text, but still visible for the trained eye.