The literal & infallible word of God

[SassDiva2000]

You know, kadzbiz, I wasn't even talking to you. I was only commenting on angellous's post and was, thus, talking to him. So if you got offended, it was your own fault.

...And they show the original doctrines and principles of the church by those that were still alive when Christ was alive, validating the religion as not being based on miraculous claims but on testimony (which is pretty hard to argue with, unless you think that a bunch of crazy people pulled the wool over the eyes of hundreds of thousands of eye-witnesses).

A couple of things. One, there was no "Christian" church when Christ was alive so I have assume that you mean the period immediately following his death comprising the first century. Moreover, those who comprised the first century Christian church believed all kinds of things about God, Jesus, salvation and the like that hardly resemble the mainstream doctrines and beliefs held by the majority of Christians today.

Your argument concerning the supposed internal consistency of the Bible also does nothing to support your claims. There were not just FOUR gospels. There were four (out of many) that made it into the New Testament. That there is any consistency between them is hardly surprising.

 

[Somkid]

In fact the bible has no historical value what so ever beginning with the error of the earth only being 6,000 years old thus we do not use the bible for any kind of historical reference. The bible is filled with errors and contradictions honestly its not even a good read as fiction.

 

[FFH]

Nobody does. The RLDS Church obtained its copyright in 1867. Under copyright law in effect at the time, the copyright would have expired in 1881 unless it was renewed, in which case it would have expired in 1895. That means the Inspired Version has been in the public domain for at least 112 years. The only reason the LDS Church doesn't publish it is that the leaders of the Church don't want to publish it.

Interesting.

There was a lady who jumped out of her seat a few LDS conferences ago who shouted something like, "why don't you guys use the Joseph Smith translation?"

Maybe someone can pull up a link on that to see what she said.

They promptly escorted her out of the building.

The LDS church uses the corrections found in the Joseph Smith translation/inspired version of the Bible, most of them are there in the LDS King James edition, just look at the footnotes, they are all there, most of them I think at least.

Why they chose to do it this way, I don't know, I still think it was more cost affective.

Ever looked at the price of a Joseph Smith translation/inspired version of the Bible, it's like 80 bucks now for some reason, so someone is pocketing money of the rights to sell it.

The King James LDS edition with the JSIV footnotes sells for like 10 bucks, with no frills of course.

BTW the LDS church refers to it as the Joseph Smith translation, but for certain reasons I don't refer to it that way. It creates too much confusion.

It wasn't translated from any text, just pure inspiration and a King James Bible, since most of the King James was still intact.

 

[Smoke]

Ever looked at the price of a Joseph Smith translation/inspired version of the Bible, it's like 80 bucks now for some reason, so someone is pocketing money of the rights to sell it.

You can get a parallel edition of the KJV with the Joseph Smith version in paperback for about $30:

Amazon.com: New Translation of the Bible by Joseph Smith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Books: Joseph Smith
​

Available in hardback for about $40.

 

[FFH]

You can get a parallel edition of the KJV with the Joseph Smith version in paperback for about $30:

Amazon.com: New Translation of the Bible by Joseph Smith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Books: Joseph Smith​

Available in hardback for about $40.

Yeah, thanks, I have a copy, been through it thoroughly.

 

[crystalonyx]

The "Christian" bible (multiple versions) was put together by councils of men, and was written largely by unknown authors. As such, I would say it was very-much a man-made entity.

 

[tomspug]

In fact the bible has no historical value what so ever beginning with the error of the earth only being 6,000 years old thus we do not use the bible for any kind of historical reference. The bible is filled with errors and contradictions honestly its not even a good read as fiction.

Every historical document is full of 'errors' and we don't reject THEM. Why do you think the Bible is so special that you get to decide that you can only accept it 100% or reject it 100%?

Maybe because it is so surprisingly uniform, or maybe because you have been brainwashed to despise it?

 

[tomspug]

A couple of things. One, there was no "Christian" church when Christ was alive so I have assume that you mean the period immediately following his death comprising the first century. Moreover, those who comprised the first century Christian church believed all kinds of things about God, Jesus, salvation and the like that hardly resemble the mainstream doctrines and beliefs held by the majority of Christians today.

Your argument concerning the supposed internal consistency of the Bible also does nothing to support your claims. There were not just FOUR gospels. There were four (out of many) that made it into the New Testament. That there is any consistency between them is hardly surprising.

If you actually read what I wrote, you would understand. The four gospels IN THE BIBLE were written by people ALIVE WHEN JESUS WAS ALIVE. Therefore they ARE reliable, unless you think that history is magic and people just let people form religions out of blatant lies (which go on to become such a phenomenon as to be taken notice of by the Roman Empire because so many people believed it). As far as OTHER gospels, they were written by people long after the original apostles were dead. If you were in a religion that was surrounded by people making stuff up and forming false religions, wouldn't YOU want to form a council to decide once and for all which books were actually valid?

So, you unintentionally misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying the Christian church was formed while Christ was alive. It was formed IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS DEATH by people WHO WERE ALIVE WHEN JESUS WAS. You'd think if Jesus didn't die on a cross (and rise again) that it would be pretty hard to start a religion out of it RIGHT AFTERWARDS.

 

[Smoke]

If you actually read what I wrote, you would understand. The four gospels IN THE BIBLE were written by people ALIVE WHEN JESUS WAS ALIVE.

Although we don't know who wrote the gospels, we can assume from the likely dates they were written that this is probably true, except maybe for John.

Therefore they ARE reliable

How does that follow? We don't know who wrote any of the gospels, and Matthew and Luke are so clearly based (in part) on Mark that it would be odd to think they were eyewitness accounts.

I was alive when Ernest Hemingway was alive, but it doesn't follow that any account I might write of his life would be reliable.

 

[SassDiva2000]

If you actually read what I wrote, you would understand. The four gospels IN THE BIBLE were written by people ALIVE WHEN JESUS WAS ALIVE. Therefore they ARE reliable, unless you think that history is magic and people just let people form religions out of blatant lies (which go on to become such a phenomenon as to be taken notice of by the Roman Empire because so many people believed it). As far as OTHER gospels, they were written by people long after the original apostles were dead. If you were in a religion that was surrounded by people making stuff up and forming false religions, wouldn't YOU want to form a council to decide once and for all which books were actually valid?...

I apologize if I misunderstood what you wrote. But I must say that I take issue with your assumption that simply because the gospels were written by people who were alive when Jesus was alive, they are reliable. We don't know WHO wrote the gospels for one, so there is a question of their veracity in that regard alone. Obviously, an account that was written by a contemporary would probably be more reliable than one written centuries later, but without knowing who wrote the gospel, you cannot even make the assumption that this is what happened. The dates tells us when a gospel was likely written but it doesn't tell us WHO wrote it and it certainly doesn't say conclusively that a contemporary of Jesus most certainly wrote it.

 

[crystalonyx]

. The four gospels IN THE BIBLE were written by people ALIVE WHEN JESUS WAS ALIVE. Therefore they ARE reliable, unless you think that history is magic and people just let people form religions out of blatant lies (which go on to become such a phenomenon as to be taken notice of by the Roman Empire because so many people believed it). .

This most certainly is NOT true

"
There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? "

 

[Smoke]

We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible.

They're actually a little late. John was probably the latest, and a fragment exists that probably dates to somewhere around 140 C.E. Matthew was almost certainly written by the end of the first century, or very early in the second, and Luke is probably the hardest of all to date. Mark, though, is indisputably the earliest and as you say, was almost certainly not written earlier than sometime around 70 C.E.

So I don't think it's stretching things too much to say that some of the authors may have been alive when Jesus was alive, although it's a long way from there to saying they were eyewitnesses. Luke and Matthew clearly rely on Mark, and Luke explicitly says that he was not an eyewitness. John claims to be an eyewitness, but the claim isn't at all credible.

One thing that's often overlooked by believers is that none of the Evangelists names himself. All four of the canonical gospels are anonymous, and the names of their supposed authors were added by later tradition.

 

[SassDiva2000]

"So I don't think it's stretching things too much to say that some of the authors may have been alive when Jesus was alive, although it's a long way from there to saying they were eyewitnesses. Luke and Matthew clearly rely on Mark, and Luke explicitly says that he was not an eyewitness. John claims to be an eyewitness, but the claim isn't at all credible."

I don't think it's a great leap either but saying that the gospels may have been written by a contemporary of Jesus is different from a conclusive statement that they were.

I'm not sure off the top of my head, but do Matthew, Mark or John directly claim to be eyewitness accounts themselves?

 

[Smoke]

I'm not sure off the top of my head, but do Matthew, Mark or John directly claim to be eyewitness accounts themselves?

Matthew and Mark don't. I said that John does, because many people take it that way, but actually I think this is better read as an editorial addition to the text:

Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?

Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

(John 21.20-24)
​

Even here, though, the supposed disciple who "wrote these things" is not identified by name.

 

[kadzbiz]

Every historical document is full of 'errors' and we don't reject THEM. Why do you think the Bible is so special that you get to decide that you can only accept it 100% or reject it 100%? Maybe because it is so surprisingly uniform, or maybe because you have been brainwashed to despise it?

Is that a fact? You've read every historical document and found them full of errors, really? And you were comparing their errors to what, all the truth in the Bible or what? Anyway I doubt each of those documents are accepted in any case.

The Bible is uniform? Really? What about all the books that were left out? How uniform were they compared to what was left?

....I was alive when Ernest Hemingway was alive, but it doesn't follow that any account I might write of his life would be reliable.

Ha, I can't even reliably account for my own life!

 

[tomspug]

Even if you argue that Matthew (one of Jesus's disciples) and Luke (a prominent historian) were basing their writings off of Mark (the brother of Jesus, former skeptic), that's STILL a very reliable source to use as a source for your writings.

John was written later, but probably during a time period when John was still alive. Not the best time period to claim authorship.

It's a lot easier to make stuff up when there's no one around to dispute it.

 

[tomspug]

I'm not sure off the top of my head, but do Matthew, Mark or John directly claim to be eyewitness accounts themselves?

John is accounted in his own book, since he was there, referring to himself as 'the one Jesus loved' or 'beloved'.

Matthew, again, was one of the disciples, so was definitely an eye-witness.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineS...t+9:9&version=niv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1

Mt 9:9As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineS...t+9:9&version=niv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineS...t+9:9&version=niv&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1
Mark was Jesus's brother and became a follower of him, probably before his death, so he would have had his own and the accounts of Jesus's followers as a direct source. It's the historical equivalent of our modern day documentaries and historical accounts.

I mean, these books are different in the same way that different history books and documentaries are different today! And they are so similar to each other with so few contradictions that it can definitely be considered reliable by modern standards. The real argument is whether or not they were authored by who they say they were, which as I stated above, would be pretty hard to do since it's generally accepted that all of these books were written within 100 years of Jesus's death.

 

[Smoke]

Even if you argue that Matthew (one of Jesus's disciples) and Luke (a prominent historian) were basing their writings off of Mark (the brother of Jesus, former skeptic), that's STILL a very reliable source to use as a source for your writings.

There is no reason at all to believe that any of the Gospels were written by the people whose names they bear. None of the authors identifies himself. Mark was not, in any case, a brother of Jesus. There's no indication at all in the Bible or in extra-biblical tradition that Mark was even related to Jesus.

 

[kadzbiz]

....Matthew, again, was one of the disciples, so was definitely an eye-witness.......I mean, these books are different in the same way that different history books and documentaries are different today! And they are so similar to each other with so few contradictions that it can definitely be considered reliable by modern standards.......

I have taken 100's of statements in my 12 years as a cop and I can tell you that it doesn't matter even if you are an eye-witness, your account of an event can still be very unreliable. I am often amazed at how statements from "reliable" witnesses can be so different.

 

[tomspug]

I have taken 100's of statements in my 12 years as a cop and I can tell you that it doesn't matter even if you are an eye-witness, your account of an event can still be very unreliable. I am often amazed at how statements from "reliable" witnesses can be so different.

Good, so let's just disregard everything that was ever written... ever.

Wow, major flub on my part about Mark. I was totally thinking of James, not Mark. Sorry about that. Mark was supposedly Peter's interpreter during his imprisonment.

Yeesh, sorry about that. But Matthew and John WERE both disciples and definitely alive when Jesus was. And Luke was definitely a respected historian in the Jewish culture of the time.