What if there was no Holy Bible at all?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The same is true for all things and even science any thing without a referable history will not survive. It why inventing and creating didn't really get started until the written page was available to all.

Well, yes. But at least with science, everything discovered so far using science, would be re-discovered eventually. Even of the discoverers were not human, and used pheromones and light patters to talk to each other... they would call 'gravity' by something else, but a human physicist would recognize what they were 'talking' about.

Science discovers what is real. You cannot make the same claim with religions-- none would exist, if they and their histories were destroyed. They would not be re-created as they are today.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

What if there was no Holy Bible at all?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree with them because that is what the bible commands

What if there was no Bible?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Eating blood is forbidden by the Apostles in The Book of Acts, along with fornication, eating things strangled and eating food offered to idols iirc. Eating blood is also forbidden by Torah.

That is quite understandable.... The Original Christians had been Jews and they were continuing the Jewish tradition and law.
However in their mission to the Gentiles they did not require them to become Jews first... so they were not required to undergo circumcision amongst other requirements of the Law.. Over time ex Jews became the minority among the Christians, and Greek and Roman traditions became incorporated into Christianity. Virtually all the Jewish dietary laws were not taken up by the new converts, as they were not, nor ever had been Jews. This was still the pre Biblical era.
So it was only things commonly offered to or given to other gods that were forbidden, such as blood and animals that had been killed by strangling. Pork was not forbidden as this was only unclean in the Jewish law.

The JW's go back to Old Testament rules, and their convoluted interpretation of consuming blood includes blood transfusions. Which the Jews have never done.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

The JW's go back to Old Testament rules, and their convoluted interpretation of consuming blood includes blood transfusions. Which the Jews have never done.

Sure, but the JWs might point the finger at the orthodox (and that seems to mean "whatever my denomination claims" right?) "convoluted" interpretation of the OT and the NT to arrive at the Trinity for example? The truth is the bible is The Big Book of Multiple Choice, you can make it say whatever you damn well like. It would be nice to hear some intellectual honesty on that point for once, rather than different groups who all call themselves Christian or "bible believers" pretending there is some sort of "objectively" correct interpretation to be ascertained. There isn't! That's why there are Christians on this forum who say other Christians are deceived by the devil and will be judged as "goats". Grow up people!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sure, but the JWs might point the finger at the orthodox (and that seems to mean "whatever my denomination claims" right?) "convoluted" interpretation of the OT and the NT to arrive at the Trinity for example? The truth is the bible is The Big Book of Multiple Choice, you can make it say whatever you damn well like. It would be nice to hear some intellectual honesty on that point for once, rather than different groups who all call themselves Christian or "bible believers" pretending there is some sort of "objectively" correct interpretation to be ascertained. There isn't! That's why there are Christians on this forum who say other Christians are deceived by the devil and will be judged as "goats". Grow up people!

However the JW's are one of the few churches to have there own translation of the Bible that confirms their exclusive beliefs. No other church puts the same interpretation to theirs, as to the avoidance of blood.

I would agree that the early church established many difficult to justify beliefs. But I would not blame the Bible for that.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

However the JW's are one of the few churches to have there own translation of the Bible that confirms their exclusive beliefs. No other church puts the same interpretation to theirs, as to the avoidance of blood.

Right, but JWs would say their bible is a more accurate translation than yours, and no doubt quote some Greek phraseology at you. So it's groundhog day, we're back to claim and counter claim that cannot be decided if you read the bible forever and a day.

I would agree that the early church established many difficult to justify beliefs. But I would not blame the Bible for that.

The bible is just an inanimate object, a book, so of course I'm not going to blame it. I'd suggest the reason why there has been so much disagreement about what the bible means over the centuries, apart from it being an ancient book written in a dead language, is that the many authors (especially in the NT) seem to have had different understandings themselves. The gospel of John, for example, is quite strong on the divinity of Jesus (depending on your translation!) the synoptic gospels less so, in fact you can find verses where Jesus appears to be denying his divinity (e.g. Mark 10:18). That's a big difference!
Just on the subject of "blame" though, that was something I was thinking about recently. Who do you "blame" for religion? Religion is just people, it is organic and self perpetuating as each generation indoctrinates the next. It is easy to "blame" the charlatans and confidence tricksters who rob the naïve and the gullible faithful of their hard earned cash, but religion is also made up of sincere people who genuinely believe this stuff. Were their parents wrong to feed them it from childhood? Shouldn't they be allowed to make up their minds when they are older? Hard to say isn't it? Religion is a human institution, once the founders of a religion have set it in motion it becomes an independent organism, drawing people in and morphing into something else as time goes on. You cannot "blame" any particular individual or group generally speaking, though you can campaign for increased secularity in society, which is what I do as much as I possibly can.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Right, but JWs would say their bible is a more accurate translation than yours, and no doubt quote some Greek phraseology at you. So it's groundhog day, we're back to claim and counter claim that cannot be decided if you read the bible forever and a day.

The bible is just an inanimate object, a book, so of course I'm not going to blame it. I'd suggest the reason why there has been so much disagreement about what the bible means over the centuries, apart from it being an ancient book written in a dead language, is that the many authors (especially in the NT) seem to have had different understandings themselves. The gospel of John, for example, is quite strong on the divinity of Jesus (depending on your translation!) the synoptic gospels less so, in fact you can find verses where Jesus appears to be denying his divinity (e.g. Mark 10:18). That's a big difference!
Just on the subject of "blame" though, that was something I was thinking about recently. Who do you "blame" for religion? Religion is just people, it is organic and self perpetuating as each generation indoctrinates the next. It is easy to "blame" the charlatans and confidence tricksters who rob the naïve and the gullible faithful of their hard earned cash, but religion is also made up of sincere people who genuinely believe this stuff. Were their parents wrong to feed them it from childhood? Shouldn't they be allowed to make up their minds when they are older? Hard to say isn't it? Religion is a human institution, once the founders of a religion have set it in motion it becomes an independent organism, drawing people in and morphing into something else as time goes on. You cannot "blame" any particular individual or group generally speaking, though you can campaign for increased secularity in society, which is what I do as much as I possibly can.

People do make up their own minds about things.
most peoples religious Journey is very convoluted.
Even people who share the same church can hold very different views about quite basic Ideas.
Churches that hold to very strict, and difficult to substantiate views, often have amongst the highest turnover in their congregations.

Certainly my church has members from the exceedingly Liberal like my self, to the near puritanical. And no one is holding a whip over us. Children tend to move on in their late teen to go off to university, some return in their 30's and others we never see again. Except there are certainly returning retirees.

British society is extremely secular, and faith is not a feature of our politics at all.
When it does rear its head, it is usually for all the wrong reasons.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

People do make up their own minds about things.
most peoples religious Journey is very convoluted.
Even people who share the same church can hold very different views about quite basic Ideas.
Churches that hold to very strict, and difficult to substantiate views, often have amongst the highest turnover in their congregations.

Certainly my church has members from the exceedingly Liberal like my self, to the near puritanical. And no one is holding a whip over us. Children tend to move on in their late teen to go off to university, some return in their 30's and others we never see again. Except there are certainly returning retirees.

British society is extremely secular, and faith is not a feature of our politics at all.
When it does rear its head, it is usually for all the wrong reasons.

Sure, I live in the UK and used to be a Christian, I know the church here is a tame old ***** cat these days, though I don't like the sound of the Puritans in your church!

Our overwhelming secularism is something I feel proud of as a Brit, we are way ahead of a lot of nations in that respect. Our societal secularism has without doubt had an impact on the church here, it tends to be a far more liberal and inclusive institution compared to some of the more extreme sects we see in other parts of the world, particularly in America (where religion still features in politics). I also believe we as a society are pretty open minded and inclusive, and a lot of that has to do with our secular core. I'm a secular humanist, I think that is where the future lies.

Edit: damn, the forum censored my 'pu*sy cat'. Chill out people!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Looking at Islam, long the fastest growing religion, may provide insight. In a college course on the faith that I took many years ago, the professor (an Iranian) noted that the vast majority of Muslims have never read the Quran and rely solely on the oral tradition as conveyed by imams. Why? According to the professor, the bulk of the people who adhere to Islam are not able to read Arabic and, in many places, translation into any other language is considered heretical. (I believe he also noted that the vast majority is illiterate in their own tongue, as he was pointing out that the country with the largest body of muslims is Indonesia.). Since that course, and even recently, I have heard other scholars repeat these claims.

It sounds similar with medieval Catholicism where the illiterate lay remained dependant on the clergy. It just latterly moves the bar In view clergy themselves would require a physical source by which continuity is maintained.

Also I think possession of a Bible was a punishable crime in those days.

 

[Desert Snake]

We have Bibles now, lol.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's apples and oranges..
Yes, the religion would still be here.

Do we prefer to have bibles...?
Yes, generally

 

[Twilight Hue]

.... But at least with science, everything discovered so far using science, would be re-discovered eventually. Even of the discoverers were not human, and used pheromones and light patters to talk to each other... they would call 'gravity' by something else, but a human physicist would recognize what they were 'talking' about.

Science discovers what is real. You cannot make the same claim with religions-- none would exist, if they and their histories were destroyed. They would not be re-created as they are today.

That's true.

Most religions would be far different due to the variables bought about by fantastical or embellished beliefs, whereas science itself can be rediscovered on basis of repeat results that lasts as long as the components of physics and chemistry has been around.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's apples and oranges..
Yes, the religion would still be here.

Do we prefer to have bibles...?
Yes, generally

I'd still like to see a Bible less and scripture-less form of Christianity last any more than a couple of centuries.

 

[Mister Emu]

How else could/would people know in modern times if not for a written record to form and base beliefs upon that accurately mirrored it's originators ?

Trust in the passing on of oral traditions. You say this like oral societies didn't exist and transmit their culture. Never mind the amount of information lost when a word is transferred from spoken to written.

If we tested this by stopping any written

Which isn't in any way comparable to the maintenance of an oral culture. Might as well say electricity is necessary because if we took it away today our civilization would be near collapsing almost instantaneously.

I would strongly suspect it would summarily branch out and go in completely different directions

Because it hasn't even with writing?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Trust in the passing on of oral traditions. You say this like oral societies didn't exist and transmit their culture. Never mind the amount of information lost when a word is transferred from spoken to written.

Oral traditions do not preserve anything. Not really-- as each generation passes? The "tradition" is modified, edited, added-to, subtracted-from and so forth. Every Generation.

Within 3 or 4? The current resembles the original by little or not at all.

That's the way it works. Since there is no writing? There is nothing to prevent this drift.

So pretty much *nothing* is preserved-- unless there is external symbolism to anchor things.

Take sun worship: the external symbol would be the daily appearance of the sun. Apart from that? Every other detail would shift over generations to be unrecognizable, if the first generation were teleported to the current one-- they could call them "heretic" or worse.

How do we KNOW this is fact? It's Basic Human Nature-- the proof can be found in ANY situation where human "witnesses" are used to testify about what they "saw".

Wait 5 days, and have them "testify" a second time--without coaching. And that is just one person, changing what they "saw" from one week to the next.

So we can safely conclude that "oral tradition" without writing, is useless as a way to preserve anything.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trust in the passing on of oral traditions. You say this like oral societies didn't exist and transmit their culture. Never mind the amount of information lost when a word is transferred from spoken to written.


Which isn't in any way comparable to the maintenance of an oral culture. Might as well say electricity is necessary because if we took it away today our civilization would be near collapsing almost instantaneously.


Because it hasn't even with writing?

Oral transmission as it relates to preservation of information is dubious enough, much less putting oral accounts into writing years and centuries later, and claiming accuracy has not been compromised through any collective society that maintains oral tradition.

So no. Any society or culture that depends on oral tradition at its roots will not be able to preserve any type of original information for very long as it relates towards the reliability and accuracy of information that is intended to be related to others.

When you take away all written material such as biblical accounts and rely on oral tradition thereafter, the resulting Bible narratives will be and become unrecognizable from it's original form given enough time. Say 2000 years. Guaranteed.

There no such thing as maintenance of information in an oral culture. Progressive information yes to a degree as it's adaptable and malleable to suit the times.
Fundamental information is certainly not.

The Holy Bible, pegged as being fundamental upon its inception using oratory and written forms are prime glaring examples presently dependant upon the written record, which still degrades each time it's redacted, modified, and changed resulting in different versions and interpretation.

Oral preservation of record, if a person even wants want to call it that, is no contest in comparison to written material which in itself loses its reliability but at a much slower rate. Such cultures are virtually short lived at best and spread out in all directions like the 36,000 + denominations of Christianity are with a written record.

Now take away the written record and let them continue word of mouth from this point forward like early Christians .....

Let's see what happens.

 

[Mister Emu]

How do we KNOW this is fact? It's Basic Human Nature-- the proof can be found in ANY situation where human "witnesses" are used to testify about what they "saw".

This is versus a member of an oral culture learning to memorize the culture via its method of propagation.

So we can safely conclude that "oral tradition" without writing, is useless as a way to preserve anything.

Funny, because what we've actually found is that oral cultures use techniques which provide not just verifiable near perfect preservation of words but that also can include the further information that comes with actually speaking instead of writing.

Here is an introduction from wikipedia. You should indulge your intellectual curiosity before deciding to develop uniformed opinions. Oral tradition - Wikipedia

Oral transmission as it relates to preservation of information is dubious enough

It isn't really considered dubious. Oral tradition is reliable, and when we combine it with literacy is where we get the best preservation.

When you take away all written material such as biblical accounts and rely on oral tradition thereafter, the resulting Bible narratives will be and become unrecognizable from it's original form given enough time. Say 2000 years. Guaranteed.

That isn't in any way guaranteed. You look at our literate and literacy supreme society and think that is the only way to exist. Oral cultures have been shown to produce preservation techniques that last thousands of years.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It isn't really considered dubious. Oral tradition is reliable, and when we combine it with literacy is where we get the best preservation.


That isn't in any way guaranteed. You look at our literate and literacy supreme society and think that is the only way to exist. Oral cultures have been shown to produce preservation techniques that last thousands of years.

I would just love to see oral "tradition" put to a field study test. Lets say from 2 people to thousands of people. Just only 10 to 20 years too, with a preset collection of inital information relying only on people's various recollection and retelling skills.

 

[ronandcarol]

Would Christianity have had survived or been remembered as an instututed religion if no Holy Bible ever was made?

The Holy Bible is the source of, How to know God Better, it is how to grow as a Christian. Without a book of instruction it would have to be passed down from generation to generation like they did in days of old. The message might get diluted a bit over time. But I think there still would be believers and the message would grow and spread. The Bible states that God's word goes out and will always accomplish what He wants it to. Whether the written word or the spoken word. We can thank God that we do not have to speculate, what if's, we only have to read and study.
ronandcarol