Why believe the Bible?

[LittleNipper]

Only because you are trying to put words in my mouth.
The Bible never once mentions the Bible.

The Bible does however mention the scriptures that the Bible is rather loosely based upon.

The scriptures that JESUS read from in the temple were in fact the very same Old Testament scriptures we can read today in any Jewish synagogue.

 

[fallingblood]

The scriptures that JESUS read from in the temple were in fact the very same Old Testament scriptures we can read today in any Jewish synagogue.

There is one flaw though. Jesus, by most probability, was illiterate. Also, I do not remember the Gospels claiming that Jesus actually read scripture. It stated that he seemingly had a knowledge of scripture, but does not state that he read it.

Also, that scripture can not necessarily be claimed to be the same as from the Old Testament. Just looking at what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there where other manuscripts available to them. We have also found additional texts that were highly regarded by the Hebrews as well. So it may not be fully accurate to claim that the Scripture that Jesus supposedly knew are also the scripture found in the Old Testament.

 

[LittleNipper]

There is one flaw though. Jesus, by most probability, was illiterate. Also, I do not remember the Gospels claiming that Jesus actually read scripture. It stated that he seemingly had a knowledge of scripture, but does not state that he read it.

Also, that scripture can not necessarily be claimed to be the same as from the Old Testament. Just looking at what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there where other manuscripts available to them. We have also found additional texts that were highly regarded by the Hebrews as well. So it may not be fully accurate to claim that the Scripture that Jesus supposedly knew are also the scripture found in the Old Testament.

The nation of Israel has always been among the most widely literate. The Bible says JESUS astounded the teachers at the temple with HIS wisdom... Many JEWs could read when nearly all of Europe was in the Dark Ages...

 

[McBell]

The scriptures that JESUS read from in the temple were in fact the very same Old Testament scriptures we can read today in any Jewish synagogue.

so what?

What the hell does that have to do with your mixing up the scriptures with the Bible?

 

[fallingblood]

The nation of Israel has always been among the most widely literate. The Bible says JESUS astounded the teachers at the temple with HIS wisdom... Many JEWs could read when nearly all of Europe was in the Dark Ages...

I would like to see some evidence for the nation of Israel always being among the literate. If you actually look at the facts, the literacy rates in Israel, during the time of Roman occupation, were 2-3%. Much of the ancient world was illiterate. It wasn't until the time of the printing press that literacy rates began to increase.

Also, the verse that you are speaking of probably is fictional. In ancient times, recording the events of a child would be very rare. The fact that it is not supported by any other verse (from a separate, independent Gospel) suggests even more that it was a creation, and not historical fact.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There is one flaw though. Jesus, by most probability, was illiterate. Also, I do not remember the Gospels claiming that Jesus actually read scripture. It stated that he seemingly had a knowledge of scripture, but does not state that he read it.
Also, that scripture can not necessarily be claimed to be the same as from the Old Testament. Just looking at what was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there where other manuscripts available to them. We have also found additional texts that were highly regarded by the Hebrews as well. So it may not be fully accurate to claim that the Scripture that Jesus supposedly knew are also the scripture found in the Old Testament.

If the gospels do Not state that Jesus 'read' then how do you explain Luke 4:16 that Jesus stood up to 'read'? Jesus read from Isaiah 61. It also mentions that it was the 'custom' to do so. Verse 15 says Jesus' taught' in their synagogues.

Jesus also knew that passages were written down because Jesus often stated , "it is written" before he made his statement . Such as: Luke 4:4,8,10 and like other Bible verses or passages their corresponding or parallel verses are found in the Hebrew OT Scriptures. - Deut 8:3; Exodus 20:3 ;Psalm 91:11,

Zacharias at Luke 1:63 asked for a writing tablet and wrote that his son's name would be John. The writing tablets that they had in the first century were made of wood with a wax surface smoothed with bees wax and written on with a writing stylus. Because of the wax surface they could be re-used.

Also the Constitution of the ancient nation of Israel with its 600+ laws were written down by Moses and the ruling king was to routinely read it. The Hebrew Scriptures were completed hundreds of years before Jesus so they were already available for all at the synagogues.

 

[Smoke]

The Bible says JESUS astounded the teachers at the temple with HIS wisdom... Many JEWs could read when nearly all of Europe was in the Dark Ages...

I'm willing to chip in a dollar toward a new keyboard so you won't keep having that problem with weird and distracting capitalizations popping up all the time.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm willing to chip in a dollar toward a new keyboard so you won't keep having that problem with weird and distracting capitalizations popping up all the time.

Yea - put me down for A DOLLAR also.

 

[fallingblood]

If the gospels do Not state that Jesus 'read' then how do you explain Luke 4:16 that Jesus stood up to 'read'? Jesus read from Isaiah 61. It also mentions that it was the 'custom' to do so. Verse 15 says Jesus' taught' in their synagogues.

I stand corrected. However, that verse means absolutely nothing. The likely hood that Jesus could read is nearly none. We know there was about 2-3% literacy rate for where he was. Literacy was reserved for those who were deemed important, the upper class. Jesus was a nothing, a peasant who was disposable.

Now getting to why that verse, as well as the other verses claiming prophecy do not matter. It was common for Christian writers to search scripture and make it part of Jesus's history. Consider this, the Gospels were not written until about 4 decades after Jesus died. During that time then, the Gospels were passed on through oral tradition (possibly a few other written accounts). Oral tradition is horrible flawed, and remembers general ideas. Whole sermons are not remembered.

So we have a flawed oral tradition to work off of, and scripture to work with that. Each writer had certain things they wanted to advance, and certain audiences they were writing to. They also already had a tradition of making scripture into history within the Gospel accounts. So many of these so called prophecies that Jesus accomplished are not true. It was too easy to simply take so called prophecies, and interject them into a story of Jesus.

Armed with the knowledge that Jesus was illiterate, and it was already common to interject scripture into newer stories, the conclusion is that the stories of Jesus reading are false and are put into the Gospel accounts for specific reasons.

Zacharias at Luke 1:63 asked for a writing tablet and wrote that his son's name would be John. The writing tablets that they had in the first century were made of wood with a wax surface smoothed with bees wax and written on with a writing stylus. Because of the wax surface they could be re-used.

Not exactly sure what they really refers to. The ideal form was papyrus in scroll form. We see this form being used for nearly all of the important manuscripts we have of that time.

Also the Constitution of the ancient nation of Israel with its 600+ laws were written down by Moses and the ruling king was to routinely read it. The Hebrew Scriptures were completed hundreds of years before Jesus so they were already available for all at the synagogues.

The 600+ laws, and the Hebrew Scriptures that we know today as the Old Testament are not the same thing. So nothing is proved.

 

[Poet-Troll]

I stand corrected. However, that verse means absolutely nothing. The likely hood that Jesus could read is nearly none. We know there was about 2-3% literacy rate for where he was. Literacy was reserved for those who were deemed important, the upper class. Jesus was a nothing, a peasant who was disposable.

I am not aware of primary sources for first-century Galilee that give us a percentage of literacy for the area at the time. In fact, I am unaware of primary sources that even show the existence of Jesus. That "Jesus was a nothing, a peasant who was disposable" has no foundation in the primary historical sources. It appears to be a faith assumption based on a personal interpretation of the Gospels. We are all entitled to our faith and our assumptions, and most of us are in the habit of declaring them as established facts.

 

[fallingblood]

I am not aware of primary sources for first-century Galilee that give us a percentage of literacy for the area at the time. In fact, I am unaware of primary sources that even show the existence of Jesus. That "Jesus was a nothing, a peasant who was disposable" has no foundation in the primary historical sources. It appears to be a faith assumption based on a personal interpretation of the Gospels. We are all entitled to our faith and our assumptions, and most of us are in the habit of declaring them as established facts.

In this case, the type of primary sources you are talking about are not needed. The case for the literacy rate is based on anthropological evidence, and a historic study. It may not have been written down during that time, but it is besides the point.

Again, primary sources are not needed. We know that Jesus was from the village of Nazareth. Studying ancient Nazareth, we can see who would have populated it. It was basically a village that was not important at all. It was filled with peasants, who, during that time, were disposable.

Also, even looking at the Gospel accounts, we see that Jesus is termed as a carpenter, or the child of a carpenter (which would have basically made Jesus a carpenter as well). They were part of the artisan class, which was, at that time, even lowlier than the peasant class. So this is not an assumption. There may not be primary sources declaring these facts, but it is not needed. We have other ways in which researching history.

As for primary sources, look at what we have for many ancient people. Many times, we have no primary sources. However, we can determine that they still existed.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I didn't have much access to modern scholarship. We had books like the Reader's Digest guide to the Bible, and I could get my parents to drive me to the Bible bookstore to get books like Strong's concordance and Unger's Bible Dictionary, but it would never have crossed my mind to go to a university library or a seminary library, and I wouldn't have known what to look for if it had. I wasn't aware of scholars like Baur and Schaff, much less the likes of Dever and Finkelstein.

Smoke we have the same experience.

In bible college all my professors were always presenting arguments against the neo-orthodox Theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. I have even heard my pastors do it for years.( This was the time period that the southern Baptists were purging all the Neo-Orthodox Professors from their seminaries) One summer I decided to go out and read their books and to my complete and total horror. All of the evangelical arguments had absolutely nothing to do with their belief systems. They were completely misrepersenting the Neo-orthodox systematic theology.

So now if all the people I studied with were so disingenuous and had such a low regard for the truth. I had to take a new look at the Bible. Well now there is just no going back. I could not except this stuff on faith any more. I left the ministry quite my church and became an agnostic in my early 20s. When I was 28 I converted to Hinduism.

A while back I read a story in newsweek about Billy Graham and his best friend were having the same problem with the bible. Billy Graham decided to except the bible by faith. His friend left the ministry.

Now I approach the bible like I do everything else,I except what makes sense (i.e. the sermon on the mount) and reject the parts I don't like.

 

[Smoke]

Well now there is just no going back.

That's the thing. That's why fundamentalists and most Evangelicals hate modern scholarship and liberal Christianity so much. It's not just that they disagree with it. It poses a direct threat to their whole system. Once you know that what they're telling you is not the truth, you can be free of it.

 

[LittleNipper]

so what?

What the hell does that have to do with your mixing up the scriptures with the Bible?

"Hell" has nothing to do with it, but the one destined to go certainly enjoys mocking GOD's Holy Word...

 

[LittleNipper]

I would like to see some evidence for the nation of Israel always being among the literate. If you actually look at the facts, the literacy rates in Israel, during the time of Roman occupation, were 2-3%. Much of the ancient world was illiterate. It wasn't until the time of the printing press that literacy rates began to increase.

Also, the verse that you are speaking of probably is fictional. In ancient times, recording the events of a child would be very rare. The fact that it is not supported by any other verse (from a separate, independent Gospel) suggests even more that it was a creation, and not historical fact.

Abstract
[SIZE=+3]Some Jewish Women in Antiquity[/SIZE]
Meir Bar-Ilan [SIZE=+1]Chapter 2: Literate Women[/SIZE]
The extent of literacy in any given society obviously has far-reaching consequences. This chapter attempts to examine the data on the literacy of women in ancient times, as educed from texts and archaeological finds.
The chapter opens with a general discussion of the phenomenon of literate woman in the ancient world i. e.: in the Fertile Crescent and in Egypt. It then considers biblical sources about women who made use of writing (Jezebel, Esther, and "sons of the woman scribe). Another source of information are seals. A portion of the 650 extant seals were signed by women. The chapter discusses the significance of these seals and their implications about the spread of literacy among women.
Information from Greece and the Roman Empire on the literacy of women in those countries is compared to the data found in talmudic literature. For instance, various halakhot suggest the extent to which women were able to read and write. The entire historical material presented in this chapter is considered in the light of its social significance.

 

[fallingblood]

[SIZE=+1]Chapter 2: Literate Women[/SIZE]
The extent of literacy in any given society obviously has far-reaching consequences. This chapter attempts to examine the data on the literacy of women in ancient times, as educed from texts and archaeological finds.
The chapter opens with a general discussion of the phenomenon of literate woman in the ancient world i. e.: in the Fertile Crescent and in Egypt. It then considers biblical sources about women who made use of writing (Jezebel, Esther, and "sons of the woman scribe). Another source of information are seals. A portion of the 650 extant seals were signed by women. The chapter discusses the significance of these seals and their implications about the spread of literacy among women.
Information from Greece and the Roman Empire on the literacy of women in those countries is compared to the data found in talmudic literature. For instance, various halakhot suggest the extent to which women were able to read and write. The entire historical material presented in this chapter is considered in the light of its social significance.

First, Jesus was a man, not a woman. So this article is then void.

Second, he uses Biblical sources; however, not very valid. The main reason is because we have no idea who wrote those scriptures. Plus, he only mentions three people. Even if that is true, then it supports my statement more than it does yours. The idea that they had a scribe even supports the assumption that literacy was not very well spread. If it was, why would scribes be necessary, and why would it be important?

Finally, the seals suggest nothing except that women were able to sign their names. Does not prove literacy. Also though, what type of seals? Most likely, these women were of upper class, which had a marginally higher literacy rate than the peasants. So it is only logical that there would be some woman who could write (again though, signing a seal does not prove a thing accept that one can sign their name. Even illiterate people are capable of signing a seal).

Also, what is more important is the phrase that starts this all out. Some Jewish Women in Antiquity. Much is said just there.

So, it doesn't refute my position.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I stand corrected. However, that verse means absolutely nothing. The likely hood that Jesus could read is nearly none. We know there was about 2-3% literacy rate for where he was. Literacy was reserved for those who were deemed important, the upper class. Jesus was a nothing, a peasant who was disposable.
Now getting to why that verse, as well as the other verses claiming prophecy do not matter. It was common for Christian writers to search scripture and make it part of Jesus's history. Consider this, the Gospels were not written until about 4 decades after Jesus died. During that time then, the Gospels were passed on through oral tradition (possibly a few other written accounts). Oral tradition is horrible flawed, and remembers general ideas. Whole sermons are not remembered.
So we have a flawed oral tradition to work off of, and scripture to work with that. Each writer had certain things they wanted to advance, and certain audiences they were writing to. They also already had a tradition of making scripture into history within the Gospel accounts. So many of these so called prophecies that Jesus accomplished are not true. It was too easy to simply take so called prophecies, and interject them into a story of Jesus.
Armed with the knowledge that Jesus was illiterate, and it was already common to interject scripture into newer stories, the conclusion is that the stories of Jesus reading are false and are put into the Gospel accounts for specific reasons.
Not exactly sure what they really refers to. The ideal form was papyrus in scroll form. We see this form being used for nearly all of the important manuscripts we have of that time.
The 600+ laws, and the Hebrew Scriptures that we know today as the Old Testament are not the same thing. So nothing is proved.

Which one of the Mosaic laws is not the same as Moses wrote?

Armed with what knowledge that Jesus was illiterate?
What eye witness said that?

Yes, even the Bible was written on fragile papyrus.
The wax boards in the first century were for every day writing use.
Not meant to be permanent. Some are in Museums.

Yes, the important manuscripts such as the oldest papyrus of John is the Rylands 457 p52 from 125 AD(CE) and Bodmer 14,15 p 75 from 175 AD(CE)

 

[fallingblood]

Which one of the Mosaic laws is not the same as Moses wrote?

All of them, the books traditionally being said to have been written by Moses simply were not. What we have today is the combination of four different sources.

However, getting to what I believe you are referring to, Moses never listed 600+ laws. As seen above, they were written by four sources. Moses ended dying very early on in the Hebrew work. The majority of the Old Testament has nothing to do with Moses writing, as he was dead.

So instead, we have a couple dozen books, written at very different times, that would form some what of our Old Testament. However, different groups still held different books to be part of their important scripture. We see it even today, such as the extra books in the Catholic Bible. Farther back, there were even more books that were considered scripture. For instance, we can just look at the works found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

So yes, what I said previously, that the Hebrew scriptures that are being referenced, and the Old Testament are not the same thing.

Armed with what knowledge that Jesus was illiterate?
What eye witness said that?

Why does an eye witness be needed? If that is a stipulation, you might as well through out all of your Gospels, as they were not done by eye witnesses. At best, they are second hand accounts. Then, your argument is void, as it wasn't a first hand account that said that Jesus read scripture, meaning there is no argument.

However though, as having eye witnesses are not important in this case, we can know that Jesus is illiterate by doing an anthropological study of the time in which he came. I believe I have already explained that.

Yes, even the Bible was written on fragile papyrus.
The wax boards in the first century were for every day writing use.
Not meant to be permanent. Some are in Museums.

Yes, the important manuscripts such as the oldest papyrus of John is the Rylands 457 p52 from 125 AD(CE) and Bodmer 14,15 p 75 from 175 AD(CE)

I really do not know where you are going with this. The wax boards were not for every day use. They were used by the literate (which was a small group) as notebooks. They were not used by the peasantry, as they would be no use. And they were not in the homes of most people, as they would be no use.

Why is it a threat that Jesus couldn't read? Does it matter? I believe it doesn't. Most people couldn't back then, as it was not needed. Why else would Paul write his letters that way they were, in order to be read to a group of people?

People didn't have much to read. It was expensive to obtain books, as they had to copied by professionals, word by word. It wasn't an easy task copying books or manuscripts. Because of that, they were not wide spread, and someone like Jesus, who was a lowly peasant, would not have been able to afford one. Plus, they would have been too busy trying to survive.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If the Scriptures were written by backwards people then how do you explain they are still being read and studied today? What about the people of Acts 17:11?______________

What do you mean about no eye witness accounts in the gospels?
Wasn't the apostle John one of Jesus apostles?
What about Matthew? -Matt 10:2,3.

 

[fallingblood]

If the Scriptures were written by backwards people then how do you explain they are still being read and studied today? What about the people of Acts 17:11?______________

First, I did not say that the scriptures were written by backwards people. I have never suggested such a thing. So your question becomes moot. However, there is a very good reason people still read and study the scripture, because it is religious. However, there have been quite a bit of scripture that is ignored now. Meaning we don't have it. Even what we do have, we ignore quite a bit. Look at the Old Testament, how many of the laws do you follow? Not all of them. We ignore many of them today.

As for Acts 17:11, it is iffy. First, you have to understand the culture. The Bible was read out loud to the public, in a gathering. That is probably closer to what is happening. The town of Berea was fairly large, large enough to have a Synagogue. It would not have been possible for all of those inhabitants to have a copy of the scripture, or all even take turns searching it daily. Simply, it is not logical. What would be more logical is that there were at least some who could read, and they did the searching of the actual scripture. It would not have been uncommon for that to happen.

Also, taken in context, the story has more of a symbolic message. It is not suppose to be taken literally. It was simply saying what one should do. It was a common literary practice.

I can not say much more as I do not know much about the population of Berea. It could happen to be one of those few more educated towns which were able to do so as they were wealthy.

What do you mean about no eye witness accounts in the gospels?
Wasn't the apostle John one of Jesus apostles?
What about Matthew? -Matt 10:2,3.

John did not write the Gospel of John. Matthew did not write the Gospel of Matthew. They were simply names given. If an apostle did write Matthew, then why would they need to rely on other sources, such as Mark and the Q Gospel? The simple fact is, scholars agree that the apostles of Jesus were not the writers of the gospels. You would have a very hard time finding any credible evidence to even support the idea that the Gospels were first hand accounts.