Board index ‹ Bible

[Engineerings]

The authors of the various books in the bible, both new and old testament range from completely unidentified to maybe narrowed down to one person or a few people but whose identities and affiliation to any God or son of God is completely unverifiable. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

What's more, the modern bible (or rather, bibles since there are many versions for English alone, let alone all the languages) is the result of duplication after translation after duplication after translation after duplication after translation. Remember that mass production of texts did not exist for most of the common era, so the bible had to be duplicated by hand and translated by someone who hopefully knew both languages well and hopefully had no biases that bled into the final product. Of course, those people are almost all unidentifiable and their skills and biases unverifiable. Ever played a game of telephone? If so, you'd know that the probability of a sufficiently complicated message getting through unaltered is very low. Now imagine a two thousand year (or for the old testament, possibly much longer) game of telephone, but the message is an entire series of books that can take days to weeks to fully duplicate. Just the long chain of duplication alone would make it extremely unreliable in the 21th century. You'd have no idea if a given passage was changed either due to incompetence or malice.

Even recent news about recent politics almost always get twisted out of context and become the subject of both accidental and intentional misinformation within a few days.

The unreliability of the bible starts at the time it was written, with it being impossible to prove that any of it was from God, and only gets worse from there as it was passed down for generations. Such information would not be admissible in a court of law because all of it is hearsay. For the same reason, I personally think it is not a reliable thing to base one's faith on.

[jimwalton]

"Hearsay": Unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of of one's direct knowledge.

POINT 1: By your testimony or claim, the authors are unknown. Therefore, how can you know the content is hearsay? The BEST case you could make is, "We don't know." Therefore your case fails if your hypothesis or assumption is "It is hearsay" since you don't know and can't know, and therefore your conclusion of "it is not a reliable thing" has no grounds.

POINT 2: "The modern bible (or rather, bibles since there are many versions for English alone, let alone all the languages) is the result of duplication after translation after duplication after translation after duplication after translation." This is incorrect. The modern Bible(s) is the result of the study of ancient manuscripts, which exist in abundance. Since we are studying early manuscripts and not just "duplication after translation after duplication after translation," your claim of corruption based on unverifiability doesn't hold.

In addition, since we can compare later texts to early texts, we can also evaluate how reliable the transmission process was, leading us to a conclusion of amazing accuracy. Plus, the plethora of extant manuscripts gives us an abundance of sources for checks and balances, leading us to be able to arrive at great reliability.

POINT 3: "Ever played a game of telephone?" The game of "telephone" has no correspondence to the situation of the transmission of sacred texts. You completely missed the historical reality of textual transmission if you relate it to a child's game of giggling in ears and misunderstanding what was said (or slobbered). The transmission of sacred texts was done with painstaking concentration and checks to honor the sanctity of the text. Even your mention of the game reveals your lack of comprehension of the process and the history of transmission. That is almost enough all by itself to change your view.

POINT 4: "Even recent news about recent politics almost always get twisted out of context and become the subject of both accidental and intentional misinformation within a few days." Political spinning also has no kinship with sacred textual transmission. You must think instead of how we would transmit the contents of the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of the U.S. Constitution rather than all the political chaos characteristic of our era.

POINT 5: "The unreliability of the bible starts at the time it was written, with it being impossible to prove that any of it was from God". Actually, this is not true, either. The Gospels, for instance, were written by at least 2, maybe 3, people who were eyewitnesses of what Jesus said and did. The reliability of the accounts was recognized from the very beginning, and the books were regarded as authoritative from the very time they were written, in complete contrast with your perception. The evidence we have from history is that these works were recognized from the time they were written as being from God. As far as being able to prove that, we deal in logic and plausibilities, not in scientific proofs. Historical claims are not subject to scientific experimentation.

> and only gets worse from there as it was passed down for generations.

As can be proved, this is completely untrue. It does NOT get worse as it is passed down, and this is verifiable.

> Such information would not be admissible in a court of law because all of it is hearsay.

This claim cannot be verified, as I led off with. You can't prove whether it's hearsay or not, and so you have no grounds to make the claim since you can't substantiate it.

> I personally think it is not a reliable thing to base one's faith on.

Your conclusion, then, is unjustified because your premises are all flawed.

So I say you should be open to changing your mind on the following summary of argument:

1. You don't know that the texts are based on hearsay.
2. Textual transmission was much more regulated and careful than you have assumed.
3. Ancient textual transmission has no relation to the rumor-mongering political environment in which we now live.
4. The Bible was recognized as authoritative from its authoring, as opposed to your assumption that it has always been unproven.
5. Historical conclusions are different from scientific inductive experiments. It's illegitimate to put the two in the same class of knowledge.

Even if I haven't changed your mind, hopefully I've opened it to the logical, historical and factual mistakes you've made that should be the first steps toward changing your mind.

[Engineerings]

> The game of "telephone" has no correspondence to the situation of the transmission of sacred texts.

On the contrary, it is exactly how the gospels were compiled. Someone saw something, we assume, maybe their leader getting crucified, and they told someone something, who told someone else, and finally, a few decades later, someone finally wrote down what they heard.

[jimwalton]

> On the contrary, it is exactly how the gospels were compiled

This assertion is in direct contrast and contradiction the evidence. When important documents were written, multiple copies were meticulously duplicated with the care given by the Jewish people to sacred Scriptures. The Gospels were regarded as authoritative from their writing, and trained scribes made accurate copies of them for distribution.

We know for a fact that there were within a very short amount of time a consolidation of theological creeds about the historical details (a prominent one is in 1 Corinthians 15.3-5). This creed was already solidified by within 2-4 years of Jesus's crucifixion, showing the historicity and the theology were not just casual.

Secondly, it is solidly understood that written works of Jesus's words and actions preceded the writing of the Gospels. (The scholars call it "Q.") The process was not at all as you are saying.

But since this is a discussion, please give me the evidence you have and that you have researched for the position you are taking here. Then we can continue with the discussion. Thanks.

[I'm Wrong]

Do you have a Ph.d level of knowledge of the subject? Me neither. For that reason, I follow the mainstream, consensus view of scholars in the field, which is usually summarized in wiki.

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations; but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder's life and teachings.[46] The stages of this process can be summarised as follows:[47]

Oral traditions – stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, not in any order;

Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;

Written proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the gospels

;

Canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John composed from these sources.

The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts;[55] instead, the four were written in and for various Christian communities for the purpose of proclamation, and as a result they present the theologies of their communities rather than the testimony of eyewitnesses.

This is the mainstream view and I, and I suspect you, lack the knowledge base to challenge it.

[jimwalton]

> Do you have a Ph.d level of knowledge of the subject?

Yes, I do. So we can discuss any aspect of it you want.

> For that reason, I follow the mainstream, consensus view of scholars in the field, which is usually summarized in wiki.

That's why I don't just follow the consensus view. I do my own research and form my own conclusions. The majority opinion can just as well be wrong (flat earth, geocentric solar system, etc.) as it can be right. A majority of subscribers is not how anyone determines truth. Only the evidence carries weight.

> summarized in wiki.

Yeah, I've interacted with the scholars. Now I want to have a discussion with you. Am I to assume, then, you haven't done the research yourself but instead are only parroting a "majority view"?

> This is the mainstream view and I, and I suspect you, lack the knowledge base to challenge it.

Nope, I have the knowledge base. Yep, I challenge it. Let's talk.

[I'm Wrong]

> Yes, I do. So we can discuss any aspect of it you want.

Great. Then you know that your position deviates from the mainstream view in your field? What have you published, btw?

> Am I to assume, then, you haven't done the research yourself but instead are only parroting a "majority view"?

You don't have to assume. I said so. I don't have time to become an expert in ancient history, geology, paleontology, Koine Greek, etc., so where I lack that Ph.d. level of knowledge, I follow the mainstream, consensus view of the scholars in the field.

[jimwalton]

> Then you know that your position deviates from the mainstream view in your field?

Yes, I know that. The mainstream view, by my analysis, is faulty on many grounds, and has been followed (1) to some extent, to conform to the mainstream view (they would rather die a thousand death than side with conservatives), (2) some are biased against the Bible, and (3) some consider only the evidence that supports their conclusions.

> What have you published, btw?

I've written 17 books. There is a list elsewhere on the website.

> You don't have to assume. I said so. I don't have time to become an expert in ancient history, geology, paleontology, Koine Greek, etc., so where I lack that Ph.d. level of knowledge, I follow the mainstream, consensus view of the scholars in the field.

My question, then, would be, why do you follow the mainstream view rather than the evidence? But you've said so: you don't have time to investigate the evidence. In that case I would counsel you to hold your conclusions very tentatively and not with confidence.

[I'm Wrong]

> My question, then, would be, why do you follow the mainstream view rather than the evidence?

I don't have time to become an expert in ancient history, geology, paleontology, Koine Greek...

Do you?

[jimwalton]

Yes, as much as is possible for anyone—any scholar—to do that. It's what I have spent my whole life on and continue to spend my life on.