Board index ‹ Bible

[Throw Away]

How are we sure the Bible is the word of God and not just the the distorted words of whoever wrote it under the name of God?

Stuff could’ve been added, stuff could’ve been taken out. The Bible in general needs some kind of update to fit our natural world today, because trying to fit our society into what it was 2000 years ago doesn't seem too wise not mention things the English monks who translated the Bible from Greek/Roman to English made a lot of mistakes according to hebrew, greek and roman translators and sex before marriage being a sin being added when back when the Bible was written, marriage didn’t exist. So the only way sex before marriage could be in the Bible is if it was added later on. Who’s to say more things weren’t added?

[jimwalton]

> How are we sure the Bible is the word of God and not just the the distorted words of whoever wrote it under the name of God?

We can assess the value of the words by examining their merit as (1) historical record, (2) accurately describing humanity, (3) evidencing wisdom, and (3) conforming to truth. Anyone can read the Scripture and tell it is not the distorted words of posers.

> Stuff could’ve been added, stuff could’ve been taken out.

We have close to 6000 manuscripts and fragments. We have a very good grasp on what was added, and that nothing was taken out.

Also, we know the habits and regulations of the scribes who copied Scripture and know the accuracy that was part of their trade.

> The Bible in general needs some kind of update to fit our natural world today

I don't think so. We just need to read it accurately to see how it fits our natural world today so well.

> the English monks who translated the Bible from Greek/Roman to English made a lot of mistakes according to hebrew, greek and roman translators

This is not true. The copying discrepancies are 99% tiny things like spelling errors or obviously omitting a word. The monks (I don't know why you specify "English") were diligent and accurate copyists. The fact that the Masoretic text (of about AD 1000) conforms so well to the Dead Sea Scroll texts (of about 150 BC) is evidence of their responsibility in handling the transmission of the text.

> sex before marriage being a sin being added when back when the Bible was written, marriage didn’t exist.

Of course marriage existed back when the Bible was written. Where did you get this information? It's false.

> So the only way sex before marriage could be in the Bible is if it was added later on. Who’s to say more things weren’t added?

It wasn't added later on. We have enough manuscripts to know that for a fact. That's how we know more things weren't added. We have thousands upon thousands of manuscripts.

It seems that you are working with false information that you've gotten from a mistaken source(s).

[Eleven]

> and that nothing was taken out.

IIRC some of the Old Testament genealogies have some suspiciously-abrupt transitions. Pedantic, I know.

[jimwalton]

We know that the OT genealogies are not all-inclusive, as ours are. That doesn't mean they're incorrect, but rather that they are telescoped—intentionally omitting generations. It's no surprise that there may seem to be abrupt transitions, but that's not an indication that anything was taken out. There is no evidence that anything was ever taken out.