Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years...

[Last Things]

I think he got it backwards, Mark states that the women did not report it, while Matthew reports that the women did.

But what im puzzled with, is if Matthews gospel focuses on the jewish concept of eye witness accounts, then women would not have been apart of it, since by jewish law, women could not be counted as eyewitnesses, atleast as far as my understanding goes.

I was only responding on the two person concept, not the reports of women. Your puzzlement may be do the fact that I did not explain that certain details are different to emphasize, history was not rewritten. Part of the issue here is that there are three versions of the end of Mark, depending on use of manuscript. The longer version has them reporting it.

Not to mention, this still doesnt demonstrate how its accurate or not. If youre saying that Matthews gospel is concentrating on two where others have only one, then either account is mistaken, for whatever reason.[/QUOTE]

 

[Last Things]

Not to mention, this still doesnt demonstrate how its accurate or not. If youre saying that Matthews gospel is concentrating on two where others have only one, then either account is mistaken, for whatever reason.

It is only a mistake in our minds, it would not be a mistake for them. We emphasize facts over meaning.

 

[farout]

The Holy Spirit inspired men as he moved upon them to write the very Word of God. I an very sure when we cross over the line and say the Bible has contradictions, we ay be I dangerous territory and saying the Holy Spirit made errors. This a very serious accusation one we will be held accountable for.

In my opinion and understanding of the Bible, to make a false statement against the Holy Spirit, is extremely sinful, and is considered as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Asanima]

I was only responding on the two person concept, not the reports of women. Your puzzlement may be do the fact that I did not explain that certain details are different to emphasize, history was not rewritten. Part of the issue here is that there are three versions of the end of Mark, depending on use of manuscript. The longer version has them reporting it.

I wrote the reports of women part in response to his claims about how Matthew wanted to emphasize the importance of jewish culture and law regarding eyewitness testimony. But this is strange, if Matthew uses women as eyewitnesses, as women in jewish courts and law were not permitted to be eyewitnesses.

It is only a mistake in our minds, it would not be a mistake for them. We emphasize facts over meaning.

Sure.

 

[Asanima]

Do you then believe there is no divine protection over the authenticity of the word?
If you believe there is divine protection, then does it stop at a certain level of detail?
If you believe there is no divine protection, then how can you trust any portion of it?

Well, I suppose my answer would have to be a flat out yes to the first question, nor would I necessarily trust any portion of it.

But the problem here is that everything within the history of Christianity seems to agree with me. You have councils that occur in 400, 500 AD that discuss the implications of doctrines and implementing new dogmatic traditions. you have multiple instances where scholars and church fathers have disagreed on interpretations to the point of splitting off and forming new churches.

I mean, i suppose we are kinda talking about two different things here. Youre discussing divine protection of the scripture, but that doesnt necessarily mean divine protection of the interpretation of people who were writing this down when they were in the presence of the holy spirit. Whether it be god/angels dictating or inspiring them to write it, theyre still men, fallible, with biases, and misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

 

[Asanima]

The Holy Spirit inspired men as he moved upon them to write the very Word of God. I an very sure when we cross over the line and say the Bible has contradictions, we ay be I dangerous territory and saying the Holy Spirit made errors. This a very serious accusation one we will be held accountable for.

In my opinion and understanding of the Bible, to make a false statement against the Holy Spirit, is extremely sinful, and is considered as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Well, no, not the holy spirit making errors, but the human beings who are writing this down. Its not like the holy spirit comes down in bodily form and writes this. It inspires or dictates to human beings, right? And The accusation that Human beings make errors is justified, wouldnt you say?

 

[Last Things]

The Holy Spirit inspired men as he moved upon them to write the very Word of God. I an very sure when we cross over the line and say the Bible has contradictions, we ay be I dangerous territory and saying the Holy Spirit made errors. This a very serious accusation one we will be held accountable for.

I don't think the bible has contradictions in the authors' understanding and purpose. It is only contradictory when we try to apply our culture and our understanding. The problem is that most people refuse to see or think outside their way of doing things. Therefore, the writers MUST be doing and thinking things according to our culture.

In my opinion and understanding of the Bible, to make a false statement against the Holy Spirit, is extremely sinful, and is considered as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

And the ancients would argue that applying our approaches and understandings leads to false statements.

 

[Last Things]

I wrote the reports of women part in response to his claims about how Matthew wanted to emphasize the importance of jewish culture and law regarding eyewitness testimony. But this is strange, if Matthew uses women as eyewitnesses, as women in jewish courts and law were not permitted to be eyewitnesses.

I made a comment about Matthew in response to a post that also included the aspect of women, but I did not address this statement. Ultimately, the scripture is going to give a meaningful account of what happened and the women going to the tomb is part of the meaning. The authors are going to convey particular meanings that do not contradict the overall meaning.

 

[Fenn]

Well, I suppose my answer would have to be a flat out yes to the first question, nor would I necessarily trust any portion of it.

Lol, I just read your profile. I guess I could have answered that first question without asking you. Sorry about that.

But the problem here is that everything within the history of Christianity seems to agree with me. You have councils that occur in 400, 500 AD that discuss the implications of doctrines and implementing new dogmatic traditions. you have multiple instances where scholars and church fathers have disagreed on interpretations to the point of splitting off and forming new churches.

This is bound to happen. Even in the early church days mentioned in the Bible people were creating their own special doctrines.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

Mark 7

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

The pharisees, much like many people today, taught doctrines that weren't backed up by the word. They were partially backed by it, but they added and twisted in any way they wished. This is free will.

I mean, i suppose we are kinda talking about two different things here. Youre discussing divine protection of the scripture, but that doesnt necessarily mean divine protection of the interpretation of people who were writing this down when they were in the presence of the holy spirit. Whether it be god/angels dictating or inspiring them to write it, theyre still men, fallible, with biases, and misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

I believe that when it comes to scripture, if the Holy Spirit were going to compel the disciples to write things down, that He would oversee the accuracy of what was written down. Otherwise there isn't really a point to inspiring them to write it down. Even if you don't believe in God, you can see that if God is real He would want His word to go out unadulterated. At least at the start out. After that it is up to humans maybe and maybe He has kept His hand on it this whole time.

 

[farout]

Well, no, not the holy spirit making errors, but the human beings who are writing this down. Its not like the holy spirit comes down in bodily form and writes this. It inspires or dictates to human beings, right? And The accusation that Human beings make errors is justified, wouldnt you say?[

Asanima: I think after reading your profile, I have a better understanding of how to help you understand Christianity. I am not sure what you really want to know, but here is a suggestion to more fully understand Christianity, and the Bible. I hope you live in a place where you an have access to a Bible. If you could read the gospel of John it would be a very good place to begin. To be very honest there is no way for me, or perhaps anyone to convince you there is a Creator God that loves you so much He sent His one and only Son, Jesus Christ, to take your punishment for your sins. By accepting the free gift of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ enduring the punishment for your sin's, and becoming a follower of Jesus Christ, instead of you paying the price for your own sins. The punishment for your sin's is not only death, which we all must go through, but rejecting Jesus Christ and His free gift, is eternal punishment in a place of torments the Bible calls Hell.

God does not force anyone to believe in Him. You can choose to reject His offer of unconditional love, acceptance, and forgiveness for you. This is a choice each and everyone makes. God Almighty will not force anyone to believe He exists. Romans chapter 1 gives full detail about this. I sincerely hope you will investigate these things for your own, to be fully aware of the choice's you are making for your life here and after your death.

 

[Asanima]

This is bound to happen. Even in the early church days mentioned in the Bible people were creating their own special doctrines.

1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

Mark 7

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

The pharisees, much like many people today, taught doctrines that weren't backed up by the word. They were partially backed by it, but they added and twisted in any way they wished. This is free will.

Sure, but im not just talking about "Special doctrine" or "Twisting the scripture". The oriental orthodox church split off from the main orthodox branches after the council of chalcedon because they refused to accept a doctrinal addition or confirmation regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. Now, maybe you may or may not consider the orthodox church to be a church that has "twisted" its scripture or produced speical doctrine, but im certain the orthodox christians, which there are many of today, dont consider themselves a part of a religion that has "twisted" the scriptures, wouldnt you agree?

I believe that when it comes to scripture, if the Holy Spirit were going to compel the disciples to write things down, that He would oversee the accuracy of what was written down. Otherwise there isn't really a point to inspiring them to write it down. Even if you don't believe in God, you can see that if God is real He would want His word to go out unadulterated. At least at the start out. After that it is up to humans maybe and maybe He has kept His hand on it this whole time.

Certainly, and you made a good point, but accuracy and perfection are two different things. I mean, a testimony can be accurate but not perfect. The fact that a car accident eyewitness mistook a Dodge for a Chrysler, doesnt necessarily mean his testimony regarding the accident itself(for example, who was at fault, who smashed into who etc), isnt accurately portrayed.

But are you saying that God made these people who were inspired by/being dictated by God/angels, were made perfect during the duration of the dictation/inspiration?

And as a secondary side note, i just wanted to address another point made in your comment. It was a good point about how there isnt really a point in inspiring them to write it down if it wasnt accurate. But doesnt this logic extend to the copies, especially if we are discussing this in the context of whether the Bible that we have today is accurate? I mean, whats the point in accurately writing down the original, if all the copies and transliterations are gonna be innacurate? After all, the copies were the ones which were distributed, and ultimately discussed over as to whether they would be included into the new testament. I mean, we already know that the Pauline epistles were being circulated in the 1st century, and yet it is hard to believe that only the originals were being circulated.

 

[Fenn]

Sure, but im not just talking about "Special doctrine" or "Twisting the scripture". The oriental orthodox church split off from the main orthodox branches after the council of chalcedon because they refused to accept a doctrinal addition or confirmation regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. Now, maybe you may or may not consider the orthodox church to be a church that has "twisted" its scripture or produced speical doctrine, but im certain the orthodox christians, which there are many of today, dont consider themselves a part of a religion that has "twisted" the scriptures, wouldnt you agree?

I don't want to get too much into specific religions or branches of religions at this point. However, if I understand what you mean, then I would agree they don't consider themselves a part of a religion that has "twisted" the scriptures. Judging by the verses provided they most likely wouldn't be aware that they are twisted. 2 Peter mentions that many will follow them. I'm not sure if there was another point you were making, but it may have gone over my head if you did.

Certainly, and you made a good point, but accuracy and perfection are two different things. I mean, a testimony can be accurate but not perfect. The fact that a car accident eyewitness mistook a Dodge for a Chrysler, doesnt necessarily mean his testimony regarding the accident itself(for example, who was at fault, who smashed into who etc), isnt accurately portrayed.

But are you saying that God made these people who were inspired by/being dictated by God/angels, were made perfect during the duration of the dictation/inspiration?

Agreed. They are two different things. However, when speaking of salvation and the means of attaining isn't it necessary to have a perfect account? I mean there would have to be at least one copy made at one time or another that had perfect information. Otherwise no one can be sure of salvation or the way to achieve it. If it is God's word, what would be the point of giving almost perfect information? What if a couple of things were written differently on the Ten Commandments or if Moses did not write the correct laws completely when God told them to him?

And as a secondary side note, i just wanted to address another point made in your comment. It was a good point about how there isnt really a point in inspiring them to write it down if it wasnt accurate. But doesnt this logic extend to the copies, especially if we are discussing this in the context of whether the Bible that we have today is accurate? I mean, whats the point in accurately writing down the original, if all the copies and transliterations are gonna be innacurate? After all, the copies were the ones which were distributed, and ultimately discussed over as to whether they would be included into the new testament. I mean, we already know that the Pauline epistles were being circulated in the 1st century, and yet it is hard to believe that only the originals were being circulated.

Yes and no. I understand your point, only I can't say what God would do in this situation. I can only give my interpretation of it.
God inspires perfect information to be written down > Disciples write it perfect > Copies are made

Within the Copies there are two categories -

God inspired and Non

Those who would be inspired through the Spirit would be able to continue the perfect copies and those who weren't or had their own agenda could do whatever they want with it. Whether that is the best way or not, who is to say? All I know is that if I choose I can incorrectly copy the Bible. That proves that not every copy is accurate. It just doesn't prove that they are all inaccurate. So, we know for sure not all copies are God inspired. I know that really didn't satisfy your questions, but I am doing the best with the logic I have to look at spiritual matters.

 

[RJ]

• To know God is to know his absolute perfection.
• His New Covenant; His word is defvine and with out deffect, imperfection or substitute. The only thing wrong with it is our imperfection!
• To believe otherwise is a lie and absolute folly.

 

[james1523]

For them, that is not falsifying. Changing details or the order of events was not important to them. What was important was what it conveyed.

If changing details or order of events was not important to the early Christians, then it should not be important for us. This indicates that the early Christians used the Bible in a different way to how we use it today.

 

[james1523]

Do you then believe there is no divine protection over the authenticity of the word?
If you believe there is divine protection, then does it stop at a certain level of detail?
If you believe there is no divine protection, then how can you trust any portion of it?

just like God did not stop Moses breaking the 10 commandments into pieces, God does not actively protect the bible which is evidenced by the fact that bibles can be burned without consequence, there are hundreds of versions and translations (some of which have gross errors). That there is no active divine protection should be evidenced by the fact that there are hundreds of different versions and translations of the Bible today. God has given man the responsibility for caring for and preserving the Word. It has been like this since God gave Moses the 10 commandments, where they had to preserve them and keep them safe in the ark.

The divine protection is in the form of the Holy Spirit which indwells all true believers in Jesus Christ. He keeps the Word safe by the pure and unadulterated person of Jesus Christ living in each believe and providing divine inspiration via the anointing which 'teaches all things'.

 

[Last Things]

The Holy Spirit inspired men as he moved upon them to write the very Word of God. I an very sure when we cross over the line and say the Bible has contradictions, we ay be I dangerous territory and saying the Holy Spirit made errors. This a very serious accusation one we will be held accountable for.

In my opinion and understanding of the Bible, to make a false statement against the Holy Spirit, is extremely sinful, and is considered as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

God's Word is Jesus Christ who is written about by men in what is called the word of God through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I don't know of anyone here who has argued it has errors or contradictions. There are people that seem to think the bible was written by God, instead of inspired. This means that bible carries the meanings and points of God through the words of men that were being inspired.

The bible is error and contradiction free on all issues pertaining to faith and meaning.

 

[Last Things]

I believe that when it comes to scripture, if the Holy Spirit were going to compel the disciples to write things down, that He would oversee the accuracy of what was written down. Otherwise there isn't really a point to inspiring them to write it down. Even if you don't believe in God, you can see that if God is real He would want His word to go out unadulterated. At least at the start out. After that it is up to humans maybe and maybe He has kept His hand on it this whole time.

Accuracy according to who, the people at the time or us?

Back in their time, people were illiterate. They were a storytelling culture. Storytellers change minor details of a story. We are a literate society and are obsessed about the words themselves.

The bible is 100% true according to the way its writers understood truth. Our sense of truth has change. We don't believe in meaning, spirituality, philosophy, etc. It's all about science, tangible concrete details. The bible writers were the opposite.

 

[Last Things]

But are you saying that God made these people who were inspired by/being dictated by God/angels, were made perfect during the duration of the dictation/inspiration?

Whoa there - that is a man made tradition. The bible was not 'dictated' by God. The bible was inspired by God. Jesus is the revelation of God, the bible is the story of Jesus as experienced by man. The meaning of the accounts is preserved, the meaning and reasons are kept. Whether or not Paul wore red or blue sandals has absolutely no relevance.

And as a secondary side note, i just wanted to address another point made in your comment. It was a good point about how there isnt really a point in inspiring them to write it down if it wasnt accurate. But doesnt this logic extend to the copies, especially if we are discussing this in the context of whether the Bible that we have today is accurate? I mean, whats the point in accurately writing down the original, if all the copies and transliterations are gonna be innacurate? After all, the copies were the ones which were distributed, and ultimately discussed over as to whether they would be included into the new testament. I mean, we already know that the Pauline epistles were being circulated in the 1st century, and yet it is hard to believe that only the originals were being circulated.

Accuracy by their standards are completely different.
Accuracy is about the IMPACT and MEANING of something in the ancient world. They worshiped God and spoke of things and realities that they could not touch.
We worship science and speak only of what can be seen and touched. As a result 'FACTS' are the only truth to us. Everything else is relative and unimportant. To them, MEANING was the only truth, everything else is relative.

 

[Last Things]

If changing details or order of events was not important to the early Christians, then it should not be important for us. This indicates that the early Christians used the Bible in a different way to how we use it today.

No one is taught philosophy anymore, as a result, people have no idea that people look at and understand the world and themselves in profoundly different ways. For them, the reality existed outside of Earth. For everyone, there was a higher order or great thing, even if you were pagan. Things of God or the higher order carry far more importance.

Despite being Christians, we have adopted the thinking of our culture. When we approach scripture we ought to ask - what is God getting at? Not, what was Paul wearing.

 

[Last Things]

just like God did not stop Moses breaking the 10 commandments into pieces, God does not actively protect the bible which is evidenced by the fact that bibles can be burned without consequence, there are hundreds of versions and translations (some of which have gross errors). That there is no active divine protection should be evidenced by the fact that there are hundreds of different versions and translations of the Bible today. God has given man the responsibility for caring for and preserving the Word. It has been like this since God gave Moses the 10 commandments, where they had to preserve them and keep them safe in the ark.

Moses came after Noah....
Preserving doesn't mean the paper it is written on, it means the integrity of the universal message.
Different translations exist because things can be translated differently. You can use one set of words to express the same meaning in another set. The meaning is preserved.

The divine protection is in the form of the Holy Spirit which indwells all true believers in Jesus Christ. He keeps the Word safe by the pure and unadulterated person of Jesus Christ living in each believe and providing divine inspiration via the anointing which 'teaches all things'.

This is obviously untrue as Christians do not agree on the same thing, as evidenced by this topic. What you have done is put yourself above scripture.