Bible "History"?

Question

Many Christians believe "The" Bible must be taken literally, word for word. How?

Where?
The Bible began as a compilation of old Jewish texts (the Old Testament) with a few Christ-ian writings (the New Testament). BTW - Muslims believe they have the "Newer" than "New Testament" words of God.

What?
There were literally hundreds of different versions, in different languages, of the Old Testament's Jewish texts floating around. The same for the texts gathered into the New Testament (and they were chosen from only the more "acceptable" ones around).

Basically Christians had all kinds of versions, in various languages, and argued over which were The "Truth".

Why?
So a bible was first compiled in 302 A.D. (382 years post Jesus) by Pope Damasus's secretary, Jerome, to make a CONSISTANT version for everyone because the arguements were hampering the Church with in-fighting. (Jerome was not a professional translator -btw).

The first print of a bible was 1516 A.D.... in Greek.

Answer 1

That was not a question. What's your question?

Answer 2

There aren't any major differences in the various biblical texts. There are only minor copyists mistakes, and non-critcal variations. The message stays the same. The Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date Christianity and they are virtually the same as modern texts. The oldest version of the Old Testament is Septuagint The Septuagint is written in the common Greek of the Hellenistic age about 320 B.C.E.

Muratorian Canon of 170 A.D. is where we find the essential New Testament as we know it today.

The Quran wasn't written until hundreds of years later and not by Muhammed, who could neither read or write, unlike Jesus who amazed people with his biblical knowledge at an early age. The Quran errs on nearly all biblically related subjects.

Answer 3

There will always be factions because no one will agree on certain things. There will always be division because more than one will always want to be right. There will always be those who diatribe against others because human nature is to make self look good. When done with a modicum of dignity it is done by self-promotion, which orders on the gauche instead of dignified. When that doesn't work it is done by denigrating others and dignity is throw aside in favor of self.

But truth will always stand the test of time. The only literature that has lived for all these ages has the element of truth to it, including the Bible. But of those, the Bible is the only literature that effectively answers the questions of humanity with any real accuracy. So therein lies the reason for the truth of the Bible.

Besides, any first year student of ancient literature could tell you that most of the Bible was never intended to be used as an historical document. But that doesn't negate its truth.

Answer 4

You can't take it literally. It was never meant to.

Besides all the stories about Jesus in the bibles are just rehashed versions of similar "events" that occurred with other pagan religions like the Norse vikings, and the Celts, and the egyptians....look it up.

And yes, it was all to make a uniform "story" that Pagans could fall in line with, since the stories were basically the same as those they already believed.

oh, and pagan doesn't mean evil or blasphemous or anything like that. Pagan was just a general term for the barbarians and other traveling groups of people that weren't incorporated into the rising Catholic Empire.

Answer 5

Good for someone to know history. But what is it that you are trying to say, or prove? You can not remove what has been placed in a man's soul by his believe of what the bible is, God's word. Then you have the Muslim's that believe in Mohammad that came after Christ, not sure when, more or less 500 years after Christ. Have you looked at that history too?

Answer 6

You do not leave a fellow much to believe in. John 8:32; 12:47,48'; 17:17;

I do take it literally and do not find any thing wrong. What you say keeps
people from the examination of the bible.

Abraham
2083-25-Isaac-2108-60-
Jacob-2168-90-
Joseph-2258-110 dies-2368, end of Genesis,
2368-65-Job dies.
2433-80-Moses-2513 = covenant Heirs.
Trek 40-2553 Moses dies.
480-Solomon 1King 6:1; 3033 + 36 = 3069.
Judah kings-[390 years, 5 months =] 391st years to 3460 after Adam.
Can any one prove this wrong?
Gen 12:4; Abraham is age 75[born year 2008 is 2 years after Noah dies],
Abraham in 2083, gets the covenant, is age 100[or 25 years later],
Isaac born Gen.21:5; in 2108 at age 180 years, dies.
Isaac age 60 when sons born. 25:24-26; Isaac died 2288.
Jacob 2168 + 130 Gen.47:9; Is in Rameses Egypt 2298[less 2083 = 215 in Canaan];
Jacob 2298 + 17 years he dies Gen.47:28; 2315 after Adam.
2298 [Joseph was age 40 of 110 = ] 70 = 2368 dies Gen.50:26; End of Genesis.
Exodus 7:7; 12:40,41; 430 years after covenant to Abraham in 2083 = 2513, Moses is
age 80 and was born 2433 or 65 years after Joseph dies. He is 4th generation after
Jacob = Gen.15:13,16; Exo.6:16-23,26;

Answer 7

I know that it seems like a cop out, but Faith in God requires believing without proof. I believe that the Bible is God's word but I can't prove it to someone who doesn't believe,

Answer 8

look to babylon - hamurabi's code is the original law that the jewish text stems from - jesus was jewish - the dead sea scrolls tell different tales - there was no mesiah mentioned in the first testiment - nor a heaven.

Answer 9

The history is based on the Bible, as you know the the history is Before Christ, and after the Death of Christ.

Answer 10

The Torah doesn't have versions. Look at the dead sea scrolls. There is plenty of proof it never changed.

Answer 11

this is for mypublicident I suggest you read The Bible as History and educate yourself before making statements like that.