I just saw this in part of an answer to a question about the bible. Can anyone else see a problem with it? :)
"Books were excluded because they were determined not to be completely true the the remainder of the Bible.
The Bible consists of 66 books: 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. The Bible took about 1600 years to write. It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout."
2007-12-16 16:32:59 · 14 answers · asked by russj 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I thought it an example of more circular reasoning. Books were excluded because they weren't consistent with the others, but the bible is credible because they are internally consistent. Well of course they would be. The ones that weren't were excluded. :)
2007-12-16 16:39:08 · update #1
If the people who put the Bible together didn't have the Holy Spirit helping them, the Bible would not be anything close to what it is. There might not even be the tradition of keeping it that way. But the Bible is protected by those who have an interest in keeping it secure.
I am sure that none of this is valuable to you, but I write it for any who think that it might matter, not you.
2007-12-16 16:43:21 · answer #1 · answered by Christian Sinner 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible was probably written over something like 800 years, not 1600 (although oral tradiitons might have been passed down for many centuries before the hebrew texts were committed to writing)
Whether it is "internally consistent" depends entirely how you interpret a large variety of passages.
Various books were not included in the Bible when it was compiled for a variety of reasons, including the fact that some were contrary to what was already accepted doctrine.
I do not believe any of the books were written in Aramaic. Weren't the original NT books all written in Greek?
2007-12-16 16:41:53 · answer #2 · answered by Nightwind 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
66 books 38 in the OT and 27 in the NT is ok. The rest is not factual. It is actually quite inconsistent throughout. More misinformation, as usual.
2007-12-16 16:59:17 · answer #3 · answered by Tricia R 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean the repetition of "the"?
Edit: Oh. Well, you make a reasonable point. Still, how easy do you think it would be to get sixty-six books written mostly by different people over a period of centuries to be internally self-consistent even if you deliberately selected for that?
2007-12-16 16:37:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Internally consistent????
The bible doesn't even have the birth of Jesus consistent...it's mentioned 2 times and both differ...what a crock
2007-12-16 16:42:43 · answer #5 · answered by raveniiz 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Many, lost in translation, only certain books were selected to be part of the bible and there were 40 authors
2007-12-16 16:39:35 · answer #6 · answered by Imagine No Religion 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout"
That is the major argument, people just wrote whatever the hell they want, and we accept it as absolute truth. I am not saying there ISN'T a god, there may very well be.... but the entity is probably nothing like what they say
2007-12-16 16:37:11 · answer #7 · answered by Troy G 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The different Bibles contain different numbers of books. There are glaring inconsistencies, especially between Kings and Chronicles.
2007-12-16 16:38:26 · answer #8 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmm, 1600 yrs., 3 languages (one dead one,too),
40 authors and it's "consistent throughout"?
Nah, I don't see any problem.
2007-12-16 16:38:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
consistent? an eye for an eye then turn the other cheek?
2007-12-16 16:40:39 · answer #10 · answered by sammy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋