+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 9 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 126

Thread: Is the Bible Accurate, or NOT?

  1. #1

    Default Is the Bible Accurate, or NOT?

    Is the Bible divinely inspired, or a huge example of collective 'pious fraud'? zg

    -------------------


    What Was the Church Trying To Hide?


    by ROBERT ADAMS

    "How well we know what a profitable superstition
    this fable of Christ has been for us."
    -- Pope Leo X (1513-1521)

    When I first spoke to a close Christian friend of mine about the publishing of Tony Bushby's "The Bible Fraud," her reaction was one that many Christians have expressed, and one that made me aghast. She didn't want the book available because it would "persuade them away from the Bible and the word of God."

    Further discussions with her and many other Christians around the world about The Bible Fraud all result in the Bible being quoted as the ultimate reference for the apparent "words of God," and therefore the basis for their arguments. The problem lies in that they believe the Bible is infallible.

    If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum (I believe that, during his many years of research, Tony had a private viewing of this priceless book), we find a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the word of God?


    ...more - http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/revi...ewid=27&page=1
    Last edited by zengrifter; August 20th, 2007 at 11:33 PM.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  2. #2

    Default



    December 18, 2004 06:33:27 PM

    Fraud in the Bible
    or
    It Sucks That You Don't Know
    Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic

    http://www.mksmith.org/

    What is Pious Fraud?

    Pious fraud was a common technique employed by early Christian writers to make a point. Their intention was to convert anyone and everyone by any means available. One of the more persuasive methods was to write a text and falsely tell others that it was written in first person. For example, the four canonized gospel tales were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. That has been a well known fact for about 200 years. And to this day, no one knows who the gospel stories were written by. These texts are perfect examples of pious fraud. Pious fraud is the foundation of the deception known as Christianity and it continues to this day.

    Elohim - When speaking of the Hebrew deity, Yahveh, elohim, (gods) is
    used in the Hebrew texts, The plural elohim is used 2570 times. It is always
    falsely translated to the singular "God", thus falsely making us believe that
    this text was written at a time when the Hebrew people were monothestic,
    when it clearly is the case (written at least 2570 times, no less!) that they
    WERE NOT.
    Last edited by zengrifter; August 20th, 2007 at 11:33 PM.
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    67

    Default

    The Bible Fraud counterpoint:

    "During my first leisurely read-through of The Bible Fraud, I immediately began to notice some serious errors but offered Bushby the benefit of the doubt in believing he may have simply cited other authors who previously presented erroneous material. However, once I began to investigate his claims, I was left to conclude his many errors were no accident. Unfortunately for us wishing to investigate Bushby's claims, we are told many of his sources are "preserved in rare archival manuscripts and difficult-to-find ancient reference books." On several occasions, he makes vague references to phantom evidence such as "ancient documents" or "inscriptions" without offering the name or location of such evidence. Though this creates many dead-ends in our investigation, Bushby does reference several verifiable sources on which we will focus our research."

    http://www.thedevineevidence.com/ske...ble_fraud.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Neither of those articles deal with the facts in context: We're talking about an ancient document, and by realizing how little evidence is available to support most ancient documents, you'll realize how absurd their arguments are. And the first article has some real problems. It claims that the bible was written in the fourth century, but we have whole bibles by the third century. The rest of it seems to be weird conspiracy theories, centering around Gnostic gospels. But they were rejected because they were forgeries, not because they were the secret originals.

    The second article doesn't cite any of it's sources; it just makes ridiculous claims that it doesn't support. The gospels weren't written by the apostles, and the Torah wasn't written by Moses. Why? I don't know, because he doesn't say. I'm assuming it's the documentary hypothesis for Moses' writings, but the documentary hypothesis has been refuted for decades.

    If the Bible was forged, or altered after it's original writing, then all of ancient history has to come into doubt. You can argue that the bible is wrong, but to argue that it has been altered, without agreeing that we can know NOTHING about ancient history, is absurd.
    Last edited by moo321; August 21st, 2007 at 12:06 AM.

  5. #5

    Default

    I'm liking the Koran-version Yeshua more and more. zg

    ---------------------------------
    From

    Fraud in the Bible:

    ---------------------------------
    Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".


    Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word. The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bardalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God". So what does that tell you about the translation we read in today's Bibles? It tells you that Jesus was not the Son of God - but that he was "God-like". There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such.
    --------------------
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    I'm liking the Koran-version Yeshua more and more. zg

    ---------------------------------
    From

    Fraud in the Bible:

    ---------------------------------
    Son of Man: In all three major Semitic languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Arabic) the term barnasha means "human being". Jesus often referred to himself as a human being (28 times in the Gospels). Barnasha comes from bar (son) and nasha (man). The meaning of barnasha has created a lot of confusion in the Gospels. It is impossible to translate the Aramaic term of barnasha literally as "son of man" - and yet most biblical translators have and still do just that to this day. In the Aramaic language the word bar is combined with many other words to create different meanings - most specifically is means a "likeness." For example barabba means "resembles his father". Barhila translated literally would mean "son of power" but in reality it means "soldier". So when we read in the Gospels the phrase "son of man" it should be read correctly as "human being".


    Son of God: The word bar means a likeness or resemblance to the suffix word. The Aramaic term that Son of God comes from is bardalaha. Translated literally as "son of God" it does not mean this. Bardalaha in reality means "like God" or "God-like". So when Jesus is referred to as the "Son of God" we should read this correctly as "God-like" or "like God". So what does that tell you about the translation we read in today's Bibles? It tells you that Jesus was not the Son of God - but that he was "God-like". There is a big difference. Jesus himself repeatedly referred to himself as a "human being". The Aramaic reference does not mean one is physically divine - it means there is an important spiritual relationship between God and the man whom is bestowed that phraseology. In addition, don't forget that the Council of Nicea in 325 CE voted to change the human Jesus to a supernatural being. It wasn't until that time that any church thought of Jesus as such.
    --------------------
    I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I know enough to say that this guy is completely off base. First of all, he assumes himself into Aramaic, even though the original text wasn't written in Aramaic, so that alone makes this a straw man argument.

    And the Hebrew word "bar" DOES usually mean son. It can mean like, but it is used in geneologies to say someone is the "son of" someone else. I'm sure this is wrong.

    And of course the churches believed Jesus to be divine. Read the New Testament; or the letters of the early church. It was only a later heresy that they were refuting at Nicea.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    If the Bible was forged, or altered after it's original writing, then all of ancient history has to come into doubt. You can argue that the bible is wrong, but to argue that it has been altered, without agreeing that we can know NOTHING about ancient history, is absurd.
    I say that we know next to nothing about history, ancient or otherwise. zg
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    posting from Bethesda, MD
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Yes.
    Aslan 11/1/90 - 6/15/10 Stormy 1/22/95 -8/23/10
    “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church,
    but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
    Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

    “It takes a very long time to become young.” Pablo Picasso

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    I say that we know next to nothing about history, ancient or otherwise. zg
    Well, that position certainly has intellectual integrity. As long as you're willing to say everything is unreliable, then you certainly have the right to say the bible is unreliable. It is an ancient document, and thus it can't hold up to the same rigorous examination as modern documents.

    How then should one evaluate the truth claims of various religions/mythologies/gurus/philosophers? Should they be analyzed logically, intuitively, by asking a deity to show oneself which truth claims are valid, by meditation? One of the main ways that the bible authenticates itself is by long-term predictive prophecy. If it could be reliably shown that a writer was able to predict the future in a very specific way, could that be grounds for considering that document to be inspired by G(g)od(s)?
    Last edited by moo321; August 21st, 2007 at 02:29 AM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    How then should one evaluate the truth claims of various religions/mythologies/gurus/philosophers? Should they be analyzed logically, intuitively, by asking a deity to show oneself which truth claims are valid, by meditation?
    I go with ALL(ah) of the above.
    One of the main ways that the bible authenticates itself is by long-term predictive prophecy. If it could be reliably shown that a writer was able to predict the future in a very specific way, could that be grounds for considering that document to be inspired by G(g)od(s)?
    The Bible has no hegemony when it comes to prophecy. zg
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    I go with ALL(ah) of the above.

    The Bible has no hegemony when it comes to prophecy. zg
    So, do you believe that other religions/prophets were also capable of long-term predictive prophecy? i.e. centuries in advance?

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    So, do you believe that other religions/prophets were also capable of long-term predictive prophecy? i.e. centuries in advance?
    Absolutely. But, I find little validation in spiritual/religious paths by their prophecy. zg
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zengrifter View Post
    Absolutely. But, I find little validation in spiritual/religious paths by their prophecy. zg
    Well, I don't find much validation in it either. I find in the spiritual practices of christianity: prayer, bible study, fellowship with other christians, service, etc. But in order to find validation, one must know that what they believe is true.

    I certainly find great comfort in being very certain that I'm not merely believing something on blind faith. Rather, I'm very sure that what I believe is trustworthy and reliable.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moo321 View Post
    Well, that position certainly has intellectual integrity. As long as you're willing to say everything is unreliable, then you certainly have the right to say the bible is unreliable. It is an ancient document, and thus it can't hold up to the same rigorous examination as modern documents.
    Actully, it can. And by it's very nature, it MUST be. The argument that zg gives (at least as I understand him to say-please correct me if I am wrong) is that historical evidence-by it's very nature-is suspect because one cannot establish 'absolute truth'. How do we KNOW that the histories have not been tampered with? (Hey, we can't even say for certain when the Declaration of Independnce was signed! For that matter, since we no longer have the original, we cannot say for 100% certain who actually SIGNED it! )

    Instead, we do not look into history for 'Absolute Truth", rather we look for "historical probabilities", something you math geeks should be slobbering all over

    A quick (ha, ha!) quote:

    Without an objective criterion, one is at a loss to make a meaningful choice among 'a prioris'. The ressurection provides a basis in historical probability for thying the Christian faith. Granted, the basis is only one probability, not of certainlty, but probability is the sole ground on which finite human beings can make any decisions. Only deductive logic and pure mathematics provide 'apodictic certainty'm and they do so because they stem from self-evident formal axioms involving no matter of fact. (e.g., the tautology). The moment we enter into the realm of fact, we MUST depend on probability; this may be unfortunate, but it is unavoidable...(later, same article concerning history and Christianity)...tried to show that hte weight of historical probability lies on the side of the validity of Jesus' claim to be God incarnate, the Savior of man, and hte coming Judge of the world. If probability does in fact support these claims (and can we really deny it, having studied the evidence?) then we must act on behalf of them.
    -John Montgomery, 'Christianity and History', InterVarsity Press, 1973.

    In short, Christianity is the only belief that tells it's followers to ...test everything, cling to what is right. (1 Thes. 5:21)

    In short, don't take my word for it. And stop believing every bit of prattle that someone gets published. Look at the history, check out the archaeology, put it side-by-side with the scriptures and consider the probabilities. (Remembering that we are warned that some people willfully choose to ignore the truth even when they are presented with the evidence. Romans 1:18-23 and Matt. 22:29). And Titus 3:7 refers to those who are '...always seeking but never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth"...

    As for me, I will remain a follower of Christ- a Christian-because it is wht I have found to be the historically factual thing to be.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eps6724 View Post
    As for me, I will remain a follower of Christ- a Christian-because it is wht I have found to be the historically factual thing to be.
    Odds are you didn't really try (TEST) much else.

    And, as for the "comfort" it gives you - it is the comfort of your illusionary ego-self being consoled with 'life-everlasting' to occur in some future space and time rather than THREATENED with its imediate demise in the face of the reality of the full force divine conscious light realization of God which is always already the case, sans illusion.

    Your very identity depends upon and clings to illusion.

    I have recently come to see that of the two unenlightened mythos - Bible and Quran - the latter does a more appealingly accurate job of describing Yeshua, without the extreme tampering of the history, meaning, and nature of an enlightened adept.

    Shame on the 'early Christian fathers' for what they have perpetrated upon the legacy of Isa (Jesus). zg
    "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."
    .....................The Zengrifter Interview (PDF) |
    The Zengrifter / James Grosjean Reputation Debate
    -----------------------------------------
    “Truth, like gold, is obtained not by growth, but by washing away all that is not gold.” — Leo Tolstoy........
    "Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." ZG

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Einstein: Jews NOT Chosen People, Bible Childish
    By zengrifter in forum Religious Cults & Spirituality
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: November 13th, 2016, 05:16 PM
  2. Behind The Bible Fraud - What Was The Church Trying To Hide?
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 24th, 2014, 01:52 PM
  3. Nice bible words of wisdom
    By Katweezel in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: June 25th, 2013, 02:41 AM
  4. Deleting 'Liberal Bias' from the Bible
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: May 16th, 2013, 05:16 AM
  5. Koran or Bible - Who's Right About Jesus?
    By zengrifter in forum ZenZone General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 9th, 2006, 02:19 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts