Additions To The Bible?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-12-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(30-11-2014 11:49 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Well arguing with the presupposition that the bible is true and a historical document, then one could say that the story of the bible is finished. It begins with man's fall from grace and ends with man's redemption. It's a complete narrative. In the same way that it would be silly to write a history of the roman empire after 1452.
but humans are still alive, some are still waiting for the promised second coming of Christ. Surely the story isn't over until he comes back on his horse and slaughters all the non believers and non Christians.

There ought to be an entry or two
100 AD, man waited
200 AD, man continued to wait.
500 AD, still waiting
1000 AD Man continues to wait and expects to wait some more
2000 AD waiting a bit more.


They could create a new hymn to sing in the churches,
Why are we waiting.
Why ay are we waiting,
Oh why are we way ay ting
Oh why, why oh why.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
01-12-2014, 02:32 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
The likes of Mohammed or Joseph Smith thought they were writing additions.

And on a somewhat related note, different churches already have different canonical texts and translations...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
01-12-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(01-12-2014 01:13 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 10:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is a narrative structure used in fiction, not history.

Well considering that literature and history were much less district in ancient times it would make sense for it to follow literary forms.
Also as I mentioned epilogues and predictions are often part of modern day works of history.

If you are arguing that the Bible's structure shows that it is actual history, you have a very, very weak argument since the content shows that it is not.

If that is not your point, then what is?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
If you are interested on this very topic, read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. He talks exactly about these things and it is an incredible read. It also is only 10 bucks from Amazon.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 03:15 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(01-12-2014 02:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 01:13 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Well considering that literature and history were much less district in ancient times it would make sense for it to follow literary forms.
Also as I mentioned epilogues and predictions are often part of modern day works of history.

If you are arguing that the Bible's structure shows that it is actual history, you have a very, very weak argument since the content shows that it is not.

If that is not your point, then what is?

I'm trying to say that not having new additions does not automatically mean that the bible is not a historical source, which is the premise of the op, as the story has a complete narrative. Most histories do this. If one writes a history of the byzantine empire than it will end with the fall of constantinople, with most likely a single chapter more to clean things up.

So if we presume that the compilers of the final edition of the bible saw it as beginning with man's fall then it would make narrative sense to end it with Jesus. Especially considering the idea that that was the final public revelation.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(01-12-2014 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  They could create a new hymn to sing in the churches,
Why are we waiting.
Why ay are we waiting,
Oh why are we way ay ting
Oh why, why oh why.

Very appropriate! For those that don't know it:



Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
01-12-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
I was trying to put on my "stupid hat" and look at this through the googly eyes of a xtian who believe the bible is telling a literal story and feel that God/Jesus/The Holy Penetrator are still working their magic daily.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 06:03 PM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(01-12-2014 03:15 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 02:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  If you are arguing that the Bible's structure shows that it is actual history, you have a very, very weak argument since the content shows that it is not.

If that is not your point, then what is?

I'm trying to say that not having new additions does not automatically mean that the bible is not a historical source, which is the premise of the op, as the story has a complete narrative. Most histories do this. If one writes a history of the byzantine empire than it will end with the fall of constantinople, with most likely a single chapter more to clean things up.

So if we presume that the compilers of the final edition of the bible saw it as beginning with man's fall then it would make narrative sense to end it with Jesus. Especially considering the idea that that was the final public revelation.

You presume too much, the leaders of the Catholic church arbitrarily decided that certain books were canon and then declared it closed.
Also, Christianity is to Judaism as Mormons are to Christianity, each one views the other as an upstart cult - and they're both right, though I'll toss Judaism into the heap of cults along with the rest.




Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2014, 06:41 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2014 06:49 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(01-12-2014 02:30 PM)Stevil Wrote:  They could create a new hymn to sing in the churches,
Why are we waiting.
Why ay are we waiting,
Oh why are we way ay ting
Oh why, why oh why.

They already did silly.







(01-12-2014 03:16 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Very appropriate! For those that don't know it:

Damn unfogged grounded it better than Girly. So ashamed. Blush

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: Additions To The Bible?
(01-12-2014 06:03 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(01-12-2014 03:15 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I'm trying to say that not having new additions does not automatically mean that the bible is not a historical source, which is the premise of the op, as the story has a complete narrative. Most histories do this. If one writes a history of the byzantine empire than it will end with the fall of constantinople, with most likely a single chapter more to clean things up.

So if we presume that the compilers of the final edition of the bible saw it as beginning with man's fall then it would make narrative sense to end it with Jesus. Especially considering the idea that that was the final public revelation.

You presume too much, the leaders of the Catholic church arbitrarily decided that certain books were canon and then declared it closed.
Also, Christianity is to Judaism as Mormons are to Christianity, each one views the other as an upstart cult - and they're both right, though I'll toss Judaism into the heap of cults along with the rest.




I don't believe I presume to much at all. The leaders of the church didn't choose the books at random.

Also it does not matter how the Jews saw Jesus since the Gospel writers saw Jesus as the Messiah and Matthew, who almost certainly was a jew, emphasized Jesus' continuity with the old testament.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: