Evidence for God from Science

Just how reliable is the Bible giving it's history of selection, edition, contradictions, etc...not to mention the history of the Church with it's persecution and politics.

Please enlighten.

Icei_Nhell wrote:Just how reliable is the Bible giving it's history of selection, edition, contradictions, etc...not to mention the history of the Church with it's persecution and politics.

Please enlighten.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

You may wish to start with this article on the main board.

We welcome those on this board who are Christians or seekers and seeking constructive communications.

Please check our Discussion Guidelines and Board Purpose before responding further and decide if you fit that category.

Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

Bart

'Selection and edition'? I would give you one good advice: be wary of such claims. More often than not, they are based on false information and/or assumptions. Actually, the Bible we have is very reliable and is not, for instance, a selection by males who wanted power over women and suppressed an equally valid Christianity. These charges are often untrue.

Do you have any examples of 'selection and edition'?

SELECTION:

The Gospels included in the Bible were selected by a "select" few who identifies which should be included and not in the Bible. Given the fact that the writers of the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) where not even first hand informations, why should they be trusted over those Gospels made by the close disciples themselves?

EDITION:

A letter allegedly writen by Clement of Alexandria in which he mentioned about the Secret Gospel of Mark and claimed that it is right that they have edited the Gospel of Mark editing off the Lazarus experience.

The original Gospel of Mark actually does not mention of the ressurection however, the Church adds it up.

Icei_Nhell wrote:SELECTION:

The Gospels included in the Bible were selected by a "select" few who identifies which should be included and not in the Bible. Given the fact that the writers of the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) where not even first hand informations, why should they be trusted over those Gospels made by the close disciples themselves?

EDITION:

A letter allegedly writen by Clement of Alexandria in which he mentioned about the Secret Gospel of Mark and claimed that it is right that they have edited the Gospel of Mark editing off the Lazarus experience.

The original Gospel of Mark actually does not mention of the ressurection however, the Church adds it up.

Icei_nhell,

When someone asks for examples they're generally asking for proof, not conjecture. Do you have any?

Given the fact that the writers of the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) where not even first hand informations

Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus. ...and Mark got much of his info from Peter...I don't see how you can't get much closer to the source than that.

Icei_Nhell, for future please keep your questions to one thread only. I responded to you in another thread where you essentially asked the same thing, and reproduce my response here for you.

Given you would perhaps believe there are contradictions, I know people who I value as Christians who do not hold to an inerrant view of Scripture. As such, although I believe it a very important issue, it is not crucial to one's being Christian. Thus, I see no reason to respond on this flank unless in scholarly dialogue.

What is crucial is what one believes of Christ, particularly whether He was God and whether He did come to reconcile us to God. I believe there is very good historical evidence that Christ worked miracles (in my experience almost everyone unanimously accepts He was a great healer), and furthermore that Christ died and was witnessed to be alive by many after His death. Such events would verify Christ's claims that it is only through Him we can be in communion with God. Some pages I would recommend reading over include: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html and also http://christiancadre.org/topics/resurrection.html which has a list of online resources.

I would add that God does not just simply wish us to accept the events and claims surrounding Christ. I am sure many Christians here will confirm their awareness was opened up to God's reality as a Christian, and in many ways they have experienced His existence in their lives whether through common religious experience or something more intimate and personal. Thus, Christ is not just a historical figure in the past who can be confirmed, but also a reality right now to many of us who experience Him in our lives.

Kurieuo

Icei_Nhell wrote:SELECTION:

The Gospels included in the Bible were selected by a "select" few who identifies which should be included and not in the Bible. Given the fact that the writers of the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) where not even first hand informations, why should they be trusted over those Gospels made by the close disciples themselves?

EDITION:

A letter allegedly writen by Clement of Alexandria in which he mentioned about the Secret Gospel of Mark and claimed that it is right that they have edited the Gospel of Mark editing off the Lazarus experience.

The original Gospel of Mark actually does not mention of the ressurection however, the Church adds it up.

I gave you a very detailed listing in another thread where you asked the same questions giving the backgrounds of the gospel writers.

2 of them were direct disciples of Christ. How much closer do you want?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

Icei_Nhell wrote:SELECTION:

The Gospels included in the Bible were selected by a "select" few who identifies which should be included and not in the Bible. Given the fact that the writers of the four Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) where not even first hand informations, why should they be trusted over those Gospels made by the close disciples themselves?

EDITION:

A letter allegedly writen by Clement of Alexandria in which he mentioned about the Secret Gospel of Mark and claimed that it is right that they have edited the Gospel of Mark editing off the Lazarus experience.

The original Gospel of Mark actually does not mention of the ressurection however, the Church adds it up.

I gave you a very detailed listing in another thread where you asked the same questions giving the backgrounds of the gospel writers.

2 of them were direct disciples of Christ. How much closer do you want?

That must have been where I saw it.

Icei_Nhell wrote:The original Gospel of Mark actually does not mention of the ressurection however, the Church adds it up.

There is evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is a later interpolation. However, the original Gospel of Mark probably did not end at Mark 16:8; the original ending is lost. And given the fact that the angel says 'He has risen!' (Mark 16:6), the Resurrection is mentioned.

Turgy wrote:And given the fact that the angel says 'He has risen!' (Mark 16:6), the Resurrection is mentioned.

Good point, Turgy, and given the corroboration of the other three Gospels, as well as the absence of criticism toward them at the time by those (the Jewish leaders) who would have jumped at the chance to do so, I see no problem at all with their authenticity.

These atheists need to try harder instead of trotting out the same old tired arguments.

Hey Turgy,

Check this (piece of an article by Christopher Price) out
Did Mark Believe in the Resurrection?

The difference between an ending at v. 8 and the endings we are used to from the extended Marcan ending and Matthew, Luke, and John is striking. There are no resurrection appearances by a risen Jesus.

Although some have seized on this omission to argue that Mark--and, in an even greater leap, early Christianity--had no tradition of resurrection appearances, such a conclusion is untenable. For the same reasons, it is untenable to suggest that Mark did not believe in the resurrection. That the early Christians had traditions of, and greatly valued, the resurrection appearances of Jesus is made clear by Paul's own letters. Not only does 1 Corinthians 15 establish this beyond dispute, but Paul's entire conversion story is based on a resurrection appearance of Jesus.

Moreover, Mark clearly knows of and values traditions about Jesus' resurrection and resurrection appearances. Indeed, it is beyond reasonable dispute that Mark means to communicate the fact of Jesus' resurrection to his readers. He foretells Jesus' resurrection throughout the gospel. Indeed, he has Jesus specifically predicting his own resurrection.

Mar 8:31: And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mar 9:31: For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, "The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later."

Mar 10:32-34: They were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful. And again He took the twelve aside and began to tell them what was going to happen to Him, saying, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles." They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.

But Mark goes even further. He specifically has Jesus predict his resurrection appearances to the disciples, in Galilee.

Mar 14:27-28: And Jesus said to them, You will all fall away, because it is written, "I will strike down the shepard, and the sheep shall be scattered." But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.
Mark goes on to carefully narrate the fulfillment of Jesus' predictions. Jesus is handed over to the Chief Priest and scribes. He was condemned to death and handed over to the Gentiles. He was mocked and spat upon, scourged, and, finally, killed. Mark then writes of the empty tomb just as the other gospels do. And, in verse 7, Mark has a messenger of God tell Mary and the other women that Jesus has risen and will appear to the disciples in Galilee, just as Jesus had foretold. Accordingly, Mark's belief in Jesus' resurrection, as well as his belief in Jesus' resurrection appearances, are not in serious doubt.

LowlyOne wrote:Hey Turgy,

You're good.

The article you quoted was set up very coherently, and it makes a good point. Thumbs up!

Of course atheists might talk about a 'reversal of expectation' motif, but there is a lot of evidence that the ending of Mark talked about the Resurrection, so that argument is bogus.

Hey guys,
Thanks for your responses, really informative.
In my church, we are Baptist, and believe in the Bible completely and wholly without any other sources. However, for Christians there have always been a different case. It seems that there are quite a few translationos of the Bible now, and it seems to me that they must all vary to some degree for them to be a different version. I have read Rich Deem's article of the Bible's origin, but he doesn't seem to mention anything on King James. I believe that King James truly wanted a Bible for the common man in english, and that he had 54 of the best Hebrew and Greek scholars translate the Bible, but from something I read to be Textus Receptus. I dont think Rich mentions this, and now there seems to be more dispute on this than before, on which Bible is truly the best translation. The Devil may be in on this, trying to change the word of God, I dont know, but I am sure that God's word is unchanging, but apparently people seem to think that it is fine to use multiple versions. What about you guys, what versions and why do you guys use? Someone elaborate of the KJV please

Check this link out to another thread on this same topic.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=75