well, i'm not interested in blowing smoke here--who can say that they have proof for anything? But I am fairly convinced, now, that you cannot just make up some fantastic lie, a la "this guy was crucified, and buried, and rose from the dead," and start spreading it around, and have someone come along and write a book about it. It's kind of hard to explain briefly, by suffice it to say that the population existent at the time of the story sort of dictates what can and cannot be propagated.
i remember the study being kind of fascinating for me, because, say, the same populace that might deny Jesus was the Son of God would not verify the false version of His tomb story--i have more concrete examples, that one may not illustrate the point the best; but the point is that you can only fool some of the people some of the time, and a polling of any large # of people on any matter invariably reveals the truth, by %.
Iow, the truth will always, without exception--no matter how esoteric the question is--be revealed in the highest %. So in a sense, our most powerful force, so to speak. I don't mean to say that this proves the existence of Christ or anything--as i wasn't looking for that by then--but that it is impossible to fool all the people all the time. Ok, and this explanation is extremely simplified, there are exceptions for set periods of time, and special cases. But no lie propagates thru the ages.
ha, well, this led me to what most here would call some 'strange' places--but i noted that even Christ quoted from, or at least referred to, writings not included in our present-day Bible. One of the exceptions, from above, is that if you wait 50 years to write the book, naturally much of the 'native' objection might have (literally) died down; and the standard for longevity then seems to be how accurate the book is. We have lost books written since the NT was written that did not meet this standard (apparently), although their loss seems to be lamented in certain circles.
I'm not sure if 'accurate' is the right word there; "applicable," maybe...
ha, well, this led me to what most here would call some 'strange' places--but i noted that even Christ quoted from, or at least referred to, writings not included in our present-day Bible. One of the exceptions, from above, is that if you wait 50 years to write the book, naturally much of the 'native' objection might have (literally) died down; and the standard for longevity then seems to be how accurate the book is. We have lost books written since the NT was written that did not meet this standard (apparently), although their loss seems to be lamented in certain circles.
I'm not sure if 'accurate' is the right word there; "applicable," maybe...
Oh, I've never denied that there is some good wisdom (applicable) in the Bible. But I am skeptical of a lot of its accuracy. That some books survived a long time says nothing about that. The chosen books for the canon reflected a certain group of people's preferred narrative. Other groups had other ideas, but they lost. The winners ended up with a different canon, just because they were the winners.
Other canons are still in use today, by the way. Majority rules? Mmmkay.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Oh, I've never denied that there is some good wisdom (applicable) in the Bible. But I am skeptical of a lot of its accuracy..
You mean such as that "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" were demonstrably not written by anyone named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but rather named by later Christians believing the accounts sounded like M, M, J, and J?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy
That some books survived a long time says nothing... The chosen books for the canon reflected a certain group of people's preferred narrative. Other groups had other ideas, but they lost. The winners ended up with a different canon, just because they were the winners..
Yep. The precious KJV originally featured 7 books (intertestament) that were all but left out of KJVs by the mid 1800s. AMAZING how long it took Yahweh, Jesus, or the Holy Ghost to finally get it right!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy
Other canons are still in use today, by the way. Majority rules? Mmmkay.
And when the Muslim population overtakes the worldwide Christian population (and it will, given birth rates) I guess that means (at least to someone in this thread) that the Koran is then vindicated as true or valid, thanks to long-term popularity.
Oh, I've never denied that there is some good wisdom (applicable) in the Bible. But I am skeptical of a lot of its accuracy. That some books survived a long time says nothing about that. The chosen books for the canon reflected a certain group of people's preferred narrative. Other groups had other ideas, but they lost. The winners ended up with a different canon, just because they were the winners.
Other canons are still in use today, by the way. Majority rules? Mmmkay.
ya, no argument here on that. I have sought out the other Books, and refer to them some. There really isn't anything that stands out to me as differentiating in them v the present day Bible, tho.
)
Linear Mode
