Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

How accurate is the New Testament?

194 replies

Pinkfluffyslippers · 22/03/2009 21:42

I have this problem with the New Testament - so much of it was written ages after the events they describe how accurate is it and how can we believe it? For instance the Gospels differ and don't all mention the same events. (This is before we even start discussing the differences between the translations of the Bible)
Who decided which Gospels to include? I know some were excluded>
Who was the editor ? Was it Paul?
Forgive me for sounding slightly blasphemous but if God wanted to get his message across don't you think he would have sorted this out and given his message to one person. (EG: As with Islam - Allah speaking to Muhammed). I often wonder if the New Testament isn't susceptible to the problems of Chinese whispers.

I do hope someone could answer these questions.

OP posts:
AMumInScotland · 02/04/2009 14:08

The idea that people would be happy in heaven, while knowing that their loved ones were continuing to exist in some other place without love, comfort etc (or were being toasted and prodded with pitchforks) has always seemed to me an impossible one. Ditto the idea that God would punish people for all eternity when their sins were not infinite - where's the love and justice in that?

I do not believe that this is what God intends for those who do not acknowledge Him. I believe that "eternal separation from God" means that those who do not believe will cease to exist.

bloss · 02/04/2009 14:37

Message withdrawn

bloss · 02/04/2009 14:44

Message withdrawn

bloss · 02/04/2009 14:52

Message withdrawn

AMumInScotland · 02/04/2009 15:10

It's something which I have always believed, but this Wikipedia article gives it a name and some supporting passages.

sgrant · 05/04/2009 10:34

There seems to be a lot of quoting wikipedia and the like when it comes to accuracy of the Bible.

Here's a crazy idea - why not look at what the Bible claims for itself and what it says rather than saying something like "I don't like the idea of" etc.

Just because we don't like the idea of something, it won't change the reality of it.

1Maya2 · 05/04/2009 11:07

Sgrant - the problem for me here is that if the bible is inaccurate and not the word of God, is there any point reading it and following it.

So finding out whether the bible is accurate is vital for me. It really comes before reading the bible (although I have done that too) because I wouldn't want to follow something word for word or even try and interpret it, unless it was worth it.

sgrant · 05/04/2009 15:01

1Maya2 - that's a very normal thing to ask.

How to tell whether or not the Bible is accurate or not, you would need to be reading it and if you think you find any inaccuracies - speak to someone about it.

The Bible actually calls people to account for that very thing in Acts 17. It says "the Bereans searched the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so".

For me personally - Genesis was always a big issue. The whole creation/evolution debate. When I took the time to read Genesis, look at the world around me, does it back it up?

I also look at the accuracy of Old Testament prophecy. A great one for example was in Isaiah 26 when the Lord talks about destroying the City of Tyre. It gives very specific details about what would become of Tyre and that prophecy was fulfilled in part by King Nebuchadnezzar and later in full by Alexander the Great - of course Alexander the Great isn't mentioned in Scripture but we know his achievements from history. Again, does the Bible back up what we know from history? Well God did say Tyre would be destroyed never to be rebuilt - those are facts which remain to this day.

Quattrocento · 05/04/2009 15:09

I seem to remember that the Gospels were written by three different writers.

I'm surprised that you consider that any part of it can be accurate. Accurate in the sense of what? Real, factual?

justaboutback · 05/04/2009 15:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

bloss · 05/04/2009 19:16

Message withdrawn

onagar · 05/04/2009 20:05

The City of Tyre

Anyone got any other prophecies that came true?

bloss · 05/04/2009 20:18

Message withdrawn

AMumInScotland · 05/04/2009 20:23

The reason that I quote Wikipedia is sheer laziness, I'll admit it - I believe things after reading the Bible, spending 2 years at theological college, and thinking and praying about things. But I often find that the things which I have concluded actually have a name which others have given them after long and careful consideration, and those things are often listed in Wikipedia, which is easily available to anyone with an internet connection.

I'm sure that Annihilationism, Conditional Immortality, Panentheism, and Christian Egalitarianism (all of which I believe in) are also discussed on other websites and in books about theology, but I find it simpler to point people towards the Wikipedia articles.

As to the accuracy of the Bible, not all Christians are agreed that all parts of it are of equal historical accuracy. Liberal Christians believe that it tells us much that is important without being intended to be treated in that way. "the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing?within a historic/cultural context" and "Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding" if you'll excuse me for finding someone put it into words already for me.

Quattrocento · 05/04/2009 20:26

So you think it is real? Literal? Fact?

I see

onagar · 05/04/2009 20:31

Well Tyre is doing fine still.

A search of the OT finds no mention of Nazareth and a quick google confirms that.

Jesus wasn't descended from King David anyway if you believe he was god's son. Joseph was his stepfather.

The last time I looked up a prophecy it was one of those where someone says they dreamed a lamb died (os similar) and that meant that so and so was going to win a battle at a particular time and place (or so it was said after the battle happened)

neenztwinz · 05/04/2009 20:37

I think the OT says the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, doesn't it? Plus other things I can;t remember right now either.

This is a very interesting thread btw.

onagar · 05/04/2009 21:01

Mic 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Trouble with that (aside from it being so vague that it could mean anything) is that Bethlehem Ephratah refers to a family and not to the town. Since jesus was only born there while passaing through it doesn't really make sense.

Also this 'ruler in Israel' goes off in the next verses and leads an army against the Assyrians.

justaboutback · 05/04/2009 21:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

KayHarker · 05/04/2009 21:08

Well, actually Jesus and His family appear to have been in Bethlehem quite some time in a couple of gospel references.

KayHarker · 05/04/2009 21:09

Plus there's a reasonable case to be that they already had family there anyway.

onagar · 05/04/2009 21:14

I must admit my eyes glazed over on some of the begats, but would being descended from Bethlehem Ephratah be consistent with being descended from David?

bloss · 05/04/2009 21:27

Message withdrawn

BuwchBywiog · 05/04/2009 21:39

OP to answer your original question of who decided what went in ... the name of the council is The Council of Nicea, I've only skimmed through the thread so it may have already been named but I didn't notice it.

Quattrocento · 05/04/2009 22:33

Hello Justabout. Of course I agree with you that the Bible has useful and important things to say to us today.

It's just this literal stuff that has me worried for people's sanity.