How accurate is the New Testament?

[Pinkfluffyslippers]

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.

It is, but study of the bible is relevant in all sorts of other contexts too - history (sort of) literature (certainly) philosophy (a stretch), but most of all because it has influenced western culture and tradition in so many different ways.

LOL Justa

Yes, those of us who believe in God and count ourselves as Christians are sort of expected to pay at least some attention to the Bible.

If the information in the bible is important you would expect god to make sure it was accurate. If he left it to the whims of human writers than it can't be of any real importance.

So that wraps it up for the bible. What's next?

1Maya2, actually it has happened that someone tried to add to the bible claiming they were inspired. Joseph Smith did that in 1830 and converted enough people to start a new church.

Saying you are adding to an existing belief (if you get away with it) gives you the authority of that original belief. You then add on the bits you want to put forward. You can discard some of the original beliefs just by saying that god had told you there was no need to follow those rules any more.

Strangely no one is ever suspicious that you are changing the rules.

Some might say that this is what jesus did.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Bloss you misunderstand. I was refering not to my opinion, but to the opinions on here about the bible. If you are sure it's all 100% accurate and literal then feel free to explain that to them.

You have people saying that it's not exactly god's word. just human words 'inspired' by god and therefore possibly incorrect/metaphor/poetry. So I say that if there were a god and if he needed to get a message across that was vital then he would surely take care that it was passed on accurately. Therefore either he did ensure it was accurate OR he didn't bother because the exact details didn't really matter much.

You don't need insight into the mind of god to interpret what I just said. Consider important messages you send in daily life. The more important they are the more care you take with their accurate transmission.

I personally don't need anything from god as (a) I don't believe he exists and (b) if he did than based on your bible's evidence of his character he is not someone I'd want to associate with.

As for my point about people adding their own sequels to the bible for their own ends it's interesting that you place Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, 7th day Adventists in this category. I suspect that won't win you any friends amongst those on here who belong to those groups. I thought you were all a big happy family and everyone's beliefs were as good as anothers.

Of course I agree that that is what they are (though the ordinary members of those groups probably won't be aware of this) but then as I already suggested I see no reason to suppose they were the first. It's perfectly reasonable to suppose that jesus did the same thing and all the other prophets before him. So this tale has been embellished at regular intervals for 1000s of years starting with Moses or whoever wrote that story. Branching off along the way as everyone wanted to be in charge of what it all meant, so made their own sequals (islam etc)

Message withdrawn

"In contrast to this approach of affirming scripture, JWs, Mormonism, Islam etc etc ALL rest on claims that the existing scripture is corrupted and their new version is the true one."

In the interests of accuracy Bloss, I think
you will find that the JW New World Translation has been commended by independent authorities as a very accurate translation. possibly even the best (see Wikipedia)The problem as Onagar indicated is in the interpretation, tather than any corruption.

Message withdrawn

Not keen on Thomas myself. 'Every female who makes herself male will enter heaven' sort of takes me back to the beginning, in terms of my specific problems with religion so far

Having said that, it's nice in places.

I'd agree with Justa (and bloss, really) that the issue with scripture is always going to be the how of collation, rather than the integrity of the text. Because you can trace it back consistently, and that's fair enough, but that doesn't really answer the question of why certain books were included and others weren't (ie, the Canon).

But then, I'm a Whovian, not a Trekkie, so I'm quite laid back about issues of canon

roffle. I'm.. sure it will be... erm... fine

I don't actualkly have a problem with wikipedia as a source for info - it's just not really an authority, it can't be. But as bloss said, not the thread to be discussing the merits or faults of a specific translation.

As a card carrying atheist I couldn't give a
monkeys as to what the most accurate translation of the bible is.What little I do know is that you could get a dozen experts
on Greek Hebrew and Aramaic in a room and they would be arguing for days over the correct translation

I was merely pointing out to Bloss that the
jw translation is not a corruption as she thinks, but a translation that has been both
criticized and commended by non JW authorities.

Well, I'd agree with you that the Witness position is not that the text is corrupted and they have the true version. That's the case with the Latter Day Saints and Islam, yes, but not Witnesses.

Their understanding, as far as I'm aware from Witness friends is that the bible is still completely accurate, but you do really need their books and things to understand it correctly.

Message withdrawn

Bloss, I must be speaking in tongues since your understanding of what I said is so far from the mark.

I didn't say Christianity was inimportant I said that other posters were saying that the bible wasn't exactly god's word. just human words 'inspired' by god and therefore possibly incorrect/metaphor/poetry.

I said that if it was vital information then god wouldn't have let the writers put it down incorectly and that vice versa, if he let the writers put it down incorectly then he must not have considered it vital information. I left it as your choice.

You ask me about inaccuracies in the NT which undermine the message. Your fellow christians will tell you that even the gospels contradict each other and were not even eye-witness accounts

The manuscripts you claim prove this and that are church documents (some written in ballpoint pen). The only independent reference was Josephus repeating a rumur he had heard.

Well, Christianity says that it was important enough to communicate that he sent, and sacrificed, his own son. I'd say that (a) it was a pretty dynamic and accurate way of conveying what he wanted; and (b) it showed it was important>I think you fundamentally misunderstand the Bible if you think that subsequent parts of it are reinventions or embellishments>>

Well I see other posters disagree with you, but in fact i wasn't speaking of that at all. Each new religion is a sequel. Methodist, luthuran. baptist, mormon, anglican, muslim, scientologist and so on.

You agree that just standing up and claiming the authority to change an older religion doesn't make it so. I'm pointing out that this is what they all did and what jesus did. (possibly to his credit, but I will come back to that)

In fact even the old testament is a sequel based loosely on older religions. Do you know how many times god sent a Great Flood before it got used in the OT? How many sacrifices and resurrections took place? It was practially a cliche by then.

As for jesus not overturning the OT that's precisely what he achieved isn't it. Ask any modern christian here. Or better still point out bad things in the OT and you will be overwhelmed by posters explaining that jesus did away with all that and said to love one another instead. No more eye for an eye, no more atrocities and genocides. No more hatred and talk of punishment. A brand new outlook.

Oh and I'm sure someone has explained to you about the church getting together to throw out some books of the bible and include others.

In contrast to this approach of affirming scripture, JWs, Mormonism, Islam etc etc ALL rest on claims that the existing scripture is corrupted and their new version is the true one. I think you have overlooked this difference>>

I'm fairly sure that islam recognises the essential truth of the bible (OT) but believe jesus was a prophet not the son of god. (so an offshoot there or you could say that christianity is the offshoot there and islam the mainstream since theirs ia the harsher religion with the flavor of the OT)

Mormons recognise the bible too. They had a new sequel because jesus brought it to them just as he said he would in your bible. I can't speak for every single religion, but they propered because they did recognise the bible and use that as a starting poiint.

Justabout. If he wants you to have the information and it is important to him that you have the information then it would be stupid of him to not ensure it was passed on accurately.

If he feels you can profit from working it out yourself then it makes sense to allow the information to be garbled.

Either is fine by me.

You appear to be saying the latter which is fine. You don't believe the information in the bible is an essential part of the plan then.

I just don't think there is a third option where he set it up so you couldn't possibly do the right thing without true information and then set it up so most of the world would not have access to the true information. That would be ridiculous.

Thanks for confirming/explaining the bit about the Koran. That's roughly how I remember it, but was a bit vague on the details.

So they see theirs as 100% word of god with not a comma out of place? In that case they must not subscribe to the 'all finding god in their own way' thing then if they have his exact words, description and phone number. They must see everyone else as at best misguided or at worst evil.
I think theirs might be a more comfortable belief in a way.

Message withdrawn

Bloss

You claim you KNOW what happens to those who reject God. How interesting. Isn't that a little simplistic, especially for someone who then recognises that we cannot possibly comprehend the complexity of God's thought? (so you know what he thinks on some issues but are a little bit lost on others??)

You are refusing to discuss what happens to those who are never exposed to the Bible, but it seems clear to me that you've already made your mind up: as they haven't been exposed to the truth, as you call it, they can't possibly make the "right" decisions, can they? That is, IMO, an incredibly patronising perspective.

You claim there are very few inaccuracies in the NT, and that none of them is important: to know whether something is accurate or not, you need to be able to compare it to the actual situation / historical event, don't you? You are merely comparing gospels with each other, and given that there is every evidence the evangelists mainly copied of each other, there is no big miracle in the similarities that can be found in the synoptic gospels.

Finally, I agree with Onagar's interpretation of the break Jesus operated with the OT. He might have said he wasn't there to overturn the OT, but when he said he was there to explain / clarify it, he really did mean he would do away with all the archaic practices and beliefs (circoncision, stoning / death penalty, absurdly strict mitzvot etc.), therefore clearly operating a de facto break with the OT. Effectively, Jesus replaced absolute ethics with relative morality (except on the issue of divorce), and it angers me when certain Christians refuse to aknowledge that (quoting profusely from the OT to back up traditionalist views that would be revolting to Jesus himself). (I'm not saying you are one of those, as I don't know you!)

PS excuse my English, not my first language (if anyone disagrees, I can always use the "lost in translation" excuse )