The Holy Bible

Most likely (99.9%) not.
Also, translations, voting and plain outright editing.

>Also, translations, voting and plain outright editing.
When will this retarded meme end? We've got extremely old manuscripts to which we can compare and translate from today.

I have a better thread topic; why do people with little to no knowledge on a subject feel the need to give their input? Is this a result of democracy? If so, was democracy a mistake?

There will always be things fucking lost in translation.

Shit was lost when the Greeks translated what Jewish niggers wrote. Shit was lost when Romans translated what the Greeks wrote, so on and so forth.

Nothing is lost you idiot, we've got the original hebrew and greek writings.

What about the books some people in charge of developing the canon didn't include, but are still recognized as canonical?

Lost in translation =/= Physically lost, you fucktard. I was talking about changes in meaning happening each and every time shit was translated.

>changes in meaning happening each and every time shit was translated
There are indeed bad translations but koine greek and biblical hebrew are languages which can be studied and learned like Mein Kampf's german you imbecile.

the historical and theological aspects are pretty tied together

>Lost in translation

We have many fragments in the original Greek. Put them all together, and you've got a document that's 99% what the original was. As for actual translation? That's why we have numerous versions, as different translators will look at things slightly differently.

It's an incredibly useful historical source when analyzed critically, but no, it's not historically accurate prior to about the 7th century BC, and after that it still remains a politically and religiously biased account of events rather than a really accurate one, like any ancient historical source.

There's no evidence for an exodus from Egypt or a conquest of the Canaanites; rather the Hebrews emerged as pastoral tribes in the highlands who began to settle down and form kingdoms after the collapse of the lowland Canaanite cities during the Bronze Age Collapse. The United Monarchy didn't exist and if David and Solomon existed, they were pastoral chieftains who founded a dynasty which only became powerful centuries later rather than great rulers themselves. The kingdom of Israel was far greater in its power, complexity and extent than the contemporary Judah which was a relative backwater, the opposite of how the Bible depicts it. Monotheism probably emerged gradually as the Judaean patron god of Yahweh was made first the sole god worshiped by the Hebrew people, then the supreme god in heaven and then the only true god at all.

I'd suggest reading this if you're interested; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
trashed

Not in the slightest.

>The Bible Unearthed
every time.

Not him but please, The author is literally jew, writing about a jewish book, who is also an academic.

I'm not saying don't disagree with anything or take any academics word (Be they christian jewish or atheist) as gospel but what you are doing is just pure anti intellectualism.

Do you have an actual criticism or does archaeology just hurt your feefees?

Yes, a review of the Unearthed book by their High School graduate Pastor in the middle of cornfuckstan is enough to refute it.

>The United Monarchy didn't exist

I thought that the existence of the United Monarchy was a solid "maybe lol i dunno"

Sorry for offending your favorite jew.

The United Monarchy as depicted in the Bible is a large, unified and prosperous kingdom ruled from Judah covering all of Canaan, before it split into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah around 930 BC. There's no archaeological evidence for the existence of such a thing; at the time when the United Monarchy supposedly existed, there's no evidence for any large-scale political organization among the Hebrews who were still a tribal society transitioning from pastoral nomadism to village-based farming. Instead Israel seems to be the first kingdom to emerge around 900 BC, building a fairly powerful and complex urban state with plenty of archaeological evidence for its prosperity (art, architecture, etc), while Judah only emerged later around the mid-8th century and only rose to any relevance after Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrians around 720 BC.

The Davidic dynasty did exist and are attested in contemporary inscriptions, but they were only a minor kingdom or chiefdom in the shadow of Israel, nothing like the United Monarchy. The United Monarchy seems to just be an mythological golden age invented by the Judaeans to increase their own prestige relative to the Israelites.

Be sorry for not coming up with a sound refutation, Well I read opposite in such and such would be enough.

If you want us to take you seriously do come up with an actual argument.

>huhuhu those big gigantic pyramids the egyptians wrote about before the assyrian conquest? lol they never existed, why? because they're not there anymore!...and don't even try to say that they've been destroyed!
>huhuhu ancient egypt? lol it only became relevant after the assyrian conquest, why? because we haven't found anything impressive from before that period!...don't say yet!

This is what you sound like.

this

What the fuck are you taking about? Even if the pyramids had been destroyed, we'd still have evidence of them. We have plenty of evidence of other Egyptian monuments and cities that were destroyed millennia ago, like Amarna for example. We also have a wealth of evidence for Israelite prosperity, like the massive gates they built at places like Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor or the intricate ivories of Samaria, despite the fact that these sites were destroyed millennia ago.

That's how archaeology works; any complex society will leave a wealth evidence for its existence that archeologists can uncover. Even ancient Chinese dynasties that built entirely in wood that has since completely rotted away left enough evidence of their constructions in foundations and post-holes that that we can reconstruct their buildings with relative accuracy. Even tribal or hunter-gatherer societies leave behind evidence of their settlement patterns, tool-making, and often other cultural practices.

This is exactly the case with the Judeans; archaeologists have surveyed the Israeli highlands and uncovered plenty of village sites from the period, discovering that they were native to the region and were former pastoralists and even noticing cultural traits such as the avoidance of pork, but finding absolutely no evidence of political organization or urbanism, and certainly not empire-building.

This is further backed up by historical evidence; contemporaries describing Israel as a powerful kingdom but paying little or no attention to Judeah, plus the fact that the Biblical accounts of the United Monarchy are full of anachronisms that describe the 7th century BC when they were composed rather than the early Iron Age in which the kingdom supposedly existed.

ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ivory-palace-king-ahab-001576
I tried to find that ivory from your image and it seems that the ivory from Samaria dates to Roman and Hellenistic times, not to the Kingdom of Israel. It really just furthers your point: this was falsely identified with Israel because of a bible reference to Ahab building an "ivory palace"

Yet, Adam, Eve, Noah - The Patriarchs and the exodus itself were all fake and obviously historically inaccurate.

100%, yes. Luke is one of the greatest historians of his day, being 100% correct on everything he wrote about.

Yes, that's kind of the point of the Second Coming of Christ Jesus.

Real Israel is much bigger than modern Israel, and will remain so forever.

What fucking garbage.

All true.

Exactly as written.

The entire bible is true.

Oh look, Ælian the Æutist has arrived

What happened to your trip? Did it die of assburgers?

I'm not whoever that is.

The two of us do not comprise the entire population of people who know that the bible is true on everything it touches, including history.

And yet you still respond to my post, as if you do. Must be one of your many autistic fits again

Are you, um, autistic?

>um,

Nice projection there, Ælian.

I'll take that as a "yes".

One of the problems you're going to have to deal with is a difficulty in imagining that God is a person.

The best way to deal with this is to think of Jesus as God, because it's easier to think of Jesus as a person than this Trinity that is God.

Once you see Jesus as God, you have the choice to reject Him or worship Him, and both have consequences.

Wait, I thought you weren't really Ælian. Why are you still continuing this back and forth if you're not really him? You really have no idea how to socially interact with people, do you? No wonder you love Scholasticism so much, computer-like deductions are perfect for a potatotard like you

>Ælian
That would be me and I am not this user I've also never written "um" once in my life, I only say "hmm" or "uh".

I made the first post of this thread buddy, you're confusing me with the proddy, that's literally the reason why I started tripping for a while until people like you recognized my posting style and then stopped.

Holy shit you sense motherfucker.

We have the original shit we can translate directly from that. We don't have to jump through hoops trying to find what was lost in Greek or Latin.

It actually is very accurate.

Hebrew/English:

Adam = Man
Seth = Appointed
Enosh = Mortal
Kenan = Sorrow
Mahalalel = The Blessed God
Jared = Shall come down
Enoch = Teaching
Methuselah = His death shall bring
Lamech = The Despairing
Noah = Rest, or comfort.

>Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

Was "Godless Catholic" your trip? "Papist Pussy"? "Hellbound Hentai Fan"?

"Catholic" and then "Aelian" ("latinization" of Alien, as in E.T). Why?

Hey, how come it's not "obviously inaccurate" to billions of catholics, christians, and Jews?

I like to know to whom I am being compared, and I find this comparison most distasteful.

Of course, you're a proddy who hates the Church Christ founded as much as demons.

I thought you crawled back to /x/, or did a swan dive down a flight of stairs.

Nope, I've just been reading a lot this summer. I also would never commit suicide.

I love Jesus, and hate the Catholic church, yes.

So the difference between you and I is that you believe that Petros is the petra, and I do not.

You believe the ways and beliefs of the Nicolaitans are favored by God, and I do not.

You believe that you have to be a Roman Catholic to be saved, and I do not.

You believe you know how to be saved, but you do not.

You do not know the gospel.

Please take this opportunity to explain salvation and the gospel, if you have a clue about either. Feel free to use the bible as a reference. I suspect that, like 99% of all catholics, your idea of salvation is "join the church and do what they tell you to do".

Never say never, champ.

Weird how you summoned him here. Suspicious even.

Keepa is the Keepa, yes.

ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

>I suspect that, like 99% of all catholics, your idea of salvation is "join the church and do what they tell you to do".
Who's this "they" you've invented? Like all proddies you are clueless about what Christ's Church teaches and why. You should give the CCC a read sometime:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I wonder if you understand this verse. No, strike that. I know you don't.

Luke 13:19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and put in his garden; and it grew and became a large tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.”

Oh, you're the completely insane asshole from yesterday who thinks "Keepa" is in the bible, but couldn't show it as such.

Since you dodged both questions already, I'll lay them out again.

What is the gospel?

What must a man do to be saved?

I finished watching the Sodom documentary, went back on Veeky Forums and saw new posts for this thread in the thread watcher, nothing spooky, don't worry child, it's a pure coincidence.

So all you have to do to be recognized as legit is to include the names of a few real people in addition to your bullshit? Guess I'm converting, then.

...and you're the illiterate nu-male who thinks the Bible is an english book?

For the third time:
ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

>went back on Veeky Forums and saw new posts for this thread in the thread watcher

Wait, are you telling me that you do nothing all day except being on Veeky Forums, and watching threads you've posted in? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have any friends at all, or a job? I guess not.

And you're calling others autistic. How fucking ironic.

There are no coincidences.

And for the nth time, the passage was written in Greek.

Not Aramaic.

Greek. Petros, a man's name, a masculine word. petra, a rock or cliff, a feminine word.

Two completely different objects.

I'm not on Veeky Forums all day and I use the thread watcher because it's useful. Did you just discover Veeky Forums?

>you're calling others autistic
?

This site redefines nadir.

I know.

That site doesn't seem very trustworthy (just look at their 'suggested books').

The ivories from Samaria don't have any Hellenic features but as far as I can tell they in every way resemble other late bronze age and early iron age Canaanite/Phoenician ivories such as those from Megiddo (13th century BC) and Nimrud (9th century BC, made by Phoenician craftsmen). Maybe the article's right, but I doubt it.

Still, I agree that identifying them with Ahab is taking it too far though, since ivories like these were probably just furniture attachments and are found in plenty of other sites.

Aramaic to Gibberish bibles aside, your attempt to claim that Jesus contradicted the bible is absurd:

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Gee, seems that the petra, the foundation, is Jesus.

Jesus the Rock.

Not Peter.

Oh wow, look, more bad news for your Aramaic hypothesis of changing everything the bible says:

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus "but only Peter--as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock.'" The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic--but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek, and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?

Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros--not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.

"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter . . . The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."

Christ uttered the words of Matthew 16:18 in Aramaic and it was then translated when written down in greek. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

Why did Christ start calling Simon "Petros" after telling him that He gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose? Is it a pure coincidence? Why would Simon's new name not be masculinized in the greek translation? Why would he be given a feminine name?

I love those mental gymnastics of yours.

So, because there exists some Aramaic in the bible, which the bible interprets, we must allow fools like you to take Aramaic to Gibberish bibles to extend the Aramaic to the entire bible.

Even the Hebrew?

Where does this delusion end?

>he's copying and pasting text from proddy articles again
Please stop embarrassing yourself, you clearly have no understanding of what you're pathetically attempting to have a debate on.

>>your Aramaic hypothesis
Huh? Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic, this is a fact, not a hypothesis.

That's exactly the point.

Petros is given a man's name. Petros.

The foundation is given a feminine word. petra.

So that nobody would confuse Petros with petra.

Except you have.

The keys Petros used twice; heaven is open to the Jews (Pentecost) and the Gentiles (Cornelius' house). The keys are spent. Heaven is open.

The nefarious and demonic lie that the keys were transferable is one of the abominations of the catholic church; the supposed ability to kick people out of heaven and into hell.

The Vatican is pure evil, and you rely on it for salvation.

Which you cannot define.

Or explain how to obtain.

And don't know the gospel.

Are you capable of reading things that were copied and pasted?

Because it absolutely destroyed your insane Aramaic hypothesis.

>your insane Aramaic hypothesis
Which is?

What are you even trying to say?

>"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter . . . The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."

Bye bye shitty Aramaic hypothesis.

And by the way, Jesus also spoke Hebrew, as He taught in the temple, so no, not everything He said was in Aramaic.

He also spoke Greek.

He also spoke Raccoon, as He is God.

That your idiotic reliance on an aramaic text is not only unjustified, but demonstrably false.

>Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek
No. Even the greek supports "our argument" which is the truth and also accepted by linguists.

No, it does not.

The petra can be anything except the Petros it does not agree with.

"I will name you Peter, and upon you, Peter, will I build my church."

--Things Jesus never said.

petra: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

as opposed to

Peter

>Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)."
Gee I wonder why Christ said this!

Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."

2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

Which of these is Peter again?

Already explained above. Do try to keep up.

>Jesus also spoke Hebrew
I haven't denied this. Nice strawmanning proddy.

There is no "aramaic hypothesis", Christ spoke to Saint Peter in Aramaic, that is a fact which you will have to accept, not a "hypothesis".

"I use the Aramaic because Jesus spoke Aramaic."

More papist half truths and lies.

Do you have voice recordings of Jesus speaking to Peter?

Those would be worth bucks!

Is the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek a fact?

But for a few transliterations as mentioned above, with Jesus on the cross?

Is that a fact? That the inspired and written word on this subject, in Matthew, was penned in Greek?

Or Hebrew?

And not in Aramaic?

Is that a fact?

Salvation?

Gospel?

Buehler?

For the Catholics

Are you not aware that Christ would not live forever on Earth? The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and therefore occupies the Chair of Saint Peter, whom Christ designated as the rock of His Church and to whom He gave the authority to bind and loose while adding that whatever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and that whatever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

>I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
John 10:14-16

>When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
John 21:15-17

Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,

That's strange, I thought Peter was in charge of all of them. And here he is being sent like an errand boy.

1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:

Why that's odd, Peter doesn't seem to know he's over all of them?!

>Another thread on Veeky Forums about Christianity turns into a Catholic vs Protestant shitfest

wew lad

>When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."
CCC 880

>The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
CCC 881

>"This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."
CCC 885