If there was an older version of the Bible found that was vastly different

Veeky Forums how much of the Bible would change if an almost original codex of the Bible was discovered without all the Greek and pagan influence's that made their way into the script over time? Would any main and important concepts displayed theoretically be proven to be untrue or do you believe these foreign concepts coincidences or even influences that created the bible originally.

Legitimate question: Do you know what the Bible is?

But the Tanach exists, as does the Epic of Gilgamesh.

>without all the Greek and pagan influence's that made their way into the script over time

Legitimately the Islamic view of the OT / NT. In fact, much of those read just like the Noble Qur'an.

Who do you think wrote and compiled it?

1. The Bible isn't a single book. It's a compilation of many books. We already have very old copies of the entire compiled Bible.

2. This Bible was canonized by the Church. Accepting the Bible as divinely inspired is a matter of faith. The Dead Sea Scrolls didn't detract from the version declared inerrant by the Church, even though they're very old and are missing verses.

3. We have many ancient manuscripts and several popular translations into English are based on the majority agreement among them.

4. What you think are "Greek and "Pagan" aspects were likely in the original compositions. You're likely a Judaizer.

The Tanakh is the first five books of the Bible. Similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Arc are exaggerated.

Would you blame them? The Luthercucks took out 7 books from the Roman Catholic. There's evidence that the Bible is corrupted. 1 John 5:7 is a prime example.

>without all the Greek and pagan influence's that made their way into the script over time?
Jesus himself was alive during an age of Hellenistic hegemony. There is no way there wouldn't have been Greek influence. Christianity was very much a product of the inevitable fusion of Judaism and Hellenism.

Have you heard of Nag Hammadi?

Who the hell know? They are all anonymous writers.

0%, because for Catholics, scripture is nothing but the product of "tradition". For other denominations, I care less and take them less seriously.

Hypothetically, tomorrow we could unearth an autobiography written by Jesus himself; himself saying that John's a compulsive liar, and that his gospel's not to be accepted. And the most the Pope could do is shrug his shoulders and say "Well the Holy Spirit guided the canonization of the New Testament, so if God really didn't want John in the Bible, he wouldn't've allowed him to be in there for 2000 years. Sure, Catholics are free to read Jesus' perplexing autobiography, but we're not changing the Bible Canon for it." Even with Papal Authority, the Pope can't do anything that may discredit tradition; thus discrediting much of the Church (along with himself). He can order translations, but not add or subtract from which tradition has already sent down in scripture.

>inb4 Catholic's whining, despite not a single part of my post going against the teachings and procedures of the Catechism.
>inb4 Prods whining that the Pope literally adds stuff to the Bible all the time

You trust your own Holy Spirit rather than trusting other Holy Spirits?

>an almost original codex of the Bible
>without all the Greek and pagan influence

>mfw

> The Tanakh is the first five books of the Bible.
That's the Torah. The tanakh is the full old testament.

>Similarities between the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Arc are exaggerated.
They aren't. Also the older deluge text in the ME is a sumerian tablet from 2000 BC, the full Gilgamesh epic is also a late babylonian compilation of separate sumerian texts. They are older by thousands of years and so far no canaanite version of them exist. Therefore the biblical version is very likely based off those earlier ones.

>4. What you think are "Greek and "Pagan" aspects were likely in the original compositions. You're likely a Judaizer.

Almost every academic who focuses on the bible will tell you Greek philosophy influenced the new testament.

Only the most conservative of Christians would dispute this and even then not all of them

what is the greek influence?

Being a retarded misinformer isn't gonna help make everyone become Catholic you know.
These days Catholics and fundagelicals both cite James and Revelations and interpret them their own way.

>interpret them their own way
Same can be said to the Lutheran. They follow they take out what they don't like and play with the word of god to suit their own ideals.

For a start the NT is written in Greek you mong.

The Jewish holy texts were virtually all written during the period of Hellenistic Judea, when it was under the control of the Seleukidae, Ptolemids and Hasmoneans. From 300 BC for the next nigh on a thousand years Judea was heavily Greek influenced in virtually every area.

It would be ignored, christians would scream harder and they would intensify their cross shaking.

>That's the Torah. The tanakh is the full old testament.
So exactly fucking how does the existence of the Old Testament discredit the Bible?

>They aren't.
They are. Flood myths are universal. There are flood myths from the New World that are closer to the Ark story than Gilgamesh is.

>Also the older deluge text in the ME is a sumerian tablet from 2000 BC, the full Gilgamesh epic is also a late babylonian compilation of separate sumerian texts. They are older by thousands of years and so far no canaanite version of them exist. Therefore the biblical version is very likely based off those earlier ones.
The incorporation of previously existing material has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the composition of the Ark narrative was divinely inspired determined by the Church to be doctrinal as a matter of faith.

>Almost every academic who focuses on the bible will tell you Greek philosophy influenced the new testament.

By way of post-composition interpolation? Because that's what we're talking about.

Wasn't Jesus' brand of Judaism pretty Platonic and other Greek crap?

This. Besides the various books of the was collected into the bible under the thoroughly hellenized ERE. As such the bible have obvious greek influences as it was put together by a hellenistic culture.

Nowhere as much as meme theologians of Paulicianism claims it to be.

The books of the bible were all written by Greeks with the exception of Paul, who taught said Greeks and was a known heretic.

The odds of there being corrupted Christian texts are very low since the original followers of Jesus were illiterate and probably never wrote anything down.

> So exactly fucking how does the existence of the Old Testament discredit the Bible?
I never said that. I'm pointing that you are confusing one thing with another.

> They are. Flood myths are universal. There are flood myths from the New World that are closer to the Ark story than Gilgamesh is.
Some new world ones don't even mention an ark. Even so it doesn't necesarly prove the Bible right, you're putting the Bible above everything else. Personal beliefs don't mix with research.

>divinely inspired determined by the Church to be doctrinal as a matter of faith.
Discarded.