Satan and errors in scripture

Nihilist Virus · Apr 1, 2016

Commander Xenophon said:
The scriptures are protected by Satanic meddling by the Church, which is in turn protected as a whole from his influence.

What a completely bizarre thing to say. The church has created hundreds of errors in the bible, yet you claim that they also protect it from a clever, invisible, hostile being.

Bizarre indeed.

I do however see the infkuence of Satan in the Quran, the Talmud (which contains the warped logic the Rabbis use to refute the Messianic deity of our Lord), the Vedas, the Pali Canon and so on. Each of these books represent Satanic corruptipns of the truth.

The most unabashedly biased thing I've ever seen.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 1, 2016

ChetSinger said:
No, the data available to both of us are the thousands of manuscripts themselves, along with rest of the historical record that they reside in. That historical record includes the writings of the early church fathers, the writings of contemporaneous outsiders who observed the early church, and additional non-canonical early Christian writings. And given that data, as summarized for me by qualified scholars, my confidence is high that the message we have now is the one that was originally preached and then written down.

You may be aware that the Jehovah's Witnesses postulate something similar to your idea. They argue that someone (inspired by the devil, I suppose) went through the early New Testament writings and replaced "Jehovah" with "Lord" in numerous places, thus changing the theology. It's a conspiracy theory, basically. But they have the same problems you have: there is no supporting manuscript evidence and there is no ancient testimony that such changes were ever made. Also, wouldn't the churches have complained if some persons attempted to change Christian theology in such a way? In sum, there is no data to support their claim. So I don't buy into it. And I don't buy into your hypothesis for the same reasons.

You need to find some scholarly support for your idea before I'll spend more time on it.

I don't have any evidence that Satan corrupted the Bible. I never claimed to. I'm simply saying that you cannot know he didn't. You've done nothing to prove me wrong.

Commander Xenophon · Apr 2, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
What a completely bizarre thing to say. The church has created hundreds of errors in the bible, yet you claim that they also protect it from a clever, invisible, hostile being.

The Church has created no errors in the Bible. Some individual members when recounting the same event in the Gospels recounted the same events slightly differently (not an error, per se), and some manuscripts are faulty. The Church created the idea of the Bible and said "these books are holy, inspired and he basis for our doctrine," but the Church is not responsible for the very minor variations that exist, which I for one cannot regard as errors because in no way do they compromise the kerygma of the Church.

We use the Bible to teach the one Gospel from; scripture is in the interpretation, not the reading, and the interpretation of the Orthodox Church is infallible.

The most unabashedly biased thing I've ever seen.

It is biased, and there is a reason for that bias: Christisnity invented the hospital, ended gladiatorial combat and the exposure of infants in the Roman Empire, and in general created most of the basic tenets of what we regard as civlization. Before Christianity the world was a crueller, darker place, and after Christianity, formerly Christian lands like North Africa did slide backwards in terms of every measure of human rights; the collapse of the Byzantine Empire was a human tragedy that led to the death and oppression of millions.

Meanwhile, the introduction of Christianity to formerly pagan lands like India in 50 AD, even where it did not become completely dominant as a religion, clearly caused improvement, and in those cases where a country converted wholesale to Christianity, for example, Scandinavia, Britain, or more recently, and controversially, the former Aztec Empire, things got dramatically better. (The smallpox outbreak was an accident, and frankly, a lamentable tragedy that pales in comparison to the unspeakable evil of Aztec human sacrifice and the genocidal Flower Wars).

Nihilist Virus · Apr 2, 2016

Commander Xenophon said:
It is biased, and there is a reason for that bias: Christisnity invented the hospital, ended gladiatorial combat and the exposure of infants in the Roman Empire, and in general created most of the basic tenets of what we regard as civlization.

Rejected. You cannot disavow the molestation coverups of the Catholic Church and at the same time claim their achievements.

ChetSinger · Apr 4, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
I don't have any evidence that Satan corrupted the Bible. I never claimed to. I'm simply saying that you cannot know he didn't. You've done nothing to prove me wrong.

I won't use the word "prove". Instead, by reading the studies of textual critics I have high confidence that the message we have today is what they wrote back then.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 4, 2016

ChetSinger said:
I won't use the word "prove". Instead, by reading the studies of textual critics I have high confidence that the message we have today is what they wrote back then.

Assume that's correct.

How do you know the originals were not Satanically inspired and that Satan was not present at the committee that decided what went into the Bible and what didn't?

ChetSinger · Apr 4, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
Assume that's correct.

How do you know the originals were not Satanically inspired and that Satan was not present at the committee that decided what went into the Bible and what didn't?

I think you've gone beyond the OP but I'll answer anyway: I have high confidence the originals were not Satanically inspired because many of them were produced while there were still a multitude of living witnesses around to testify to their veracity.

OTOH, we do have manuscripts that I believe were Satanically inspired: the gnostic manuscripts of the 2nd century. Both the early church and modern scholars consider them forgeries because they were produced too late to have been penned by their supposed authors.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 4, 2016

ChetSinger said:
I think you've gone beyond the OP but I'll answer anyway: I have high confidence the originals were not Satanically inspired because many of them were produced while there were still a multitude of living witnesses around to testify to their veracity.

False. The earliest NT writings are of Paul who was not an eyewitness, even if you count his experience on the road to Damascus.

OTOH, we do have manuscripts that I believe were Satanically inspired: the gnostic manuscripts of the 2nd century. Both the early church and modern scholars consider them forgeries because they were produced too late to have been penned by their supposed authors.

How is the gospel of John not gnostic?

ChetSinger · Apr 4, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
False. The earliest NT writings are of Paul who was not an eyewitness, even if you count his experience on the road to Damascus.

Paul had his message approved by eyewitnesses at the Jerusalem Council. But my answer wasn't limited to Paul. I also include Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Hebrews because I believe all of them were penned before the war.

Nihilist Virus said:
How is the gospel of John not gnostic?

John's gospel references Memra and Two Powers theologies which were pre-Gnostic.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 4, 2016

ChetSinger said:
Paul had his message approved by eyewitnesses at the Jerusalem Council. But my answer wasn't limited to Paul. I also include Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Hebrews because I believe all of them were penned before the war.

If you base your argument on scholarly sources and then abandon them when they say that the gospels were written late, then I reject everything that you have to say.

John's gospel references Memra and Two Powers theologies which were pre-Gnostic.

John was finished at around 90 at the earliest which in no way predates gnostic philosophies.

ChetSinger · Apr 4, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
If you base your argument on scholarly sources and then abandon them when they say that the gospels were written late, then I reject everything that you have to say.

There are scholars who believe those writings were pre-war.

Nihilist Virus said:
John was finished at around 90 at the earliest which in no way predates gnostic philosophies.

Please read what I say carefully. I said the Memra and Two Powers theologies that John references were pre-Gnostic.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 4, 2016

ChetSinger said:
There are scholars who believe those writings were pre-war.

And there are Christians who believe in a flat earth. Yet the vast majority of Christians believe in the globe model. What do the vast majority of scholars believe regarding the dates of the gospels?

Please read what I say carefully. I said the Memra and Two Powers theologies that John references were pre-Gnostic.

I don't even know what that is. But just because John Doe references something from, say, 40 AD doesn't mean the anonymous gospel couldn't have been written at or around 90 AD. Just like I can write a report on the civil war right now and it doesn't mean I did so 10 years after it occurred.

ChetSinger · Apr 4, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
And there are Christians who believe in a flat earth.

No scholars among them, afaik, so I don't think the comparison is relevant.

Nihilist Virus said:
I don't even know what that is. But just because John Doe references something from, say, 40 AD doesn't mean the anonymous gospel couldn't have been written at or around 90 AD. Just like I can write a report on the civil war right now and it doesn't mean I did so 10 years after it occurred.

You're really not reading what I'm saying, because you're continuing to argue against something that I've never said. You asked why I don't consider John a Gnostic gospel. I answered that it's theologies include Memra and Two Powers, and those theologies are NOT Gnostic. Not in the least.

You don't read what people say, you aren't familiar with some of the subject matter, and yet you still respond with challenge after challenge? I think all you want to do is argue, nothing more. So I'm taking a breather. Find someone else.

Nihilist Virus · Apr 5, 2016

ChetSinger said:
No scholars among them, afaik, so I don't think the comparison is relevant.

You're really not reading what I'm saying, because you're continuing to argue against something that I've never said. You asked why I don't consider John a Gnostic gospel. I answered that it's theologies include Memra and Two Powers, and those theologies are NOT Gnostic. Not in the least.

You don't read what people say, you aren't familiar with some of the subject matter, and yet you still respond with challenge after challenge? I think all you want to do is argue, nothing more. So I'm taking a breather. Find someone else.

I told you I don't know what those things are. You said they're pre-gnostic. That is why I replied the way I did. Even if those elements contradict gnosticism, John as a whole as many gnostic themes. Do you deny this?

Hoghead1 · Apr 12, 2016

That isn't completely true, Commander. There are about a hundred major contradictions to be found in Scripture.

Truthfrees · May 23, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
1. Men accidentally corrupted the Bible despite trying not to (example: compare the list in Ezra 2 with the list in Nehemiah 7)
2. Satan is more intelligent and more powerful than any man
3. Satan is motivated to corrupt the Bible
4. ???
5. Satan cannot even corrupt the Bible to the same degree that man has

If you admit that Satan actually has corrupted the Bible, then boy are you in trouble. So premise 4 must be, "God manually prevents Satan from corrupting the Bible."

But then why doesn't God also manually prevent scribes from corrupting the Bible, especially if we can agree that they are probably praying for such divine intervention (John 14:13)? This would not be a vulgar miracle, nor would it be the overriding of free will. I know that some Bibles will be corrupted by man - I could easily type one up myself and change some things - but why has God allowed the corruption of the text to get so bad that there is not a single perfect copy on earth? And how does this reconcile with Psalms 12:6-7?

The Bible is reliable and any "errors" will be explainable somehow.

For example: I watched a Hebrew Scholar teach on the kings listed in 2 lists and the years counted for the generations.

I can't remember the details now, but the gist of it was that the years tallied correctly when you took out the years the unrighteous Kings of Israel reigned.

In that is a very special message: God doesn't count the evil generations.

He only counts the God-fearing generations.

Are there mysteries in the Bible? YES!

Are they for everyone to know and understand? NO!

God said the secrets of the Lord are for those who fear Him and He will make them know HIS covenant: Psalms 25:14

If you want to START to learn the secrets of the Lord you first have to seek Him with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13) because you believe He exists (Hebrews 11:6).

If you haven't first asked God to prove to you whether or not He's real, you won't be able to move onto the more complicated / hard to understand parts of the Bible.

Some Christians are like Thomas, they need proof for things! Awesome! God can prove Himself no problem as Jesus DID prove Himself to Thomas!

Many Christians are like the majority of the Apostles - they believe God and take Him at His word!

Jesus commends Christians who believe whatever God says: John 20:29

God also helps those who need proof or have doubts!

You have some awesome questions AV!

If we Christians can't give you the answers, God can!

One of my favorite teachers for hard to understand passages of the Bible is Charles Capps!

His videos are free to watch on http://cappsministries.com/ or Charles Capps on youtube!

I'm also studying Torah with a Jewish Rabbi.

The insights are amazing!

So the bottom line is there is amazing information available and if you ask God He will provide you the answers because HE wants you to believe!

Also God wants us to lean on HIM: Proverbs 3:5-6

isaiah 1:18 is God's invitation for you to deal directly with Him!

We are here to help as best we can, but you will get much better answers from God!

God Bless you!

StTruth · Aug 22, 2016

Haha, this is a funny topic. But it doesn't affect me one bit. My archdeacon who is a real scholar has taught me all there is to know about the Bible. First, the Bible contains many errors, contradictions, discrepancies, etc and these aren't 'apparent' as apologists will tell you. But in mainstream churches such as mine, errors in the Bible don't mean a thing. Unlike people who behave like their panties were on fire the minute you mention errors in the Bible (as my enemies and everyone who hates me on CF can bear testimony), most mainstream Christians are cool about the errors. We point out the errors and we write books about them but so what? How can anyone not expect a collection of ancient books to contain errors galore?

Cheers,

StTruth

Nihilist Virus · Aug 22, 2016

StTruth said:
Haha, this is a funny topic. But it doesn't affect me one bit. My archdeacon who is a real scholar has taught me all there is to know about the Bible. First, the Bible contains many errors, contradictions, discrepancies, etc and these aren't 'apparent' as apologists will tell you. But in mainstream churches such as mine, errors in the Bible don't mean a thing. Unlike people who behave like their panties were on fire the minute you mention errors in the Bible (as my enemies and everyone who hates me on CF can bear testimony), most mainstream Christians are cool about the errors. We point out the errors and we write books about them but so what? How can anyone not expect a collection of ancient books to contain errors galore?

Cheers,

StTruth

I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian and I believed in inerrancy. Reading the Bible is what made me an atheist. I don't know how my mind would have been formed if I had been taught all along that the Bible is rife with errors.

W2L · Aug 22, 2016

Nihilist Virus said:
1. Men accidentally corrupted the Bible despite trying not to (example: compare the list in Ezra 2 with the list in Nehemiah 7)
2. Satan is more intelligent and more powerful than any man
3. Satan is motivated to corrupt the Bible
4. ???
5. Satan cannot even corrupt the Bible to the same degree that man has

If you admit that Satan actually has corrupted the Bible, then boy are you in trouble. So premise 4 must be, "God manually prevents Satan from corrupting the Bible."

But then why doesn't God also manually prevent scribes from corrupting the Bible, especially if we can agree that they are probably praying for such divine intervention (John 14:13)? This would not be a vulgar miracle, nor would it be the overriding of free will. I know that some Bibles will be corrupted by man - I could easily type one up myself and change some things - but why has God allowed the corruption of the text to get so bad that there is not a single perfect copy on earth? And how does this reconcile with Psalms 12:6-7?

The Lord sent His apostles to teach us Gods word. It doesn't much matter what the Old Testament says because we are not under the Law of Moses anyway. The Lord said that many OT righteous men wished to see what His disciples saw but didn't see it. (Matthew 13)

John 14:13 is said to be addressed to the Lords disciples who he commishioned to go into the world and teach Gods word, and so its not nescessarily a promise to every believer, but even if it is the promise is only for things that are according to Gods will. (1 John 5:14-15) Its not Gods will that we follow Moses law because we have been given the ministration of the spirit. (2 Co 3:8)

Psalms 12 is most likely saying that Gods word is tried and proven completely by those who walk by faith in him. He protects them and saves them. Its not promising that English bibles will be without error, and its not promising that the OT will forever be incorrupted, its promising that Gods word, who is Christ himself, will never forsake us. Its a promise to those who love the truth. Its often those who are contrite in spirit, who put Gods word in their heart and worship in spirit and truth, even to the point of deep contrition. In essence, Gods Word is preserved in the spirit, and given to those who God has called. That's my understanding anyway.

Nihilist Virus · Aug 22, 2016

W2L said:
The Lord sent His apostles to teach us Gods word. It doesn't much matter what the Old Testament says because we are not under the Law of Moses anyway. The Lord said that many OT righteous men wished to see what His disciples saw but didn't see it. (Matthew 13)

John 14:13 is said to be addressed to the Lords disciples who he commishioned to go into the world and teach Gods word, and so its not nescessarily a promise to every believer, but even if it is the promise is only for things that are according to Gods will. (1 John 5:14-15) Its not Gods will that we follow Moses law because we have been given the ministration of the spirit. (2 Co 3:8)

Psalms 12 is most likely saying that Gods word is tried and proven completely by those who walk by faith in him. He protects them and saves them. Its not promising that English bibles will be without error, and its not promising that the OT will forever be incorrupted, its promising that Gods word, who is Christ himself, will never forsake us. Its a promise to those who love the truth. Its often those who are contrite in spirit, who put Gods word in their heart and worship in spirit and truth, even to the point of deep contrition. In essence, Gods Word is preserved in the spirit, and given to those who God has called. That's my understanding anyway.

None of this explains how I can know that Satan did not alter the New Testament.

Satan and errors in scripture

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Member of the Admiralty

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Infectious idea

Similar threads