Quora Article On Historical Accuracy Of The Bible.

How do we know that the Holy Bible wasn't actually created by the earliest forms of government in an effort to maintain control over the world population throughout the ages?

Short answer: We don’t. We have much better reason to assume the text IS tampered with, or at the very least, that it may not be translated 100% correctly. We all know how changing one small thing can change the entire meaning of a text, and we all know that humans make mistakes.

Long(er) answer: The first bible in printed form didn’t exist until 1454, and it wasn’t more commonly available until the 1500s. So, for 1500+ years, NO ONE in the general public even had access to scriptures; only religious officials were permitted to view and interpret them. Because of that, nearly every doctrine that is used today found its’ start somewhere in that 1500 year history that for the most part, was NOT to be questioned, often under penalty of death. It’s only in very recent years that we could dare question the translations or the motivations behind the translators and the religious officials who decided upon the “correct” interpretation. It’s only reasonable that we might need to take a closer look at such long held, possibly biased interpretations/translations. It’s only reasonable to assume when this information was so closely guarded from ANY criticism outside the clergy for centuries, that it might not be just. It’s unlikely that we’ve corrected for these all those centuries in the past few decades.

The doctrines are all man-made. The decision between which books are canon and which are not was also determined by man, with questionable motives. There is nothing wrong with challenging the doctrines compiled by men who, for hundreds of years, could not be challenged. Only they were allowed access to the writings, and they only answered to themselves.

Take homosexuality for instance. It’s been condemned for so long, can we really trust that the translators were completely objective? Let’s look at some examples, taken from another of my answers, Keisha Vida's answer to How can someone say homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible, then not follow everything else written in the Bible exactly as written?

THE ORIGINAL TEXTS DID NOT FORBID BEING GAY, BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T HAVE A WORD FOR IT. Pederasty (an older male keeping a male youth as his lover) was common at the time the OT bible took place / was written. The bible forbids that. Unfortunately, most translations (incorrectly) change these references to homosexuality, etc.

 

Grasping at straws me thinks.

AFAIK the first fragments we have are from early 2. century, and the first full New Testament from 4.?

So instead of just claiming something a good analysis should prove specific discrepancies by comparing sources.

As far as homosexuality is concerned there is also a continuation from the old testament, and probably comparative sources from the era as well as theological debates and other recorded sources to clarify terminology used at the time.

Yes pederasty was common, though not as accepted and widespread as sometimes assumed. However even those Greco-Roman cultures that have shown limited tolerance to pederasty have not been sympathetic to homosexuality. Just assuming that someone is than calling out pederasty but accepting homosexuality that was generally seen more negatively seems a bit disingenuous and not in line with general ethical debates of the time.

Not an expert on either the Bible or history, might be wrong, but that seems like a typical wishful thinking and an attempt to tweak religion and history for contemporary social needs and goals.

 

The word “arsenokoitai” shows up in only two verses in the bible, and it was not translated to mean “homosexual” until 1946.

Has 'Homosexual' Always Been in the Bible?


The phrase "one another" is derived from the Greek word "allelon". It occurs 100 times in the New Testament alone. Approximately 59 of those occurrences are specific commands teaching us how (and how not) to relate to one another.

Love one another (John 13:34; this command occurs at least 16 times)

Be devoted to one another (Romans 12:10)

Honor one another above yourselves (Romans 12:10)

Live in harmony with one another (Romans 12:16)

Build up one another (Romans 14:19; 1 Thessalonians 5:11)

Be likeminded towards one another (Romans 15:5)

Accept one another (Romans 15:7)

Admonish one another (Romans 15:14; Colossians 3:16)

Greet one another (Romans 16:16)

Care for one another (1 Corinthians 12:25)

Serve one another (Galatians 5:13)

Bear one another's burdens (Galatians 6:2)

Forgive one another (Ephesians 4:2, 32; Colossians 3:13)

Be patient with one another (Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 3:13)

Speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15, 25)

Be kind and compassionate to one another (Ephesians 4:32)

Speak to one another with psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19)

Submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21, 1 Peter 5:5)

Consider others better than yourselves (Philippians 2:3)

Look to the interests of one another (Philippians 2:4)

Bear with one another (Colossians 3:13)

Teach one another (Colossians 3:16)

Comfort one another (1 Thessalonians 4:18)

Encourage one another (1 Thessalonians 5:11)

Exhort one another (Hebrews 3:13)

Stir up [provoke, stimulate] one another to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24)

Show hospitality to one another (1 Peter 4:9)

Employ the gifts that God has given us for the benefit of one another (1 Peter 4:10)

Clothe yourselves with humility towards one another (1 Peter 5:5)

Pray for one another (James 5:16)

Confess your faults to one another (James 5:16)

Do not lie to one another (Colossians 3:9)

Stop passing judgment on one another (Romans 14:13)

If you keep on biting and devouring each other...you'll be destroyed by each other (Galatians 5:15)

Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other (Galatians 5:26)

Do not slander one another (James 4:11)

Don't grumble against each other (James 5:9)

We do all this because we are in a real sense “members of one another” (Romans 12:5; Ephesians 4:25)

The Case for "One Another" (See These 59 Commands in the Bible)

 

How do we "know"? We don't, of course--if 'know" means certainty. Historians look at the evidence, such as it is, and make inferences--and revise them after further argument. They look at stylistic and vocabulary differences, inconsistencies in story lines, and the "doublets" )different versions of the same story. For example, in the P (Priestly) account of Exodus, God via Moses parts the waters of the Red Sea a la Cecil B.Demille/ Charlton Heston, to let the Israelites passs through and then closes them to drown Pharaoh and his army. In the alternataive (earlier) J Yahwest) account, the Israelites pass through the marshy area known as the Sea of Reeds after strong winds have cleared a path, and Pharaoh's army presumably got stuck in the mud. A supernaturalistic version and a naturalistic one--take your pick! It's things like this that led scholars to propose hypotheses that maybe Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (first five books) after all with God giving dictation, as fundamentalists still believe. In 1780, Johan Eichorn proposed there were two versions: the Yahwest (J) (Germans use"J" for Y) source which used Yahweh as God's name, and the Elohist (E) source, which used Ehlohim. Later a third source (Deuteronomist) source was identified, and finally a fourth (P-Priestly) Source. Finally Graf and Wellhausen put it all together in the Documentary hypothesis of 1878. This became the accepted version by scholars until some more Germans in the 1970s challenged the dating, and questioned whether or not the E source was important enough to be considered a separate source. So plenty to debate, but it seems clear that several hands were involved over different periods of time. And much of the source material probably originated as oral tradition. A theistic apologist might argue that God was guiding the whole process (God moves in mysterious ways), and that every word in the final canonical version is inspired. (Heads they win, tails you lose!)

 

Of course the original texts didn't condemn being "gay". The term "Gay" for homosexuals is a relatively recent word, going back to the mid-1950s. The concept of "homosexuality", as opposed to same-sex sexual relations, is also relatively recent, dating from the nineteenth century. But that, of course, doesn't mean that gay is okay as far as the Bile is concerned. The ancients had a different concept of same-sex activity than we do today. The notion of people being constitutionally homosexual ("born that way") is relatively recent, replacing the previous notion, still held in some circles, that it was a preference or sinful choice. The ancients had no concept of "homosexuality"--only of same-sex sexual relations between men. Those attitudes varied widely, from acceptance in ancient Greece to condemnation by the Assyrians, Persians (Zoroastrians), and Jews. In ancient Rome, men on the receiving end of anal sex were looked down upon, but the "active" partner was deemed acceptable. As for pederasty, that "institution" was accepted in Greco-Roman culture, and in parts of the Near East, but not by the Israelites who gave gave us the Old Testament. As that book explains, the Lord detested certain practices accepted by the Canaanites and other peoples of the region. Charles D. Myers, Jr. “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.” Anima 19, no. 1 (September 1992)

The clearest Old Testament condemnation of male homosexual practice is in Leviticus, 18:22; 20:13, the latter including the death penalty for the practice. What do these say? Leviticus 18:22 literally says: כב וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא. (w’eth-zäkhār lö’ tiškav miškevē ‘iššâ) "And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman. An abomination it is." Say what?
TBC

 

"The clearest Old Testament condemnation of male homosexual practice is in Leviticus, 18:22; 20:13, the latter including the death penalty for the practice. What do these say? Leviticus 18:22 literally says: כב וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא. (w’eth-zäkhār lö’ tiškav miškevē ‘iššâ) 'And with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman. An abomination it is.' " That's what it says. What does it mean? There are different opinions, which might be categorized as "gay unfriendly" and "gay friendly".

GAY UNFRIENDLY. The gay unfriendly interpretation has been the historically dominant one, including in ancient Israel. The words were understood to mean no same-sex relations for men. (Note: the original OT version was concerned only with men doing it. It was Paul who broadened it to include lesbians.) Why this taboo, carrying a harsh capital punishment? Maybe because: (1) as an embattled people surrounded by hostile powers like Egypt, Assyria and Babylon the Israelites saw a grow the population, which requires heterosexual activity; (2) Genesis commands us to "be fruitful and multiply"; (3) in a patriarchal society, there was a special horror at the thought of a man being treated "like a woman" or wasting his precious seed (there is a similar condemnation of Onan for deliberately pulling out during heterosexual intercourse; (4) same-sex activity was associated with pagan rites like male temple prostitution; (5) sodomization was a favorite practice of humiliation by hostile foreign conquerors, with whom the Jews had unfortunate encounters; (5) the taboo was part of the Jewish Holiness Code, like circumcision and kosher, setting Israel apart from other nations in which the "active" partner was held blameless.
Anyhow, here are the major gay unfriendly variants:

• Quaint: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." KJV
• Blunt: "“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." NIV
• Over-Broad?: “Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin." NLT (use of the term "homosexuality" is problematic, because as mentioned in the previous post , the concept of homosexuality was unknown at the time Leviticus was written; the Leviticus original dealt only with male same-sex relations, if that.

GAY FRIENDLY. Since the "gay revolution" in the 70s, some bible scholars have reconsidered Leviticus 18:22 and argued that : (1) it was directed at something narrower or more specific than male same-sex relations; or (2) it was not intended to apply to modern times. The former arguments turn on the meaning of "lie in the lyings of the woman" (מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה), which seems to be an idiom for something. Some have suggested that the plain language prohibits having same-sex relations in a woman's bed, but it seems unlikely that that conduct would carry the penalty of capital punishment. The major gay friendly variants are:

• no same-sex relations with married men. Bruce Wells (University of Texas at Austin), https://www.researchgate.net/public...icus_Texts_on_Same-Sex_Relations_Reconsidered Jan Joosten, Oxford U. https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/71/1/1/5810142?login=false

• the Levitical prohibition is outmoded and harmful Leviticus was written for a different time and culture, in which modern psychology and biology were unknown, the notion of people being "born that way" was unheard of, and increasing the population was a major priority. Times have changed, and the taboo contributes to a climate of dehumanization.

Mel White, What the Bible Says – and Doesn‟t Say – about Homosexuality
Peter Gomes (1996), The Good Book.

I favor the gay friendly approach. Christianity had no problem scrapping circumcision and the dietary laws, and the prohibition about mixing different threads. Forcing gays to conform to heterosexual standards seems cruel in light of modern knowledge. I'm hetero, but my wife once said (before gay marriage was a thing) that she wished gays could marry and enjoy the same kind of relationship we do. I liked that!

 

Anyone who bases their ethics upon a book prefaced by a story about a talking snake with a magic apple in an enchanted garden which rationalizes rape, pedophilia, child abuse, slavery, murder, and genocide doesn't under any circumstances get to pontificate to the rest of us on morality.
EVER.

 

Who would that be? I take an historial-metaphorical approach to the Bible. The talking snake part is myth, or metaphor, which is a means of conveying truth thru fiction. I interpret it as an illustration of fundamental human nature--what Buddhists call Tanha (grasping), Two people in Paradise,and they can't get their minds off the damned fruit. We even have a current example. People living in a prosperous economy which is the envy of the earth, and they couldn't get their minds off the price of eggs. Wait'll they see those tariffs and deportations in action! People who read Genesis literally miss the point. History is full of blood and guts and begats. We can learn from that too, if we don't treat it as an ethical manual.

 

The word arsenokoitai, which seems to be slang, possibly invented by Paul, is a compound of two words: arsen, meaning 'male,” and koite, meaning 'bed' or " lie with". Since presumably male beds aren't excluded from heaven, translators conclude Paul meant "man-bedders".Paul seems to be the originator of this term, which appears only in 1Cor.6:9 and 1 Tim 1 (the latter is generally considered by Bible scholars to have been written by somebody else impersonating Paul). He was probably referring to the Leviticus 18 and 20 passages (post #5) which talk about men and beds (assuming that's what "lyings" means). The Septuagint translation of Leviticus 18"22, which is the one Paul used, states plainly: "Do not 'bed' (koite) a 'man' (arseno) like you would a woman." In 1 Cor.8) the term appears, along with that other mysterious word malakoi, in a laundry list of conduct that will keep wrongdoers out of heaven, (1 Cor.6: 9). Malakoi (μαλακοί) means "soft". It appears elsewhere in the NT (Mat. 11:7), where Jesus asks: what did you go into the wilderness to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Presumably, He wasn't referring to a drag queen.

So what was Paul getting at here? Needless to say, there are widely varying opinions. The King James version renders arsenokoitai as "abusers of themselves with men" and malakoi as "effeminate"--vague to say the least, but the reader is supposed to get the idea. "Effeminate" is particularly objectionable. Does this pertain to limp wrists, lisps and swishy behavior? If so, we've moved well beyond Leviticus, which seems to be about same-sex sexual activity. Some have argued that it could include anything deviating from traditional gender roles. (Paul did find long hair on men to be unnatural, in the same letter.1 Corinthians 11:14.) John Wesley, founder of my Methodist Church, said malakoi didn't refer specifically to sex at all, but rather to moral weakness. New Testament scholar J. Paul Sampley thinks it was referring to pederasty, in which men kept boys for sex. The prevailing consensus among conservative Christians is that arsenokoitai refers to the "active", "top", penetrating partner and malakoi refers to the passive "bottom" receiving partner in a same-sex relationship. Maybe so. The NRSV uses the terms "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" for the words in question. IMO, not helpful.

Then there's Romans 1, Paul's final word on the subject, in which he seems to embrace the Greco-Roman concept of natural law, and suggests for the first time that female as well as male sexual activity is unnatural. Here, however, he doesn't seem to be talking about loving committed relationships, if he or anyone else back then had such a concept. He talks about "men burning in their passion for one another." Sounds like lust to me!

Some further context. Paul was writing at a time when the cult of the Great Mother goddess Cybele and her consort Attis was active in Rome and the Near East. Cybelle's eunuch Galli were available as male temple prostitutes whose antics were conspicuous during her annual spring festivals. They were big in Galatia where Paul preached, and of course in Rome, to which he addresed his letter. Many Romans considered their behavior scandalous, and they werelater satirized in Lucius Apulius' Metamorphoses (AKA The Golden Ass.) Could this have influenced Paul's concept of same-sex practices? Also, worth mentioning is Bishop John Spong's 1992 assessment of Paul as, himself, possibly a self-loathing, repressed homosexual. Spong (1992), Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism.