From: ericj@eskimo.celestial.com (Eric Jorgensen)
Subject: Re: Is the Bible really what the authors wrote?
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 08:27:14 GMT

gmark@cbnewse.cb.att.com (gilbert.m.stewart) writes:
>willism@engin.umich.edu (Mark Benjamin Willis) writes:
>>>ericj@eskimo.celestial.com (Eric Jorgensen) writes:
>>>besides, almost the entire Old Testament was handed down for many generations
>>>orally, just like Homer's two books, so why don't religious people have faith
>>>in those books?  
>> 
>>In this excerpt Eric identifies with many other people who have strugled with
>>the question of the authenticity of the Bible.  Eric's question deals with the
>>issue of whether or not the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was 
>>written many years ago.  It turns out that the archeological evidence 
> 
>This is the key, I believe.  Once it is written, it is entirely possible
>to be accurate in subsequent copies.  However, word of mouth is quite
>different.  And humans have a way of misremembering information to fit
>their current, personal interpretation.  I've heard some pretty wierd
>description differences between accounts by eye-witnesses of the same
>event.

As I read these, 'gmark' has the same idea I was expressing, and 'willism' not
ENTIRLEY the same.  Maybe I should re-phrase it a bit.

I think that what was WRITTEN in the original texts are relatively the same
as they now are - excepting of course the additions made by the translators
of the King James Version (the italicized words in many printings).  My
thoughts were pointing to what *could* have happened VOCALLY to these,
*before* they were even WRITTEN in the first place...such as:

Since we know (archaeology-wise) that written language was started (in ANY
language) well after vocal language was, and the Bible claims to have
information relating to the first men (and women) on the planet, I find it
hard to believe that what was written about these first men/women was written
FIRST-HAND by the actual people who did these things; therefore, the stories
of these happening must have been passed down for some number of generations
VOCALLY before they were WRITTEN.  Even so, the fundamentalists argue that 
what is written in the Bible is a totally accurate - and unchanged - version 
of what happened.

The same can be said of The Illiad or The Odyssey by Homer.  The stories were
passed down for some number of generations VOCALLY before they were WRITTEN.
Yet these same fundamentalists argue that facts could have been changed due to
exactly what 'gmark' brought up - personal interpretation.

So my question was - What makes the Bible so different as to not be subject to
the same amount of criticism as the Illiad or Odyssey?  It cannot be said that
the difference is the mention of 'God', because both of the Homer books also
contain mentionings of 'gods'.

Another question is this - The fundamentalists are 'certain' of who wrote
specific boooks of the Bible, yet they claim to prove an uncertainty of whether
Homer even existed in the first place.  I give you the same question - what
makes the difference?

Hope this clears up what I was saying earlier...I'm a bit more awake now, as
you can probably see.  :)

- ericj@eskimo.celestial.com

Organization: Sophomore, Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA