Reliability of Oral Traditions - dagdag bawas

[tonton]

We have heard that certain gospels have been written way after Jesus' death. Can somebody give the number of years? This could affect the accuracy of the story, aside from the personal biases of the author.

As early as Genesis, there is a good example of this in the bible.

Sabi ni Trinity:

Genesis 2

16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Sabi ni Eba:

Genesis 3:3

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

We do not see from the utterances of the Trinity any prohibition in touching the fruit. Si Eba lang ang nagsabi.

The message of the Trinity was clearly corrupted. It was added to. What more the gospels written way after Jesus' death?

[doombot]

We have heard that certain gospels have been written way after Jesus' death. Can somebody give the number of years? This could affect the accuracy of the story, aside from the personal biases of the author.

As early as Genesis, there is a good example of this in the bible.

Sabi ni Trinity:

Genesis 2

16 And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Sabi ni Eba:

Genesis 3:3

2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

We do not see from the utterances of the Trinity any prohibition in touching the fruit. Si Eba lang ang nagsabi.

The message of the Trinity was clearly corrupted. It was added to. What more the gospels written way after Jesus' death?

oo ginoong ton ton totoo yan heheheh

[tonton]

Comment naman kayo dyan. How free is your religion from corruption, when as early as the time of Adam and Eve, there was a corruption of God's message? Salita MISMO ni YHWH dinagdagan ni Eba.. tapos dinagdagan pa ng mga tradition ng kung sino sino.

God's message was a sitting duck.

[incsc]

Comment naman kayo dyan. How free is your religion from corruption, when as early as the time of Adam and Eve, there was a corruption of God's message? Salita MISMO ni YHWH dinagdagan ni Eba.. tapos dinagdagan pa ng mga tradition ng kung sino sino.

God's message was a sitting duck.

Eve did not corrupt the message since Eve wasn't created yet when God said that to Adam.

Genesis 2

21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

We can only the assume that when God told Eve about the fruit, He also told her not to touch it.

[nwfirstranger]

Eve did not corrupt the message since Eve wasn't created yet when God said that to Adam.

Genesis 2


We can only the assume that when God told Eve about the fruit, He also told her not to touch it.

Yep, that's the keyword. Kaya sobrang divided ang mga christian sects dahil may kanya-kanyang assumptions pag may ambiguity or confusion sa bible. Kailangan pang i-assume kung literal or metaphorical ang meaning. Pag convenient gawin, literal at pag mahirap metaphorical.

edit:
Anyways, naalala ko nung highschool pa ako, may ginawa kaming exercise sa speech and comm subject namin. Ang ginawa ay meron selected 10 students tapos may ipapasa silang message(a simple 5-step cooking procedure which to be 3x repeated orally) sa isang student then papasa nung sinabihan sa next student and so on. And yes, sobrang iba na ang message pagdating sa last student. Madaming nadagdag at nabawas.

So panu pa kaya sa mas malaking scope like the bible?

[incsc]

Yep, that's the keyword. Kaya sobrang divided ang mga christian sects dahil may kanya-kanyang assumptions pag may ambiguity or confusion sa bible. Kailangan pang i-assume kung literal or metaphorical ang meaning. Pag convenient gawin, literal at pag mahirap metaphorical.

The assumption is valid since there is no other way for Eve to know the commandment of God concerning the fruit unless God Himself told her.

What's that got to do with metaphors and literals?

[nwfirstranger]

The assumption is valid since there is no other way for Eve to know the commandment of God concerning the fruit unless God Himself told her.

What's that got to do with metaphors and literals?

Of course there are certain parts of the bible that are sometimes confusing or unclear, just like what tonton posted. Syempre mag-aassume ka, and in some cases, whether to take it literally or metaphorically.

edit:
Eto classic example, the chronology of creation of man and beast

Genesis 1:25-27
New International Version (NIV)
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

vs

Genesis 2:18-19
New International Version (NIV)
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Mukhang magkaiba ang narinig na version ng mga nagsulat or simply, he's just inconsistent, kung siya ang sole writer. Syempre di pwedeng i-take literally ang both passages na to dahil they're inconsistent with each other. Solution? Take one literally and one metaphorically. O diba magic?

[Ateo]

Anyways, naalala ko nung highschool pa ako, may ginawa kaming exercise sa speech and comm subject namin. Ang ginawa ay meron selected 10 students tapos may ipapasa silang message(a simple 5-step cooking procedure which to be 3x repeated orally) sa isang student then papasa nung sinabihan sa next student and so on. And yes, sobrang iba na ang message pagdating sa last student. Madaming nadagdag at nabawas.

So panu pa kaya sa mas malaking scope like the bible?

So, is this an excuse kaya maraming mali ang Bible? Bakit di na lang ginawang eBook ni God ang Bible o di kaya ay tinaga niya sa bato ang entire text?

[SmartDessa]

first of, in order for the Word of God be the Word of God, it should be infallible.

second, whatever that seems to be a mistake or a contradiction, like when Eve added touching aside from eating, or when Philip said that Jesus was born in Nazareth, or the cloth that Jesus wore in His crucifiction is in one gospel crimson and then another, purple, or when Jesus said that He is the Son yet He and the Father are one, or when Jesus said that He is in us, and we are in Him which is physically impossible. All of these are true, and non-contradictory.

Thirdly, if in any way that people tries to remove these seemingly contradictory words, or try to correct them, then that's the time we can say that it was corrupted.


when Eve said that you can also not touch the fruit, then clearly it is her mistake, and it is correctly recorded in the infallible Word of God.

[nwfirstranger]

first of, in order for the Word of God be the Word of God, it should be infallible.

second, whatever that seems to be a mistake or a contradiction, like when Eve added touching aside from eating, or when Philip said that Jesus was born in Nazareth, or the cloth that Jesus wore in His crucifiction is in one gospel crimson and then another, purple, or when Jesus said that He is the Son yet He and the Father are one, or when Jesus said that He is in us, and we are in Him which is physically impossible. All of these are true, and non-contradictory.

Thirdly, if in any way that people tries to remove these seemingly contradictory words, or try to correct them, then that's the time we can say that it was corrupted.


when Eve said that you can also not touch the fruit, then clearly it is her mistake, and it is correctly recorded in the infallible Word of God.

Then by your reasoning, may mga mistakes nga na recorded sa bible. So how would you distinguish the correct ones from the mistakes?

[banimalek]

Nakakatuwa naman na ang sinasabi nilang salita ng Diyos ay mayroon kontradiksyon, naalaala ko tuloy iyong kausap ko na aminado daw na iyong Mark 16:9-20 ay korapted sa madaling salita ay dagdag na lang daw, tuloy nasabi ko na papaano iyan ang binabasa ng maraming kristiyano ay may dagdag na.

[talinomo]

Nakakatuwa naman na ang sinasabi nilang salita ng Diyos ay mayroon kontradiksyon, naalaala ko tuloy iyong kausap ko na aminado daw na iyong Mark 16:9-20 ay korapted sa madaling salita ay dagdag na lang daw, tuloy nasabi ko na papaano iyan ang binabasa ng maraming kristiyano ay may dagdag na.

Can you please elaborate what contradiction? i am curious

[talinomo]

Of course there are certain parts of the bible that are sometimes confusing or unclear, just like what tonton posted. Syempre mag-aassume ka, and in some cases, whether to take it literally or metaphorically.

edit:
Eto classic example, the chronology of creation of man and beast



vs



Mukhang magkaiba ang narinig na version ng mga nagsulat or simply, he's just inconsistent, kung siya ang sole writer. Syempre di pwedeng i-take literally ang both passages na to dahil they're inconsistent with each other. Solution? Take one literally and one metaphorically. O diba magic?

From my pov it depends on how you understand the verse. Gen 1 is talking about the chronological order of creation so therefore Animals were created first before man in general.

While in Gen 2 the verse is pertaining to local or domestic place which is the garden of eden. We can safely say the formation of animals is to place them near man not because animals were not yet formed but to place them near man's habitation to be named. If you are more observant NIV used the word HAD

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all
the beasts of the field…' gen 2:19

maybe this will help

If, with the NIV, we read “Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the
east…” ( Genesis 2:8 ) and, 'Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all
the beasts of the field…' ( Genesis 2:19 with emphasis added), it is clearly seen
that chapter 2 states that the plants and animals were formed before Adam.
When Adam named the animals ( Genesis 2:20 ), they obviously were already in
existence. There is no contradictory significance in the order of animals listed in
Genesis 2:20; it is probably the order in which Adam met the animals, while the
order of their creation is given in Genesis 1:20-25 . Dr Henry Morris comments:
“It was only the animals in closest proximity and most likely as theoretical
candidates for companionship to man that were actually brought to him.
These included the birds of the air, the cattle (verse 20—probably the
domesticated animals), and the beasts of the field, which were evidently
the smaller wild animals that would live near human habitations. Those
not included were the fish of the sea, the creeping things, and the beasts of
the earth mentioned in Genesis 1:24 , which presumably were those wild
animals living at considerable distance from man and his cultivated
fields.” [1]

[1] Henry Morris The Genesis Record, p. 97.

[banimalek]

Can you please elaborate what contradiction? i am curious

Pakibasa mo na lang iyong usapin nila doon sa kontradiksyon pero iyong nabanggit ko na Markus 16:19-20sabi ng isang kausap ko ay dagdag na lang daw iyon, ikaw ganoon din ba ang paniniwala mo?

[Bigot3AtBalbas]

Pakibasa mo na lang iyong usapin nila doon sa kontradiksyon pero iyong nabanggit ko na Markus 16:19-20sabi ng isang kausap ko ay dagdag na lang daw iyon, ikaw ganoon din ba ang paniniwala mo?

[talinomo]

Pakibasa mo na lang iyong usapin nila doon sa kontradiksyon pero iyong nabanggit ko na Markus 16:19-20sabi ng isang kausap ko ay dagdag na lang daw iyon, ikaw ganoon din ba ang paniniwala mo?

You can create another thread for this one. Ang paniwala ko hindi naman siya dagdag

[Mustaine]

classic:

[banimalek]

You can create another thread for this one. Ang paniwala ko hindi naman siya dagdag

Hindi na kailangan tutal nandito na ang paksa about dagdag-bawas.

So, naniniwala ka sa nakasaad dito.?

Markus 16:18 Sila'y magsisihawak ng mga ahas, at kung magsiinom sila ng bagay na makamamatay, sa anomang paraan ay hindi makasasama sa kanila; ipapatong nila ang kanilang mga kamay sa mga may-sakit, at sila'y magsisigaling.

[talinomo]

Hindi na kailangan tutal nandito na ang paksa about dagdag-bawas.

So, naniniwala ka sa nakasaad dito.?

Markus 16:18 Sila'y magsisihawak ng mga ahas, at kung magsiinom sila ng bagay na makamamatay, sa anomang paraan ay hindi makasasama sa kanila; ipapatong nila ang kanilang mga kamay sa mga may-sakit, at sila'y magsisigaling.

yep. Fortunately the verse was fulfilled in case of Apostle paul

acts 28:5
But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects.

So what is the fuzz all about?

[tonton]

yep. Fortunately the verse was fulfilled in case of Apostle paul

acts 28:5
But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects.

So what is the fuzz all about?

You are so clueless.