Is the Bible Biblical?

Let it be noted: the Bible is not a Christian source. Instead, it is a gathering of disagreeing ancient religious perspectives, jammed in between a front and back cover, placed into publishing. Its content is highly esoteric, covered in Hebrew occultism and astro-theological material. Unfortunately, many people in the "occult" community have allowed Christians to push them around with the lie that the Bible is a product of the church. And, in accepting this lie (out of gullibility, Proverbs 14:15), misperception has taken place. In fact, a true occultist (like those of the past) will be deeply studied in theology in general, the Bible being no exception to this. 

However, when it comes to Christianity⁠—specifically Protestant Christianity⁠—there is this concept of "Bible alone" that is taught and held to. Basically it is a mindset of remaining within the 66 books of the Bible,1 every sentence being viewed as "God's divine writing." But does the Bible itself even teach the Bible? Really, it would have to in order for this kind of perspective to work. And, which Bible are we talking about? Any genuine examination of this topic can immediately lead into that sort of question. Is it the Bible, or Bibles

The chaos of Christian theology aside, what can be seen in Bibles is the concept of scrolls, tablets, and writings in general (e.g. Exodus 24:12; 31:18; Isaiah 30:8; Hosea 8:12; Daniel 10:21; 2 Timothy 3:15-16). What is mentioned is the law and the prophets (e.g. Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; Romans 3:21), the "law of Moses" (Luke 24:44; Acts 28:23), "Moses" (Luke 16:29, 31), and "the scroll of Psalms" (Acts 1:20) or "Psalms" (Luke 24:44). And, nowhere does it say that this is in the form of 66 books. Never does the Bible claim that there are 39 Old Testament books (or 27 New Testament books). And, never does the Bible teach this "between the front and back cover is God's word, but outside of that is questionable" mentality you may come across within Christian circles. There is no evidence in the writings themselves that "the law and the prophets" were even bound together as Bibles are today.


So what we have is writings, Hebraic writings—not an enclosed system of 66 books being referred to as "the Bible." Notice that in Luke 4:17-19 Jesus was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah (not a Bible). If the Jews were dealing with individual scrolls2 as opposed to a single book, then what is to be accepted as "Scripture" all of a sudden is not a matter of what is contained in between a front and back cover. Notice even the Dead Sea Scrolls, a gathering of distinct Hebraic documents discovered, only to be translated into English, and placed in a book form later on. 


What's more is, passages such as Psalm 147:19-20 and Romans 3:1-2 show that the words of Yahweh were given to the Jews specifically. However, the Bible also shows that they perverted God's words (Jeremiah 23:36). So, theologically, it is not as if what the Jews have today is to be accepted as inspired Scripture automatically (if that is the argument).

Isaiah 10:1 Woe to them that write wickedness; for when they write they do write wickedness. (LXXE)
As Jeremiah 8:8-9 mentions, the false pen of the scribe worked falsehood in the context of the law.3 They said that "Yahweh says" when he had not spoken (Ezekiel 13:7). Both Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 warn not to add or take away from the law. Just because Hebrews say or write things, does not prove that God said or wrote them (Ezekiel 13:7; Hosea 8:12). And, the concept of textual alteration is clearly Biblical (e.g. Revelation 22:18-19). Testing and questioning the law is good in light of this context (Jeremiah 8:8-9; 1 John 4:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:21), because how does one know that the "false pen" of the scribe is not among the law available today? It may be argued that "the law of the LORD [is] perfect" (Psalm 19:7), but that says nothing about people tampering with the writings. The Bible says "if anyone adds to these things" (Revelation 22:18) and "if anyone takes away from the words" (Revelation 22:19). What if false words are added in (Psalm 119:118; 1 Kings 13:18)? The Apostle Paul says:
Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (NKJV)
But are Christians testing out what Paul preached in his writings (1 Thessalonians 5:21)? One might think that even questioning these writings would be an act of wickedness, but Biblically? The Bible shows that the "godly writings" can be tampered with (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Jeremiah 8:8-9; Revelation 22:18-19). It never says to believe something is prophecy without proving that it is first. Notice the ancient teaching; 1 John 4:1 says, "do not believe all spirit [παντί πνεύματι], but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." According to the Bible, prophets (what they say) are to be tested first. Even in 1 Kings 13 we see an example of this kind of problem (believing a lying prophet). In Deuteronomy 18:21 it says, "How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?" See, Hebraically, God's message is not something that is simply known to be from God automatically. Rather, it is to be discerned as such. In Mark 16:20 it says that the word was confirmed through accompanying signs.

Then of course there is the Christian concept of "God preserving His word in the Bible." Usually verses like Psalm 12:6-7 or Matthew 5:18 end up being referenced as "proof" of this preservation doctrine—the problems involved being quite a few in number. Firstly, there is textual variation occurring in Psalm 12 (the LXX has "keep us" φυλαξεις ημας), and issue over the term translated "forever".4  As far as context, no specific written form is in view. Further, in Matthew 5 there is also textual variation, and honestly, the point seems to get misunderstood. Jesus in this passage contrasts the physical world (heavens and earth) with his word, but Christians seem to think "his word" (i.e. the Bible, physical paper and ink) is the spiritual. Yet this spiritual sort of notion in Matthew 5:18 can be seen in a more primitive form in the Isaiah saying,
Isaiah 40:8 Dry is the grass; decayed is the blossom. Yet the word of our Elohim shall be confirmed for the eon." (CLV; also see 1 Peter 1:24-25)
It is not a comment on a physical written preservation on earth for mankind, but rather, the incorruptible spiritual endurance of the word of Elohim (for the eon, in contrast to the grass and the material world). In theory, all physical written forms of the law could be destroyed and Jesus' point would still stand that his word will endure, since it is contrasted with the material world. To claim this speaks of a preservation (in the way Christians speak) is very odd. A better choice if anything would be Deuteronomy 29:29:
The things being concealed are Yahweh our Elohim's, yet the things being revealed are ours and our sons' until the eon, so that we might keep all the words of this law. (CLV)
Here the notion of the revelation of Elohim (things being revealed) is seen, and it is for the Israelites ("ours") until the eon, that they might keep the words. Yet, it is not that simple. Which eon is in view? The Bible mentions several (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:2). There is the concept of "beyond the eon" in Daniel 12:2. Moreover, keep in mind, the Jews did not always have such a law among them.
Amos 8:11-12 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord GOD, “That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD. They shall wander from sea to sea, And from north to east; They shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the LORD, But shall not find [it.] (NKJV; also see 1 Samuel 3:1)
Lamentations 2:9 Sunk into the earth have her gates, He hath destroyed and broken her bars, Her king and her princes [are] among the nations, there is no law, also her prophets Have not found vision from Jehovah. (YLT, bold added)
In argument, this Deuteronomy 29:29 concept could be for a certain period of time, and later on, the law could be taken away and/or perverted by men. Bad prophets were evidently stealing the words of Yahweh (Jeremiah 23:30), and the oracles of man were being spoken instead, as they perverted God's words (Jeremiah 23:36). Truthfully, the notion of the Bibles being kept spotless simply makes Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; and Revelation 22:18-19 of no effect (Mark 7:13). Where is the faith in these verses (Luke 8:25) among Christians? Faith in these verses points in a direction opposite of the preservation doctrine.

What about languages? That is, what language was the Bible originally written in? Many claim that it is Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but is there proof for this in the Bible? Genesis 14:13 mentions "Abram the Hebrew," and Psalm 147:19-20 teaches that the word is to the Jews, but it never says that they only spoke in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew even contains Aramaic (Jeremiah 10:11; Daniel 2:4b-7:28; Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26). 

As far as Greek goes, there is really no proof that the Septuagint is a translation of an underlying Hebrew text (the Hebrew texts available do not even match). Calling it a translation is simply a tradition of men (Colossians 2:8). One may want to question why "Greek" would even be among a Hebrew culture in the first place. Additionally, some may claim that when Jesus says "till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law" (Matthew 5:18) proves that Greek was the original language (since iota is in the Greek alphabet). Really, the context of this statement is the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17) which fits the Old Testament. If anything, this pushes more in the direction of the Septuagint being the law and prophets. Many points can be made regarding the ambiguity of this topic in fact. For instance, the Aramaic New Testament has a "Yodh" in Matthew 5:18, not a Greek iota. Is Aramaic a Biblical language or not?


In closing, the Bible is not a Christian source. Certain passages may fit with some "Christian" doctrines, but in totality? Christianity does not match the Bible. Rather, it shows itself to be a collection of different star-tales, occultism, mountain worship, and Gnosticism.

[Also see the video: Occultism in the Bible]

Robert Anthony

____________________________________

Footnotes:


1. Also called "Sola Scriptura," this concept of 66 books being the opening and closing gate of scripture. The Bible commands to not go beyond what has been written (1 Corinthians 4:6), but it never defines the Christian idea of the Bible as "what has been written." Notice, the original 1611 KJV Bible contains the Apocrypha (14 books). All those who reject these books reject "the Bible" (that specific Bible that is). If the argument used (to ditch the Apocrypha) is "these books contradict other books in the Bible," why not reject other books in the Bible (the same kind of "contradictions" being contained in normally accepted books). 


2. The Greek word βίβλος usually gets translated as "book", but it really means scroll (in a physical context). This can be seen in both Revelation 6:14 and Isaiah 34:4 (LXX).

Rev 6:14 Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. (NKJV)
Isa 34:4 And all the powers of the heavens shall melt, and the sky shall be rolled up like a scroll: and all the stars shall fall like leaves from a vine, and as leaves fall from a fig-tree. (LXXE)
Books do not roll up, but scrolls do. In Luke 4:17-19 Jesus was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah. It does not say that he opened up a Bible to the book of Isaiah, as if Isaiah was contained within a book containing many books (like the Bible). Instead, he was handed a scroll of the prophet Isaiah, and this is what he opened. If the Hebrews were dealing with individual scrolls, as opposed to "one book" (like a Bible), just how would this be relevant? Well, the Christian mentality of "if it is inside of the Bible, it is God's truth, but if it is outside the Bible, it must be tested with that which is contained within the Bible" can then be examined. Or, "if it contradicts that which is in the Bible, it must be rejected," yet, "if part of the Bible contradicts another part of the Bible, there is no contradiction, both are true!" Things become different with individual scrolls. Are two contradicting scrolls both true? Or, is one to be rejected? Since both are individual objects, the "in the Bible" move can not be pulled. Things become very different all of a sudden.

3. Here in Jeremiah 8:8, the context of "the false pen of the scribes" is "the law of Yahweh." Notice, this "How can you say, ‘We [are] wise, and the law of the LORD [is] with us’?" notion is like in Jeremiah 2:23
Jeremiah 2:23 “How can you say, ‘I am not polluted, I have not gone after the Baals’?
That is, they were polluted (defiled, נִטְמֵאתִי). They did go after the Baals (Jeremiah 2:8). So Yahweh asks, "How can you say?" So, in Jeremiah 8:8, they were not wise, and they did not have the law of Yahweh with them. And the reason they did not have the law with them was because the false pen of the scribes worked falsehood. 

4. People argue that "keep them" and "preserve them" in Psalm 12:7 refers to "the words of the Lord" in 12:6, yet the Septuagint says "keep us" (φυλαξεις ημας) and "preserve us" (διατηρησεις ημας). Some Hebrew manuscripts have "us" and "him" and some have "them" and "him" (e.g. see HCSB; ESV; CLV). The context is God saving (preserving) the poor and needy (Psalm 12:5). Elsewhere in the Psalms it speaks of God preserving the righteous with the same Hebrew (Psalm 31:23, נֹצֵר). It could easily be argued that Psalm 12:7 teaches God preserving his people, and not his words therefore.

Moreover, the term translated "forever" (e.g. NKJV) literally means "for eon" (לְעֹולָם). Its usage demonstrates that it does not mean eternal. For example, Daniel 12:2 would be saying "forever and further" instead of "for eon and further." There is no further beyond forever, otherwise the concept is is cancelled out. Some might argue that it can mean both depending on the context, but the problem is that in every single usage (in the Bible), nothing demands an eternal concept. The eon (or eonian) concept fits in every single case however.


No comments:

Post a Comment