How Old Is The Bible, Really?

[Freed]

Just wondering. How old is the "Good Book?"

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Let me Google that for you:

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+old+is+the+bible%2C+really&oq=how+old+is+the+bible%2C+really&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l2.21054j1j7&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[LogicalFallacy]

The oldest fragments go back I think about 3400 years, but it's likely oral tradition existed before that.

 

The bible in its current cannon form is about 1700 years old for the catholic version, and younger for the protestant version.

 

So anywhere between 500 and 3400 years depending on what it is you are measuring.

[florduh]

Mine's about 30 years old.

[Joshpantera]

The other issue is that the bible is basically a post-Bablyonian captivity writing venture. So that makes it extremely younger than whatever christians like to assert. Daniel, doesn't date back to the supposed time of Daniel. The writer(s) showed poor understanding of history and politics closer to the supposed time of Daniel and a better understanding of history and politics far off into the future of the supposed time of Daniel.

 

This same situation applies as you step back through time. There are tell tale signs that open up a whole can of worms. And you can break into that by reading through a lot of textual criticism scholarly books written about the bible and it's origins. I read through a lot of it years ago until I got the gist of what's really going on. I was explaining some of this to my wife and my mother a couple weeks ago and they didn't realize how young the bible actually is. Or the NT for that matter. Even though I've said it before. It just hadn't clicked. They didn't realize that there was no contemporary historians writing about jesus nor the apostles during their supposed life times. Or that the NT doesn't appear into the historical record until into the 2nd century. When the stories are based around the early first century. 

 

That's like reading a story now about something from prohibition or the first world war right now. Something that had no verification or witness from anything contemporary to that time period. No historians or writers discussing it at that time. And then going around telling everyone now that the story is true and well attested, when, it actually isn't. That's how I explained it to my wife and mother. They were surprised. They still thought that the crucifixion was well documented by the jews and romans. That's probably what a lot of people assume based on how the churches present the bible and it's stories. Objective investigation shows otherwise...

[pantheory]

According to the links below the books of the Old testament were thought to have been written between about 1400 to 165 BC. The books of the New Testament were believed to have been written between about 50-150 AD, most likely first-written in Aramaic then translated into Greek, the main language of Constantinople – the official language being Latin. The emperor Constantine commissioned the first 50 complete hand written Christian bibles to be distributed to all the churches of the region. Afterwards further copies were sent to Rome and elsewhere. No surviving original copies are known to exist today.

The first Christian bibles, including the old testament, were formed as a whole (today’s Canon) by the Council of Nicaea in 331 AD, about 60 miles south-west of Constantinople, which was a Greek city at that time, ruled by the Romans. Constantine commissioned this council to determine which of the many more proposed new-testament books submitted should be included in the new bible, but also to resolve the controversy of Arianism that held that Jesus was the son of God, but not God himself, a non-Trinitarian  belief. The council held that the belief of Arianism was heresy and thereafter persecuted or excommunicated its followers. But the movement didn’t die completely and remained a sect in the Greek and Gothic churches. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/texts/bible.shtml

[♦ Fuego ♦]

11 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

They didn't realize that there was no contemporary historians writing about jesus nor the apostles during their supposed life times.

 

That is the major mistake most believers made when Josh McDowell wrote "Evidence that demands a verdict". Dry, dry, dry book. We didn't read it but all assumed that it documented well that the Bible was historical. Plus he made up that his "research" converted him. Lying is a great way to make money in the church. 

[Myrkhoos]

     Dating is always a tricky bussiness in ancient  history, just throw in that disclaimer. 

     Well, the good book is actually lots of books, over sixty each with its own dating. 

      Plus different dates for the preceding oral traditions and writing. And then different dates for earliest manuscript fragments and earliest full manuscript - depending also on the language ( hebrew, greek, aramaic, latin, coptic, etc)

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Dating is always a tricky bussiness in ancient  history,

Tell me about it.  I matched with Cleopatra on Tinder and got totally catfished.