Was the "Bible" in existence at the time of Jesus?

To set the record straight on the issue of whether or not the "Bible" is the "Word of God", this discussion will entertain evidence in the form of various versions of the "Bible" and or any religious material (other than Atheist publications) which provide an accounting of the documents currently known as the "Bible".

The main issue is focused on whether or not the "Bible" was in printed form during the time that Jesus was actively involved in his ministry. The secondary focus will be on the subject of; What is the "Word of God"? If the "Bible" is not the "Word of God" then what is the "Bible"?

 

No. There is no reason to believe that printed books existed in 1 AD.

There were, however, many hand-written manuscripts at that time and many of those were of a religious nature.

 

Please tell us this is a joke and you don't seriously entertain the thought that printing existed in the years 0 to 33CE!

 

A better use of time, would be asking this:

If this jesus christ myth was able to read and write, why is there no written works by this supposed person? Why didn't this jesus write the bible himself?

 

how, pray tell, will any discussion or evidence 'set the record straight' on whether the bible is the word of god? I have book here which claims to the word of some god or other, and it aint your bible. maybe MINE is the true word of god, and yours isn't.

if the bible is not the word of god, it's a book, obviously. not sure what you're driving at, here.

 

No, the 'bible' didn't exist until constantine had it organized. There supposedly was the jewish torah and tanakh.

 

The Jewish Torah and the Tanakh are not what is known as "the Bible" as evidenced in your statement of what they are known as.

 

The discussion will hopefully lead to a dissection of the language used in what is called the "Bible" and analyzing what is said therein that indicates that the book called the "Bible" is not "the Word of God" (though some passages [very few] are claimed to be the Word of God). As I told another member earlier today, 'the world is full of possibilities', so let us evaluate and find out what we can.

 

Printing did exist back in those days (33 CE) but not as we know printing today. They obviously were not able to print several thousand copies of a document in

a portion of a workday.

 

The first five books of the Bible--the Pentateuch--which are attributed to Moses, are believed to have been written about 1400 BC, and the rest of the OT in the 1,000 or so years thereafter.

 

The Pentateuch is also known as the Book of the Law. Its author is uncertain which goes along with what you say "attributed to".

 

If that is your goal, then your OP is seemingly going in the wrong direction. IMHO, you would be better off focusing on 3 of the 4 gospels--Matthew, Luke, and John--believing to have been derivative works of Mark, that in translation and interchurch circulation, added to the discipline/teachings of Christianity such that they were acceptably different enough to be canonized as unique gospels and not "remakes" if you will.

 

Oh ... did they use the Flintstones type writer?

 

Hieroglyphics on clay tablets early on. Moses is believed to have picked the skill up in egypt.

 

Well, I can see right off the cuff, you are desiring to censor that BOOK that is referred to as the "Bible" by suggesting what should and what should not be discussed from that BOOK. You made reference to "remakes". I am not certain how you are applying that term. From one perspective, one could say that your choice books are also "remakes" of one another. While at the same time, the remaining books (especially of the NT) have very important information concerning Christianity (following in the footsteps of Jesus). I have a suspicion that your choice might be based on the fact that nearly all of the remainder of the NT is attributed to the Apostle Paul who is highly frowned upon by many. But that is just a suspicion of mine (no proof available for that suspicion) even though the suspicion is strong.

Secondly, your use of the term "better" as in "better off focusing..." indicates to me that you are merely expressing an opinion, and that opinion is accepted as your personal view on the matter and nothing more at this time. Let us move on.

 

Well, if you consider criticism of your taking the most impossible path to get to your stated destination a conspiracy to censor the Bible, we will be moving on but in different directions.

 

Not hardly.... they were more intellectually EVOLVED at that point in time. One of the instruments they used was called a stylus and that is a hand operated device similar to a pen that is used today. Those writings were performed by people who were referrred to a scribes. See here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scribe

 

Thank you for your input.

 

Perhaps you should have define "printed". I'm well aware of "writing" but you used the word "printed" which implies a mechanical process.

 

It can imply a mechanical process, however printed is not exclusively a mechanical process unless you consider the use of the hand in printing a mechanical process: You seem to have overlooked a definition of 'printed': 3. To write characters similar to those commonly used in print."

 

The bible as is no but the guy who wrote the first gospel obviously read the translations of much older Hebrew scripts and because Aramaic and Greek are incompatible Jesus entered Jerusalem sitting on two donkeys .

 

The New Testament is what you mean,... right?

The New Testament is the Holy Comforter which was to come at the beginning of the 1000 year kingdom, the one which the apostles, in their own generation would themselves see.

So, no.
The NT was not present as a written form of the Gospel, which would be preached over all the world.

 

..."testimony"...

The Holy Comforter was a report of the witnesses, by the witnesses, in regard to what had happened in 32AD.


John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
It was what the people who saw it would tell to others.

 

So your position is that the New Testament is NOT directly from Christ, or God?

What about his verse,...

John 16:7
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

 

What about the Revelation??

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: