11 Nov 03
Originally posted by pcaspianI have to disagree on the accuracy of the New Testament
Usually you can believe in the accuracy of NT scripts based on the content. Not everything seems clear and concise. EG: After everything the apostles were taught, they still did not believe Jesus would be resurected from the dead. Does not sound like doctrine written to support Christianity when the people closest to Christ didn't originally even believe in his ressurection.
Originally the scriptures would have been first passed on through the normal Jewish oral tradition. When people tend to tell stories , bits get missed off, and other parts get embellished, the narrator tell the story from his perspective (or a second hand perspective) which may or may not be wholly accurate. In otherwords similiar to a game of Chinese whispers.
Simple human error in translations or coping will exist. Originally the text would have been in Hebrew and most likely would have been translated a number of times (Latin etc...) to get to the current version. Just look at the stupid sentences that crop up in these popular bi-lingual phrase books, or the text errors that occur in our beloved chess books (and that's using computers & proof reading).
In the past the various church leaders, would have had a much more powerful role in society. Something like our modern day politicians, powerful business men or superstar celebrities. We only have to watch the news to see what tricks that some of these people get up too. From these stories we can get an idea what the church leaders of the past did. At least in our times we have a better democratic/judicial system enabling us to get rid or control the bad eggs but not so in the past. History tells us of many bad/evil things that some church leaders did to protect their own interest. Would they stop at changing a little bit text here & there or adding a bit of spin to a story if it suited their purposes, I don't think so.
That's why I say 2000 years of other peoples chaff in Jesus's wheat. I'm not saying that you can't get the Christian message from studing the text (capital C just for you mislead), but you do need a dose of salt, careful sifting and fermentation of thought to make any bread.
Anyway getting back to where I came in on this discuss, is it so unreasonable to say that the apostles would lie or misdirect the local population & authorities by saying that Jesus had "ascended to heaven" to protect him from further persecution ?
12 Nov 03
Originally posted by bbarrbbarr.GOD gave you gifts.What GOD gave you,you use very well.
That's considerate, Michael. Thank you for refraining from introducing confusion into this thread. I don't take offense when people disagree. But I also don't take their disagreement seriously unless they are able to provide arguments. This shouldn't be a problem with you, however, since you claim to have arguments at your disposal. Perhaps you could ...[text shortened]... e is as poor as you claim, then you actually have failed to understand my assertions.
Bennett
To others HE gave other gifts.
I believe GOD wants us to share the gifts HE gave us.This is what I beleive:
GOD scatters gifts at random.HE expects we will share.
That is the foundation of my faith.
HE made us in HIS own light
12 Nov 03
Originally posted by Jay PeateaThank you Jay Peatea for expressing so well what a person with no communication skills can't. 😵 This is the type of thing I was trying to say in my little post.
[b]I have to disagree on the accuracy of the New Testament
Originally the scriptures would have been first passed on through the normal Jewish oral tradition. When people tend to tell stories , bits get missed off, and other parts get embellished, the narrator tell the story from his perspective (or a second hand perspective) which may or may not be whol ...[text shortened]... text errors that occur in our beloved chess books (and that's using computers & proof reading).
12 Nov 03
Originally posted by Jay PeateaReminds me of a joke I heard:
I have to disagree on the accuracy of the New Testament
Originally the scriptures would have been first passed on through the normal Jewish oral tradition. When people tend to tell stories , bits get missed off, and other parts get embellished, the narrator tell the story from his perspective (or a second hand perspective) which may or may not be whol ...[text shortened]... es by saying that Jesus had "ascended to heaven" to protect him from further persecution ?
An apprentice monk arrives at the monastery after taking his vows of poverty and chastity, where his first duty is to spend hour upon hour copying the holy manuscripts out by hand. After a while he notices that he is copying from an earlier copy. Feeling a bit plucky, he approaches the abbot and enquires as to the feasibility of copying from copies - any mistake would be repeated throughout the years, and many more could be added. Feeling slightly concerned the abbot trots off to the basement to check the original manuscript. After a couple of hours the abbot hasn't returned. Getting worried the new apprentice monk heads off to look for him, only to find the abbot downstairs banging his head repeatedly against the wall.
"What's the matter," enquires the apprentice
"It's CELEBRATE, the word's CELEBRATE"
12 Nov 03
Originally posted by mmanuelLOL 😵
Reminds me of a joke I heard:
An apprentice monk arrives at the monastery after taking his vows of poverty and chastity, where his first duty is to spend hour upon hour copying the holy manuscripts out by hand. After a while he notices that he is copying from an earlier copy. Feeling a bit plucky, he approaches the abbot and enquires as to the feasibility ...[text shortened]...
"What's the matter," enquires the apprentice
"It's CELEBRATE, the word's CELEBRATE"
13 Nov 03
Originally posted by CFCIf you go with that statement, you have to ask yourself why Jesus did indeed not denounce the Mosaic law, when he easily could have. Indeed he said that if you dont believe the words of Moses, you wont believe His words.
I believe and i'm sure many of you have heard this is that Jesus was born as a Jew and hated the religion and broke away and created Christianity.
Jesus was a Jew. But Jew's have always known that being a Jew would not be enough. Jesus focussed specifically on Jews for his preaching, not denounce them as evil.
Basically all Jesus disagreed with was the 'Law' , in that choosing God was not about just being 'Good' and doing a,b,c and d.
cheers
13 Nov 03
Originally posted by Jay Peatea"Originally the scriptures would have been first passed on through the normal Jewish oral tradition. When people tend to tell stories , bits get missed off, and other parts get embellished, the narrator tell the story from his perspective (or a second hand perspective) which may or may not be wholly accurate.
I have to disagree on the accuracy of the New Testament
Originally the scriptures would have been first passed on through the normal Jewish oral tradition. When people tend to tell stories , bits get missed off, and other parts get embellished, the narrator tell the story from his perspective (or a second hand perspective) which may or may not be whol ...[text shortened]... es by saying that Jesus had "ascended to heaven" to protect him from further persecution ?
In otherwords similiar to a game of Chinese whispers. "
Well, usually I would agree with you, regarding any Oral transmission of text, however you have to truely comprehend the
accuracy that the Jews had to have used to transmit messages. Prior to Christ, there exists some 1300+ years of Oral
transfer of materials, and after Christ's death and resurrection, another 1 000 years of Jewish translation.
You only need to compare the Masoretic and Septuagint, so see how accurate atleast the Jews were in doing this.
I agree Christians would have been a different story. However there are those that believe that most of the Gospel accounts (NT) were written were completed around AD60, others latest AD 70. EG: Luke (in Acts) breaks off with events complete around 62AD +-30 years is not enough time to introduce mythical stories or beliefs, especially
not in a culture as dependant on oral means to communicate a message.
Considering the early Church was mostly of Jewish composition, this
would imply that the oral tradition would have been well upheld. Remember, rabbi's would have been people that could recite the
ENTIRE OT word for word. Fantastic emphasis was placed on accuracy.
That certain authors did have different interpretations of the Gospel, but same accounts for the events, further shows that great
emphasis was placed on accuracy
''Simple human error in translations or coping will exist. Originally the text would have been in Hebrew and most likely would have been translated a number of times (Latin etc...) to get to the current version. "
Duplicate translations I agree would result in this, however as in the case of the KJV (King James Ver), the text (OT) was
translated from the Masoretic text (Original Hebrew), NT would be a combination of Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic scripts, not the Latin
translations, although to anyone well versed in Latin, I'm sure these would be accurate. As for direct copying of scripts, this
would not have resulted in any simple errors. Only changes in script would have had to be
1. Deliberate
2. During translation.
1.If you assume there were deliberate additions/deletions, you have to first realise that this would not have been a slight of hand. Indeed it would have to be a full blown conspiracy and by men living my the ideals of the very words they are changing. Simply put, imagine
a church, altering its text, delivering its Word to its congregation, and expecting no-one to notice ? Simply doesn't happen!
While there are different INTERPRETATIONS of text, the actuall bible would have had to be the same, word for word.
TRUE, Different translations from the original could exits, however, the original would not have been allowed to change.
2. Translation issues do exist today, however it is pretty possible to go back to the near original text (or atleast copied text). It definitely was not a case of translating Hebrew to Greek, Greek to Latin, Latin to
French, French to English etc. You might notice the KJV is different from the NIV, however the main differences are just to make the text simpler to understand. Old English is not = Modern English.
"In the past the various church leaders, would have had a much more powerful role in society. "
This would be pretty difficult. They would have to change every version of every scrolls in existance. Not only that, but they would have had to change the knowlege already in the people's minds. Not only that, but they would have to DIRECTLY go against everything they believe in. Indeed by reading the text you can find what seems to be CLEAR contradictions.
EG: Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath , as dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went
to look at the tomb.
John: 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone
was been removed.
Notice John makes no mention of the 'other mary' in Matthew. If you were a church leader and you had the opportunity to edit the
Bible, would you not try and correct what many believe to be contradictions in the Bible, into one neat story ?
This is one of the reasons, we can trust that biblical text was not 'doctored' to sell to the masses and atleast from the
perspectives of the authors, is very accurate to their exact words.
PS: Using a woman as 'witness' to Jesus's resurection is also an odd choice as women were not highly regarded.
Hope that gives you some insight. PS, usually "scholars" that criticise the accuracy of Biblical text, do so either out of sincere scholarship or (more likely) because they just dont like what certain words say...
I can even find you so called Christians that claim sex orgies are not sinfull.
13 Nov 03
Originally posted by ncrosbyMy sister once loaned me a movie entitled "The Signature of God." I don't think she has ever watched it. 😉 In the movie we are given many evidences that Jesus existed. One of them is that the New testiment is writen so closely to Jesus' death that there is no way it could have been wrong. The people would not have stood for it. If I were to write a book today stating the George Bush was the Messiah and that he made many miricles throughout his life, there is no way anyone would take me seriously. People would know it was a lie and it probably would not get published. The movie also talked about how much time and effort was put into rewritting the text in the bible. If one word was mispelled or left out the entire publication would be burned. It was a very insightful movie.
I'm sorry that I have no evidence to quote, but I have always heard that at least one book from the bible is completely missing out of the text today. I have no faith in God, I do not believe he exists, but I believe far less in the faith that this scripture has lasted over 2000 years in whole and unedited. This is man we are talking about here, preserving the text...no way jose.
13 Nov 03
1 edit
Originally posted by pcaspianI'll concede that you have some valid points with regards to accuracy but the fact is that errors still remain for example.
"Originally the scriptures would have been first passed on through the normal Jewish oral tradition. When people tend to tell stories , bits get missed off, and other parts get embellished, the narrator tell the story from his perspective ...[text shortened]... es are not sinfull.
The LXX states that the height of goliath was 4 cubits tall, while the MT states that his height was 6 cubits tall. Which is right ? The dead sea scrolls agree with the LXX's account. Not that important you may think (I agree but it does deflat the story somewhat) however you at least have to question the accuracy of some of that Jewish oral tradition.
Regarding church conspiracy
The history of the church has many examples of cover up, probably the most famous being to do with Copernicus who discovered that the earth revolved around the sun. Copernicus died in 1543 but two other Italian scientists (Galileo & Bruno) embraced his theory. Bruno was tried before the inquisition and burned at the stake in 1600, while in 1633 Galileo was forced to renounce the Copernicus theory (under threat of torture) and put in jail for the rest of his life. Copernicus's theory wasn't rediscovered until another 300 years.
😉
13 Nov 03
1 edit
Originally posted by jnkmomI disagree
My sister once loaned me a movie entitled "The Signature of God." I don't think she has ever watched it. 😉 In the movie we are given many evidences that Jesus existed. One of them is that the New testiment is writen so closely to Jesus' ...[text shortened]... tire publication would be burned. It was a very insightful movie.
You just have to look at our modern news to see how much confusion is created after some events. Take for instance Sai Baba, to his followers he is something akin to Jesus performing miracles & healing people, to others he is just a old conman who prays on young men. Which is right ? Can you tell from the various second hand accounts that you have read on the internet ? You might be able to make an informed educated guess but the best you can do is to speculate (and remember this guy is still alive today).
We are lucky nowadays because of our widespread education & communication we are a much more skeptical society than of any of the last two thousands years. If I told you that the real reason that Saddam Hussein hasn't been found is because that he "ascended to heaven" you would just laugh in my face. Not so our poor uneducated forefathers.
13 Nov 03
Originally posted by Jay PeateaYou make a good point. The Christian side of me says that yes I would laugh in your face about Saddam because it is not in the scripture. You also made me quite curiouse as to who this Sai Baba was so I looked him up. I can deffinetly see where your argument comes in. I do not know the words to say, nor do I want to debate them to you. I believe what I believe because I have seen things happen, I have felt the touch, I have watched people change from monsters into loving individuals. I have faith that all I have read from the bible and all I have been taught in church is real. I cannot make the same decision for anyone else. We were given the gift of free will and we use it very well. We all get to make our own decisions and will all stand face to face with our decisions.
I disagree
You just have to look at our modern news to see how much confusion is created after some events. Take for instance Sai Baba, to his followers he is something akin to Jesus performing miracles & healing people, to others he is just a old conman who prays on young men. Which is right ? Can you tell from the various second hand accounts that you ...[text shortened]... "ascended to heaven" you would just laugh in my face. Not so our poor uneducated forefathers.
Felicia