- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]After thinking on this, I disagree in part. The King James may not be completely reliable but I would not say "woefully unreliable".
Here is the first problem:
[i]This identifies the root of the problem: a lack of real faith in the integrity of the Word of God. Such faith leads to the indispensable conviction that the Word cannot contradict itself. When one is rooted and grounded in that premise, he has a basis from which to work out what seem to be apparent contradictions, of which th ...[text shortened]... greater theological
presentation, then you have reached a greater maturity of faith.
Nemesio
I believe that the writings or scrolls, and letters that comprise what we have today were perfect in the original. With what we have today it is possible to recover much of the original writings by comparing copies with copies.
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=183&mode=&order=0&thold=0
Originally posted by checkbaiterI have two comments about this:
After thinking on this, I disagree in part. The King James may not be completely reliable but I would not say "woefully unreliable".
I believe that the writings or scrolls, and letters that comprise what we have today were perfect in the original. With what we have today it is possible to recover much of the original writings by comparing copies ...[text shortened]... http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=183&mode=&order=0&thold=0[/b]
1) We have discovered many fragments of NT literature since the inception of the
KJV. These fragments have variants which elucidate the translation flaws which were
inherent to the KJV. I'm not saying that the KJV won't give you a decent overview of
Biblical events -- any Bible will. But, to rely on the KJV translations for any serious
theological topic has a good chance of resulting in inaccuracy because a) they didn't
have the resources for translation we have today; b) KJV English is far removed from
the language we speak, which adds a further degree of confusion.
2) Let's say that the originals were perfect. So what? If we believe that the originals
were penned somewhere between 70-95 CE (consensus of opinion), our first fragments
derive from over 100 years later, and most significant fragments are 200 years older
than the originals. We know for a certainty that the texts were edited -- words
changed, passages added -- because we have older fragments missing or including
words and sentences which newer fragments have. Thus, it would be impossible to
conclude that what we have today is even a largely reliable recounting of the events.
That having been said: the concept that 4 were crucified along with Jesus is the product
of fantasy -- there is NO evidence to support this, historical or textual critical. The only
thing that demands a reevaluation of this topic is the absurd notion of inerrency in the Bible
which can be demonstrated as false with ease. The second you dismiss inerrency, then
the notion that there were 4 other crucifants disappears as an aburdity.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by NemesioHasn’t the text been copied so many times it is unreliable?
I have two comments about this:
1) We have discovered many fragments of NT literature since the inception of the
KJV. These fragments have variants which elucidate the translation flaws which were
inherent to the KJV. I'm not saying that the KJV won't give you a decent overview of
Biblical events -- any Bible will. But, to rely on the KJV transla ...[text shortened]... ency, then
the notion that there were 4 other crucifants disappears as an aburdity.
Nemesio
From..http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=183
It is occasionally stated that the Bible has been copied and/or translated so many times that it has become unreliable. The actual evidence refutes this idea. The text of Scripture was copied, yes, but not to the end that it cannot be trusted. In actuality, the fact that the Bible has been copied over and over enables us to be sure we have a biblical text that is very close to the original. This is easy to understand. We will examine two scenarios to show that making multiple copies actually helps to establish what the original said.
In scenario number one, you are living in the “BC” era (before computers)—no photocopy machines, not even carbon paper. You write a letter to a friend and make a handwritten copy for your files. Later, you are told that your letter never arrived at your friend’s house, so you go to your files to make a copy from your copy. However, as you are making the new copy, you do not see something you are sure was in your original letter. It occurs to you that when you made the copy you might have left a line or two out. Unfortunately, you have no way to check. The original is lost and you are holding the one and only copy. There is simply no way to determine whether your memory, or the copy you are holding, is faulty.
In scenario number two, you write a letter and then copy it ten times and send it to ten friends. In this situation, if you lose your original you can still recover what it said with a high degree of accuracy. The way to reconstruct the original is to get the ten copies together and compare them. Then you can usually tell very quickly if mistakes were made. The multiple copies allow you to determine the content of the original. People endeavoring to make an exact copy may make a mistake, but rarely do they make the same mistake on several different copies. They may leave out a word on one, misspell a word on another, and even skip a line or double a line on a third, but the same mistakes would not be made on all the copies. Comparing the copies would reveal the mistakes, and the original could be reconstructed. When several people are making the copies, it is even easier to reconstruct an original because it would be rare indeed for different people to make the same mistake. Thus, it is almost always the case that the more copies of a document that exist, the greater the likelihood is that an accurate original can be reconstructed. This principle is recognized by scholars and is sometimes referred to as “the tenacity of the text.”
There are more manuscripts of the Bible in existence today than of any other document from the ancient world. There are more than 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and more than 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament was translated into other languages as well, including Aramaic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavic, Bohairic, and Anglo-Saxon. There are, in fact, more than 24,000 ancient handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament that can be read and compared and used to rebuild the original text. [1] That is not all. Have you ever written a letter to a friend and quoted someone in it? Many of the early Christians and Church Fathers wrote letters and essays in which they quoted the Bible. There are more than 36,000 patristic citations of the Bible (i.e., quotations of the Church Fathers or “Patriarchs&rdquo😉 that scholars use to help determine the original text. [2]
Generations of biblical scholars have carefully read, reread, and compared these texts to get back to the original New Testament. Furthermore, the use of computers to compare and contrast manuscripts has greatly increased scholarly confidence that we are very close to the original documents penned by Matthew, Paul, Peter, and others. Does that mean the New Testament text we have today is perfect? No, but it is very close. Ezra Abbot places the purity of the New Testament text at 99.75% pure, and A. T. Robertson’s estimate is 99.9%. [3] Scholars testify there is not one essential doctrine of the Church that is in question because of an inaccuracy in the text. [4] Not one! This means if you are reading an accurate translation of the Bible, you can believe what you read.
In contrast to the more than 24,000 New Testament manuscripts on hand today, in a distant second place for the most ancient manuscripts from which to build and check an original text is the Iliad by the Greek poet Homer. There are only 643 manuscripts of the Iliad that have been preserved and are available for us to study today. Yet the same critics who say the Bible cannot be trusted would never say you should not bother to read the works of Homer because they have been copied over and over and there are so few manuscripts existing that we just cannot trust that we are reading what Homer wrote. Interestingly, those same critics support the teaching of ancient history using the works of Homer, Caesar, Pliny, Herodotus, Livy, Tacitius, Plato, and others.
I received my degree in philosophy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and I do not remember one professor saying that the works of the ancient philosophers were in doubt because we could not trust they had come down to us intact. Yet I heard over and over that the Bible was untrustworthy. The evidence, however, is that the text of the Bible is much more surely established than is the work of any other ancient writer. Why was I not taught this in school? Because there is a bias against the Bible—a bias not based on the facts of the case. The facts of the case prove that the text of the Bible is the most reliably established of all the ancient writings.
Not only is the New Testament text we have today very close to the original, the evidence shows that the Old Testament text is too. First of all, there are tens of thousands of manuscripts of the Old Testament available to check and compare. [5] However, unlike the Greek scribes, the Hebrew scribes handled the text with an almost superstitious reverence. There were specific regulations about the types of materials onto which the biblical text could be copied, the kind of ink that could be used, the size of the printed columns, and the spacing of the words. There was even a specific ritual that was to be performed before writing down the name of God. It was also forbidden to write anything from memory. After a scribe wrote, each line was counted to assure none were doubled or skipped, and each letter was counted so that if one were omitted, the error was immediately discovered. If, at the end of copying, even one error was found on the manuscript, it was destroyed. [6] Modern textual scholars agree with Sir Fredrick Kenyon who stated, “The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries.” [7]
To summarize the main points we have covered so far: (a) God is the Author of Scripture, (b) He communicated what He wanted written to men who wrote it down accurately, and (c) the content of the Bible has been copied many times over, which has preserved the accuracy of the text and allowed researchers to verify it. These are significant truths, and they give us confidence in the integrity of the Bible.
Originally posted by checkbaiter
There are more manuscripts of the Bible in existence today than of any other document from the ancient world. There are more than 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and more than 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament was translated into other languages as well, including Aramaic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Slavic, Bohairic, and Anglo-Saxon. There are, in fact, more than 24,000 ancient handwritten manuscripts of the New Testament that can be read and compared and used to rebuild the original text.
Unsurprisingly, your citation includes disingenuous information. There are fewer than a few
hundred sources -- some no bigger than a postage stamp -- dating before 300 CE. It is true
that there are thousands manuscripts, but the vast majority occur after the canon was
formed and standardized (late 4th century). The farther the date from the original, the less
reliable they are likely to be.
There are more than 36,000 patristic citations of the Bible (i.e., quotations of the Church Fathers or “Patriarchs&rdquo😉 that scholars use to help determine the original text.
I don't know about this citation. I'd like to know who quoted the material, when the text
was penned by the Church Father in question, and which texts were used. Many of those
citations, I will bet, are of the Hebrew Scripture which is not under debate here. Also, many
of those same Church Fathers used texts which we consider to be not Scripture, though
they cite them as such (in fact, St Jude's letter cites the Book of Enoch which is not regarded
as Scripture to any Christian sect to my knowledge [maybe the East?]).
Given that the first claim was demonstrably misleading, I have no doubt that the second claim
is similarly so. Consider the following example:
St Mark 10:18 - ...No one is good but God alone.
St Matthew 19:17 - ...There is only One who is good.
St Luke 18:19 - No one is good but God alone.
One very early Church Father is Justin. In his Dialogue 101.2 (probably from the 140s or 150s) , we read "One is good, my Father in the heavens." This very early quotation is not what we read in the Bible today.
Perhaps he was just working from memory, or did he have a manuscript which differed from today's Bibles?
EPHREM: Commentary on the Diatessaron, XV.9, in both the original Syriac and the Armenian (2 manuscripts) reads: "One is good, the/my Father who [is] in the heaven."
Ephrem died in 373, and the Syriac manuscript of the Commentary is fifth century. And Tatian, of course, composed the Diatessaron (the gospel harmony upon which Ephrem was commenting) about 172, on the basis of the gospel texts current then. And this citation agrees precisely with Justin's, allowing for the differences in Syriac and Greek. We now have two independent sources which show that the 2nd-century manuscripts of this Gospel verse differ from what is read today.
IRENAEUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-185): "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens."
Another second-century source confirming the 'wrong' version of Matthew 19:17.
HIPPOLYTUS: Haer. V.7.25 (pre-222): "One is good, the/my Father in the heavens."
Another early Christian Father has the 'wrong' version.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Strom. V.10.63 (composed c. 207):"One is good, the/my Father."
At least Clement drops the 'in the heaven' phrase.
PSEUDO-CLEMENTINE HOMILIES: XVI.3.4 about 260 AD. "For one is good, the/my Father in the heavens."
Another early Church Father disagrees with the 'correct' version of the Bible.
VETUS LATINA MS e (apud Matthew, 5th cent.): "Unus est bonus, pater."
This is the second most ancient manuscript and it also has 'Father'
VETUS LATINA MS d (apud Luke, 5th century.): "Nemo bonus nisi unus Deus pater."
'Father' again.
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm
Is the difference enormous? No. Is it significant? Somewhat. Does the translation
reflect what early Church Fathers cite? No.
So, what we should want to know is how many Church Father's agree on
modern translations, not a raw figure which doesn't include errors such as these.
Ezra Abbot places the purity of the New Testament text at 99.75% pure, and A. T. Robertson’s estimate is 99.9%.
Consider this fact:
We have two early papyri [P66 and P75] which overlap across seventy verses of John's Gospel, and even if the plain errors of their copyists are excluded, they differ at no less than seventy small places.". 70 differences in 70 verses!
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli1.htm
My Bible includes all manner of footnotes for significant variants, usually a dozen or more on a
each page. And I have found variants which they fail to note.
To summarize the main points we have covered so far: (a) God is the Author of Scripture, (b) He communicated what He wanted written to men who wrote it down accurately, and (c) the content of the Bible has been copied many times over, which has preserved the accuracy of the text and allowed researchers to verify it. These are significant truths, and they give us confidence in the integrity of the Bible.
Obviously b and c are not true (as even my 10 minutes of research shows) which should lead
us to question a.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]Let me ask you...Do you believe God exists? And if so, what is your foundation for your belief?
Originally posted by checkbaiter
[b]There are more manuscripts of the Bible in existence today than of any other document from the ancient world. There are more than 5,500 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and more than 10,000 manuscripts of the Latin New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament was translated into other languages as well, incl ...[text shortened]... t true (as even my 10 minutes of research shows) which should lead
us to question a.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by NemesioMy belief in God is based on His word, the bible, along with the evidence in nature. With your views on the bible as being unreliable, I was just curious why you would believe in God. I am certain you do, just curious as to why and what makes you think He even exists.
I don't understand how this question has any relevance to the topic at hand.
Nemesio
Originally posted by checkbaiterLet me ask you this, then:
My belief in God is based on His word, the bible, along with the evidence in nature. With your views on the bible as being unreliable, I was just curious why you would believe in God. I am certain you do, just curious as to why and what makes you think He even exists.
Why would you believe something is infallible even to the point of suspending
reason? If two authors report mutually exclusive things (like with these thieves),
why would you go through such rigors in an effort reconcile them when you know
perfectly well that they aren't?
I don't know why you would think I would take so much careful study of the Bible
if I didn't think that it was 'unreliable.' I don't look at that text as a history document,
however, because it is demonstrably flawed as such.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by NemesioI didn't say the bible is infallible, just not to the extent you propose. You are looking at the authors without looking at the "inspiration by holy spirit" aspect. I still contend that where the bible contradicts itself is only in our understanding of what is written, not understanding the culture when written nor King James english. Or in the translation itself by a biased scribe where then we would have to look at other copies in the Greek. You say that it is a weak faith if one "panics", I think that's the word you used, when there is a contradiction. I disagree. Faith is only as good as it's object, so then we have to look for reasons for a contradiction because as I said, the original "God breathed" word cannot have flaws. My point in the thieves/robbers is to show an example of how this is done.
Let me ask you this, then:
Why would you believe something is infallible even to the point of suspending
reason? If two authors report mutually exclusive things (like with these thieves),
why would you go through such rigors in an effort reconcile them when you know
perfectly well that they aren't?
I don't know why you would think I would take so ...[text shortened]... that text as a history document,
however, because it is demonstrably flawed as such.
Nemesio
I do look at it as a history document as recorded by God. Otherwise this verse is in vain....
Ps 138:2
2 I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your name for Your lovingkindness and Your truth; for You have magnified Your word above all Your name.
(NKJ)
Then my faith would be shiowrecked and no one can be redeemed by the blood of Christ's sacrifice. The whole bible becomes meaningless and just a bunch of stories and lies. Then I might as well eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die without hope and without God.
Originally posted by checkbaiterI believe whenever a person is willing to suspend reason in order to pretend the
I didn't say the bible is infallible, just not to the extent you propose. You are looking at the authors without looking at the "inspiration by holy spirit" aspect. I still contend that where the bible contradicts itself is only in our understanding of what is written, not understanding the culture when written nor King James english. Or in the transl ...[text shortened]... . Then I might as well eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die without hope and without God.
Bible is without contradictions of historical fact a person demonstrates a need
for the Biblical security blanket rather than embracing the revealing aspects of
its text.
In fact, I think it is possible to be an atheist and find the Bible to be a profound
read (in spots).
For example, I don't believe Jonah existed, much less that he was swallowed by
a fish and lived in its belly for three days (an absurdity to be sure). However, it
is by far my favorite book of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Why?
Because it speaks of human weakness, anger at God, jealousy, and many other
things which people need instruction and insight on. The story doesn't require
that Jonah exist in order to be deeply meaningful.
If your faith in the story of Jonah requires that Jonah existed and that he experienced
the very things 'claimed' in the Bible, it is a weak faith indeed, for it means you cannot
find Truth in a myth.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioDo you believe that Jesus performed the miracles described in the Bible?
I believe whenever a person is willing to suspend reason in order to pretend the
Bible is without contradictions of historical fact a person demonstrates a need
for the Biblical security blanket rather than embracing the revealing aspects of
its text.
In fact, I think it is possible to be an atheist and find the Bible to be a profound
read (in spots ...[text shortened]... the Bible, it is a weak faith indeed, for it means you cannot
find Truth in a myth.
Nemesio
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI believe it is irrelevant whether He did or He did not. Let's take both sides
Do you believe that Jesus performed the miracles described in the Bible?
of the issue.
Let's say He did. So what? A million other people in Jesus's time were miracle-
workers. If we are going to treat the stories in the Gospels as true reflections of
events, then why discard Josephus who speaks of many other people working
miracles? Or the various miracles done in the names of other gods or on behalf
of God through other traditions (e.g., Church of Latter-Day Saints)?
The miracles were the least of the concerns for Roman government, because
healings weren't acts of subversion. It was the teachings of Jesus that got Him in
trouble, especially those which indicated that people should live pure lives.
The miracles should be the least interesting aspects of Jesus's ministry because we
can point to a host of would-be saviors performing miracles without any great teachings,
without any trace of being God-sent, say.
Now, let's say He didn't do them. There are two ways to interpret this. 1) Either
He effected 'healings' and people thought they were healed (as happens on
TV all the time); or 2) The healing stories are just things made up about Jesus.
If 1), then I don't see a big difference from what I said above -- that is, a lot of
people tried to do healings and had followers who thought they were healed.
BUT, if 2): We have to examine why stories would be made up. Would they be
made up to confuse and hurt people? To compel them to trust in a fraud? Not in
the Jewish tradition. Stories were extrapolated from events in order to
indicate reverence. For example, St Luke appears to have really really really
liked Elijah, to have revered him as a great prophet. So, we find that Jesus raises
a widow's child and ascends into heaven, just like Elijah (only found in St Luke).
Actually, they aren't just like Elijah: they are better! Whereas Elijah had to
call out to God three times to raise the widow's son, Jesus only had to say 'Get up!'
And whereas Elijah was pulled up into heaven by a firey chariot, Jesus ascended there
of His own volition.
So, why would St Luke do this? To indicate to his followers that Jesus was even bigger
and better than Elijah! It was an act of Jewish extrapolation to indicate awe, respect,
and reverence. Would Jewish authors do this just for laughs? Never! They did this as
part of their religious tradition. Elijah, after Moses, was probably the most important
prophet in the eyes of Jews (yes, yes, Jeremiah and Isaiah were big guns, too). So, for
a Jewish author to indicate that some modern person was greater than Elijah through
these stories is a demonstration of mind-boggling devotion.
So, I will answer your question again: It makes no difference to me. If they are true,
then they are incredible feats, but not unique. If they are not true, their stories are
indications of great respect, which is also not unique.
However, there are other traits of the Gospels which are unique, particularly the
aphorisms and parables which serve to inspire the opened minded, irrespective of
their belief in a Supreme Being.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by NemesioI believe whenever a person is willing to suspend reason in order to pretend the
I believe whenever a person is willing to suspend reason in order to pretend the
Bible is without contradictions of historical fact a person demonstrates a need
for the Biblical security blanket rather than embracing the revealing aspects of
its text.
In fact, I think it is possible to be an atheist and find the Bible to be a profound
read (in spots ...[text shortened]... the Bible, it is a weak faith indeed, for it means you cannot
find Truth in a myth.
Nemesio
Bible is without contradictions of historical fact a person demonstrates a need
for the Biblical security blanket rather than embracing the revealing aspects of
its text.
I think I already gave my view here.
For example, I don't believe Jonah existed, much less that he was swallowed by
a fish and lived in its belly for three days (an absurdity to be sure). However, it
is by far my favorite book of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Here we are at an impasse. I believe in a literal interpretation here too. I believe Jonah did exist and was swallowed by a large fish.
The text does not say he was alive in the fish's belly! I believe he was dead, the fish spit him up on shore and God raised him from the dead. This is another forshadowing of Christ.
And further more he was not angry at God. He knew from reading the scolls that Ninevah would one day attack Isreal. He wanted God to destroy Ninevah in order to save Isreal. He was trying to play God. He failed. Ninevah was the capitol of Assyria which later besieged the disobedient Isrealites.
Originally posted by checkbaiter
I think I already gave my view here.
Yes, and your view entails that, if a single literal aspect of the
Bible is false, then your faith is shattered. That's really sad,
because there are many irrefutable contradictions within the
Bible. So your faith is predicated on something that is demonstrably
false.
My faith, however, suffers from no such problem. The Bible
could be entirely false -- Jesus, Moses, Elijah, everyone -- could
be a figment and my respect for the Bible remains unchanged.
My faith is unwavering in the face of new historical information,
while yours is shaken at all times -- innovations and discoveries
in biology, astronomy, archeology, anthropology, and history
damage your faith-life on a daily basis. It requires that website
after website make up utterly ridiculous situations (like 4 people
crucified with Jesus) in a desparate effort to cling to something
which is repeatedly demonstrated as false.
Here we are at an impasse. I believe in a literal interpretation here too. I believe Jonah did exist and was swallowed by a large fish.
The text does not say he was alive in the fish's belly! I believe he was dead, the fish spit him up on shore and God raised him from the dead. This is another forshadowing of Christ.
Here is the difference: if we had a time machine and could go back
and find out that Jonah didn't exist, you would be devestated and
I would be unaffected. You would forsake your faith and I would be
indifferent. If we find out he did exist, you feel vindicated and I
remain unaffected.
Your faith hinges on truths of this world. The Bible has become an
idol for you. If it is (historically) false, your faith disappears. For
me, my faith focuses on the truths not of this world and so, if the
Bible is wholly false, my faith remains unchanged.
And further more he was not angry at God. He knew from reading the scolls that Ninevah would one day attack Isreal. He wanted God to destroy Ninevah in order to save Isreal. He was trying to play God. He failed. Ninevah was the capitol of Assyria which later besieged the disobedient Isrealites.
He was angry with God. You need to read the final chapter
with the story with the gourd. There can be no debating this. He was
angry because he didn't get his way, because God showed clemency
when Jonah would have shown the heavy hand of justice.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by NemesioMy faith is unwavering in the face of new historical information..
Originally posted by checkbaiter
[b]I think I already gave my view here.
Yes, and your view entails that, if a single literal aspect of the
Bible is false, then your faith is shattered. That's really sad,
because there are many irrefutable contradictions within the
Bible. So your faith is predicated on something that is demonstrably
fal ...[text shortened]... because God showed clemency
when Jonah would have shown the heavy hand of justice.
Nemesio[/b]
Faith in what?...What I find to be sad is that you seem to have a wealth of knowledge in scripture and church history. The sad part is you don't seem to believe any of it....so you have faith in what? Man's wisdom? History? Astronomy? So you gain knowledge, but what good is it? The bible is not full of myths. I have proven that to myself. I have given my life to Jesus Christ and He has answered me again and again. I don't know who you have listened to, what you have read, but I can assure you the bible is not myth. As I said once before, I was blind and now I see. Therefore I have already proven it to myself. You may think I am delusional, but I can claim to know Jesus Christ "experientially". That is the problem with those who read and know scripture but never believe it and trust. Even so, I'll keep you in my prayers.....🙂