http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-24-1.htm
I will admit there seems to be contradiction in who Christ is from the biblical text. I see the triune-ness of God but some see it differently. I guess just because our comprehension of God is/could be skewed in and of it's self does not mean we are not Christian. Ultimately God is the judge of our hearts. We should strive for truth though right? Not to Lord it over others but to help others right?
Manny
Originally posted by Thomas Laveryagreed. my point is that a broader view must be taken to try and understand the underlying subcontext of the scriptures. It is too easy to get caught up in the minutae of dogma, and miss the real message of love and forgiveness, and of social holiness and personal holiness.
I agree with your statement. They are some serious problems. In John: 8 the story of the "women taken in adultery" is not found in earlier text.
Originally posted by duecerI agree with this. I agree with one thing also that others have said. About love and at times we look at Western Christianity (My experience at least) and what are we doing for the world? We get so caught up in dogma that we can't see past our nose. I struggle with this personally. Love for our fellow man should be foremost in all. To serve. 🙂 Not to sit in a pew and be unchanged. That is why I like the book of James it's putting our money where our mouth is.
agreed. my point is that a broader view must be taken to try and understand the underlying subcontext of the scriptures. It is too easy to get caught up in the minutae of dogma, and miss the real message of love and forgiveness, and of social holiness and personal holiness.
Manny
3 edits
Originally posted by duecer===================================
Mr. Mills, an Oxford scholar, produced a work in the late 17th century identifying 30,000 variations in the known Biblical texts. That number has since ballooned to over 150,000. In light of the numerous variations, how can any one group lay claim to absolute authority of God's word?
Mr. Mills, an Oxford scholar, produced a work in the late 17th century identifying 30,000 variations in the known Biblical texts. That number has since ballooned to over 150,000. In light of the numerous variations, how can any one group lay claim to absolute authority of God's word?
===================================
"Westcott and Hort estimated that only one-eighth of all the variants had any weight, as most of them are merely mechanical matters such as spelling or style. Of the whole, then, only about one sixtieth rise above "trivialities," or an in any sense be called "substantial variations". Mathematically this would compute to a text that is 98.33 percent pure. ...
Ezra Abbot gave similar figures, saying that about 19/10 (95 percent) of the readings are "various" rather than "rival" readings, and 19/20 (95 percent) of the remainder are of so little importance that their adoption or rejection makes no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. ...
Philip Schaff surmised that of the 150,000 variations known in his day, only 400 affected the sense; and of these only 50 were of real significance; and of this total not one affected "an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scriptures teaching...".
A.T. Robertson suggested that the real concern of textual criticism is of a "thousandth part of the entire text." This would make the reconstructed text of the New Testament 99.9 percent free from substantial or consequential error. Hence Warfield observed, "the great mass of the New Testament, in other words, has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no variations." At first, the great multitude of variants would seem to be a liability to the integrity of the Bible text. But, just the contrary is true, for the larger number of variants supplies at the same time the means of checking on those variants. As strange as it may appear, the corruption of the text provides the means for its own correction."
[ From "A General Introduction To the Bible, Giesler and Nix, Moody Press, pg 365,366 ]
Originally posted by jaywillI've read some similar commentaries, and they agree that the "variants" are helpful in deducing the original intent. The fact remains though that so many errors in scribing, etc... leads to bickering over things like trinity doctrines, etc...
[b]===================================
Mr. Mills, an Oxford scholar, produced a work in the late 17th century identifying 30,000 variations in the known Biblical texts. That number has since ballooned to over 150,000. In light of the numerous variations, how can any one group lay claim to absolute authority of God's word?
=========================== ...[text shortened]... al Introduction To the Bible, Giesler and Nix, Moody Press, pg 365,366 ] [/b]
Originally posted by duecerThe Douay-Rheims IS THE correct version of the Bible.
I've read some similar commentaries, and they agree that the "variants" are helpful in deducing the original intent. The fact remains though that so many errors in scribing, etc... leads to bickering over things like trinity doctrines, etc...
