The bible: Is it or is it not the word of god (testimony, doctrine)

[littlewitness]

Originally Posted by Taratova

The word of God is perfect . It is people who read the word that are imperfect and instead of looking at the gospel of the word with the Holy Spirit , they are looking at it to find fault.. any fault is within mankind who try to find a word that would not change the gospel or its meaning and find fault with it. Many fnd fault and yet it is in themselves who has made grave error in looking for the reason to divide it for argument or lack of knowledge.

The word of God is plain when seeking it through the Holy Spirit. If one cannot decipher it , they should seek the Holy Spirit and in time we shall know the truth. There are mysteries too as to all that God has done. With our finite mind we do not know all but God knows all from beginning to end.

God is perfect. We must work out our own salvation with faith in the word.

It is the foundation of our faith and to look at it with errors is to look at God without our faith in him.

Shalom...and AMEN! The Blessings of The Eternal One continue to abide in your heart...

[Clear lens]

1) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE BIBLE IS "PERFECT" AND "ERROR FREE"


[quote]"God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error."
"He is.... everything and has kept His word pure and error free."[/quote]

MIKE555 said : You seem to be trying to give the impression that people are unaware of the fact that there are differences in the manuscripts and in certain Bible translations.

Mike555; I’m not sure how you misunderstood my prior points so badly. My point was the opposite of your interpretation. My point was that individuals ARE increasingly aware of the differences and errors in biblical manuscripts and if Christians make silly claims that the biblical text is “perfect”, this will cause us to lose credibility in the eyes of agnostics who also know there are errors in biblical texts. Such silly claims have significant consequences.

The biblical witness regarding Jesus as the redeemer of all mankind is both true and the implications of THIS specific truth for this world are the most profound truths the world will hear or read. However, well-meaning Christians who make false claims will jeopardize the credibility of the these greater principles.

The point is that agnostics and athiests also know that the creators of the bible we read (the translators and publishers) are themselves both aware and tell us that the bibles they created (and which we read), are not perfect. IF we, as christians bear false witness, that any extant version of the bible is “perfect”, others will realize that this is a false claim and may then not believe Christians when we then bear true witness of Jesus or another salvific principle.

Mike555 observed : The principle of inspiration refers to the original autographs. The original autographs are God-breathed. There is no doubt that the manuscript copies have variations in word spellings, word order, words missing, words (even sentences) added....

1) I very much agree that prophets of all ages, whether they were Jews in the Old Testament or New Testament Christians spake by the Power of the Spirit of God that gave them utterance. I also agree that all original writings (i.e. the autographs) written under the influence of this same spirit, whether written by five thousand years ago or by apostles almost two thousand years ago were also inspired.

However the original texts (i.e. the autographs) which may have been written five thousand years ago no longer exist and what we have are various imperfect versions. We have “copies of copies of copies of copies” of the original autographs. The main task of textual criticism is to try to determine what the original texts might have looked like; what they might have said.

As you remember from a prior example in the plurality of God thread, we discussed the text in New Testament Mark and you could not even tell us with any certainty what the first eight verses of Mark said.


I also agree that there is much that is missing. Not merely words, but missing paragraphs, missing letters and missing books. And I agree that there are corresponding additions and variations and frank errors.



For example, one cannot understand much of the Old Testament without referencing either historical texts or other sacred texts. The discovery of even older texts at Qumran has allowed us to see what earlier Old Testament texts looked like and many modern bibles have changed their texts because of such discoveries. The changes that are taking place in New Testament textual criticism are similar though smaller in scope as the text is smaller, however a few examples might be helpful :




Incomplete and Lost Narratives:

As Justyn Martyr claimed in his Debate with the Jew Trypho, there are Jewish narratives that have changed and some of the lost or corrupted data that would have made the scriptures more clear that Jesus was the very Messiah. (Whether the Jews would have accepted Jesus if such changes had not occurred in their scriptures is another matter)

An example of a lost passage of scripture is from the DSS text of Samuel: The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse.

With the restoration of this passage, the final verse in Chapter 10 transitions smoothly and with a better understanding as we enter the first verse in chapter 11. With such textual restorations of the Jewish text, the entire context of the story can be put into it’s proper perspective: After restoring the missing words, the translated Jewish text reads:
Quote:
"And Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, oppressed harshly the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had fled from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead (1 Sam.11:1)


The restoration of the missing paragraph helps readers to understand the situation; the conditions of the treaty of Nahash, and the underlying motive to rally around King Saul and the prophet Samuel. It elucidates the Israelite motive to Slay many Ammonites and to cause the others to flee.

Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL. This is partly the reason the New International Version Bible prefers the DSS textual readings over the traditional hebrew text. They are not the only bible trying to correct corruptions and deletions from the traditional Jewish text. "Today’s English version"; "Revised Standard Version", the "New Revised Standard Version", "The New English Bible", The "New American Bible", etc. are ALL using DSS corrections over the prior traditional Hebrew Text.

It is not just the "few words" that are missing, nor even just stories, but entire BOOKS that are missing from the current Jewish narratives. For example Joshua 10 relates the "sun stool still, and the moon stopped", but it refers us to a book missing from the Jewish narrative when it says: "Is this not written in the Book of Jasher?" (Josh 10:13) It is not just this narrative that could benefit from restoration of excluded books, but MANY other stories cannot BE understood without referencing materials the Jews either excluded or did not include in their later records that ultimately became the Old Testament.

Another example (of hundreds) of this type of exclusion by Jews is Genesis Chapter 44. Joseph instructs his servants to place a silver cup into Benjamins sack as a ruse to retain Benjamin in Egypt. One point of confusion is "THE CUP" and it’s having been used in "divining" or as a source of "revelation". The Genesis 44 naratives (kjv) says :
Quote:
"And put my cup, the silver cup, in the sack's mouth of the youngest, and his corn money. And he did according to the word that Joseph had spoken. As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away, they and their asses. And when they were gone out of the city, and not yet far off, Joseph said unto his steward, Up, follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good? Is not this it in which my lord drinketh, and whereby indeed he divineth? ye have done evil in so doing.

In the Jewish narrative, the entire story of Joseph, who, when eating with the brothers, pretended to be inspired by the cup and thus being able to set the brothers down according to their birth mother is lost from the Old Testament. The importance of WHY it is the CUP the brothers would have presumably stolen, is lost to the Jewish Old Testament. One must read the stories from Jasher, or other sources. The same is true of Zelikah’s (Potiphar’s wife) feast from Joseph’s history. It is excluded to the Jewish Old testament. One may read references to it in the Quran, or they may read Jasher for a fuller version, but they cannot find it in the Jewish Old Testament.

Such examples of Jewish exclusions of narrative and selective editing of scripture are vast and certainly books HAVE been written on the vast amount of exclusions, additions and other changes the Jews have made to earlier records.


The Jews are NOT the only ones to corrupt sacred histories:
When one looks at horizontal judaism’s motives for manufacturing and adding new text to old narratives; or for excluding older, more complete text in newer narratives, the motives do not seem to me to be so different than for other religious groups who did the same thing.. For example: the variant readings in the Samaritan Pentateuch are different in approximately six thousand places when compared to the traditional Jewish version.. Some variations are not minor variations. Most major variations are intentional changes dealing with temple worship. For example: The tenth commandment in their decalogue relates to "the sanctity of Mount Gerizim".


The Christians have also manipulated these texts to support their own doctrinal biases. One example is Luther’s intentional exclusion of the second commandment in his original translation. It is similar to the motivation for the Jewish tiqqune sopherim (errors of the scribes). They changed what was there because it did not suit their prior biases. It happened with the Jews; with the samaritans; with the christians, and I suspect it happened with the Muslims.

Such textual changes have ALWAYS occurred, and whether the admission is made, the changes OFTEN occurred due to theological bias of the scribes at one point or other in history. The Johannine Comma is one example of a spurious text finding its way into sacred text to support a doctrine of the translator and his (or their) beliefs regarding the nature of God. This has been an issue from ancient times and it has ALWAYS affected textual editing among all parties involved. It has even affected editing among Jews differing in their varying provincial biases.

Consider, for examples, variant readings relating to God’s appearance to men between two major Jewish translations, and, the differing personal bias affects the translation (just as it affected the translation of the samaritan pentateuch and bias affected Luther’s translations and just as it affects almost ALL translations done by men having bias.

"the Lord met him" (Ex 4:24) (MT)
"the angel of the Lord met him" (LXX)

"and Moses went up to God" (Ex 19:3) (MT)
"and Moses went up to the mountain of God" (LXX)

"and they saw the God of Israel" (Ex 24:10) (MT)
"and they saw the place where the God of Israel stood" (LXX)

"and he beholds the likeness of the LORD" (Num 12:8) (MT)
"and he beholds the glory of the LORD" (LXX)

In such instances, the LXX (traditionally a translation made by Jews) avoids directly stating that men are able to behold God while the MT (also a Jewish translation) indicates men can access and even see God. Each Jewish Group translates according to it’s own bias just as the Samaritans did, and just as the Christians did. We all have doctrinal bias; and the bias affects how we read, what we read into a text and how a text is translated. These biases produce errors that do not always remain hidden.

The problem of errors in the Masoretic (MT) Jewish translation is summarized in the first printing of the New English Bible which reads :
Quote:
"The Hebrew text as thus handed down [by the massoretes] is full of errors of every kind due to defective archetypes and successive copyists’ errors, confusion of letters, omissions and insertions, displacements of words and even whole sentences or paragraphs; and copyists’ unhappy attempts to rectify mistakes have only increased the confusion"


I hope the jewish posters do not simply feel that I am "picking on the Jews" as I have already claimed that the Christians (I AM Christian) have done the exact same things as the Jews, and for precisely the same reasons.

Please do not lose sight of the fact that I am simply making the claim that "the Bible is NOT perfect". There ARE mistakes in it. Though I believe the texts are wonderfully correct in their core message, they are simply not “perfect”. I believe the same is true of the Christian New Testament, that it is reliable in the main as a witness of Jesus, but it is not “perfect”. The Quran is not a "history book" per se, and so it’s references to Jewish historical narratives are not meant to be fully understood without reference to history and traditions which are outside of its pages. (And many of its references certainly aren’t understandable without external sources as anyone reading it for the first time can attest).

Some of the variations in the new testament are just as important. For example, Christians generally refer to the lords prayer as it’s given in the textus receptus based bibles as :
Luke 11:2 …When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. (luke 11:2 in t.r. based bibles), However, if other versions are correct, the actual prayer might be instead : ἐφ ἡμᾶς ἐλθέτω σου ἡ βασιλεία (Let thine kingdom come upon us). Such as D versions or perhaps we to pray : ἐλθέτω τὸ πνεῦμα σου τὸἄγιον εφ ημας και καθαρισατω ημας (May your Holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us). The recent debate as to HOW one is sanctified (whether through the spirit, or through Jesus, or by some other manner, etc) in another thread brings to mind how important such changes are to Christian theology.


Such changes do NOT change the core message of Jesus as the Christ, but they DO change the tenor and context of profoundly important supporting doctrines such as the nature of God; the relationship of the three making up the Christian Trinity; and the nature of sanctification as it relates to salvation as well as a host of other doctrines we all discuss and debate on this forum.

For example, some theologies are built upon single words. You yourself Mike555, used Zechariah 12:1 to support your opinion. You opined that :


"At the moment of faith in Christ, God the Holy Spirit creates a human spirit and places it in the one who has believed. The human spirit is a home to which God the Father makes a real imputation of His very own eternal life.

Your useage of Zechariah 12:1 rested upon a single word “formed”. How many debates regarding salvational principles use a single word or singular principle that rest upon a translation. Your example changed completely depending upon the meaning of a single word (whether it meant "formed out of nothing", "formed out of prior existing spirit" or "shaped" - which is the translation from the LXX translation I referred to) This same principle is true of many other scriptural examples.

Actually, I might as well repeat here the example as to why you were unable to tell us how the first 8 verses of Mark actually reads. (Actually, no one can tell us this since we don’t really know).

My quotes come from the 1898 Wurttemberg edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece (also adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society). It doesn’t matter WHICH manuscript underlies this discussion since we are going to criticize all important ones.

For example, the first three verses of mark read (for greek readers, I do not know how to put breathings or accents in through my keyboard, – however, the point I am trying to make does not require it) :

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ
1. Αρχη του ευαγγλιου Ιησου Χριστου *υιου Θεου.
2. ΚαΘως γεγραπται εν τω Ησαια τω προφητη Ιδου αποστελλω τον αγγελον μου προ προσωπου σου, ος κατασκευασει την οδον σου.
3. Φωνη Βοωντος εη τη ερημω, Ετοιμασατε την οδον κυριου, ευθειας ποιετε τας τπιβους αυτου
4. Εγενετο Ιωαννης [ο] Βαπτιζων εν τη ερημω και κηπυσσων Βαπτισμα μετανοιας εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων.
5. Και εξεπορευετο προς αυτον πασα η Ιουδαια Χωρα και οι Ιεροσολυμιται παντες, και εΒαπτιζοντο θπ αυτου εν τω Ιορδανη ποταμω εξομολογουμενοι τας αμαρτιας αυτων.
6. Και ην ο Ιωαννης ενδεδυμενος τριΧας καμηλου και ζωνην δερματινην περι την οσφυν αυτου και εσθιων ακριδας και μελι αγριον.
7. Και εκηρυσσεν λεγων, ερχεται ο ισχυροτεπος μου οπισω μου, ου ουκ ειμι ικανος κυψας λυσαι τον ιμαντα των θποδηματων αυτου.
8. Εγω εβαπτισα υμας υδατι, αυτος δε βαπισει υμας εν πνευματι αγιω.



Skipping the title (which is also different according to different manuscripts) The critical apparatus in the greek bible I have first discusses words 6&7 in verse one. υιου Θεου (son [of] God). This Phrase is omitted by the original writer of codex sinaiticus (one of the five most important early uncials in existence); it is omitted in Codex Koridethi (both of its uncials), by the miniscule MS28 and lectionary 2211. A Sahidic translation leaves it out as does Origen in his quotation of this verse. Are these eminent early texts (sinaiticus is 4th -5th century….) correct in leaving “son [of] god” out? Or were these words IN the autographs? How can one know? Additionally, Irenaeus and Epiphanius (both are eminent church fathers ALSO leave out “Ιησου Χριστου” (Jesus Christ) - words 4&5 in verse one.

Did the original leave these words out? Did Irenaeus and Epiphanius err in their quotes or did someone else add these words to this verse? Manuscript 1241 leaves out all four words (4-7) of verse one and instead reads “υιου του κυριου” (son the Lord). Is this the correct reading instead of the others. Most early manuscripts had “correctors” who looked over the manuscripts and “corrected” them to have the reading which the corrector himself thought was correct. Sinaiticus’ FIRST corrector (there were multiple correctors in many of the important manuscripts…) uses the text I gave “υιου Θεου”, so does the uncial vaticanus and codex bezae (though bezae has 10% more textual material than other early uncials in Acts alone), Codex Regius agrees as does Codex Washingtonianus.

We haven’t stopped considering the first sentence as yet and we haven’t discussed minor sub variants, we haven’t discussed other critical editions. There are THOUSANDS OF IMPORTANT VARIANTS for these texts. Lachmann , for example, tell us us that ALL of Verses two through three is a CONJECTURAL EMENDATION and says There is NO Greek Manuscript support for this variant as I’ve given it and would have us remove them from any authentic version of the ancient bible.

Is Lachmann correct in his claim that verses 2 and 3 is spurious and should be left out of any authentic bibilical text?

Certainly we know of many, many, spurious additions to the bible that SHOULD BE removed from authentic biblical text. I’ve already referred to 1 John 5:7 as a known spurious addition that was NOT in ANY (zero, zip, nada) of the early Greek manuscripts.

Is Mark 1:2&3 authentic early christian text?




Some variations are unimportant such as some omissions of simple articles, in other cases I think it IS important. “God [the] son” may MEAN something different than “god son” to the ancients.


John 1:1-2 the t.r. based bible I grew up read :
1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.

However, since the article is dependent, is the bible correct which reads : “…and the Word was with God, and the word was A God” (which would have made better sense in 1st century Christian Theology).

This variant is consistent with other variants. John 1:18 for example : “Θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης Θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον τοθ πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.” , What did the text mean to the ancient Christian when it says : “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he declared him.

I’ll never get to the later verses in Mark if I do not skip on, but one can see the difficulties. And there are “difficulties” in every verse in my example.

We have not even talked about other variants such as word order yet. There are many, many, many occasions where words are not merely omitted or added, but the order of words change in the various manuscripts. An example is Mark 8:35 : “ος γαρ εαν Θελη τεν ψυχην αυτου σωσαι απολεσει αυτην ος δ αν απολεσει την ψυχην αυτο ενεκεν εμου και του ευαγγελιου σωσει αυτην.” (anyone learning to type greek should appreciate how hard this is to do correctly – please watch for spelling errors since I cannot correct once my editing period is up)

Among the many variants we find at least the following readings : “whoever will lose his life”, “whoever should lose his own life”, “whoever should lose himself” and “whoever should lose”. The first two sentences involve word order whereas the other two involve omission variants.



The point is, in some cases, word order is NOT particularly important. In SOME cases, word ORDER is very important. It is, for example, very important to a polemic statement whether Jesus says 'I never knew YOU. Away from me, you evildoers!' or if he actually said 'YE never knew ME. Away from me, you evildoers!' Even Word order changes theology.


I’m going to stop here and I’ll discuss some of your other comments later (it’s 2 am now).

Clear
eitztwnell

[ahigherway]

I would say that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. However, it is also not "just a book of stories and that's it." I believe it is the declaration of the people who have experienced God's Spirit within them, and what they saw and understood from the Spirit.

(That's why I didn't vote.)

Blessings,
brian

[JordanJP]

Written by men, voted on by men, not the word of God.

However, it is not "just a book of stories". Each major "story" seems to have a moral or concept behind it that it is trying to teach.. so while I don't believe that it's the word of God I do believe that it can serve very well as a sort of moral compass.

[Mikelee81]

I will stand until the end for the message of the King James Bible is not doubt God's message to us. I will not compromise in the upcoming one-world religion which denies the messiah Yahushua as the only way to God. It's all prophesied in his word.


YouTube - ‪The 2012 NWO Agenda 8/14‬‏

">

"For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." 1 Thessalonians 5:3 KJV

"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." King James Version (KJV)

Look up RFID chip and "one-world currency."

[Clear lens]

POST # 76

1) REGARDING WHETHER THE BIBLICAL TEXT IS "PERFECT"

Brian in post #73 said : I believe it is the declaration of the people who have experienced God's Spirit within them, and what they saw and understood from the Spirit.

Mystic in #9 : “... The Bible is God-inspired recordings chronicling our species education and attempts to understand God. They foretold of the arrival of the Word of God Jesus Christ and provided validation for Him. That makes them far more than stories . . . but it does NOT make them the Word of God nor does it make them inerrant."

I believe that these and many other descriptions apply to the scriptures. Many of the posters realize that the definition of what the scriptures are is more complicated than simply “the word of God”. My own faith is that the various Bibles represents distant cousins to an original that was, in it's original state, a completely true and inspired chronicle of ancient events. The bible we read is NOT to be worshiped as a thing of “perfection” itself, but rather it attempts to describe the thing we should worship. The bible was inspired, and it contains inspired words, but is it not “perfect”.

Mike555 said : However, None of those variations affect the message.

I very, very strongly agree with you that the core message regarding Jesus as the redeemer of mankind is not lost to modern bibles in their various versions. Obviously changes in texts affect other important doctrines as I gave examples to.

Mike555 states : "People who attack the reliability of the Bible do not believe God".

This feels like a significant overstatement since some of the people who are pointing out errors in the bible ARE the creators OF the bibles we read and almost all of these translators DO believe in God.

For example, James Sanders, a translator of sacred texts and member of the team that created the
popular NRSV Bible that millions use was NOT engaging in "disbelief" of God by simply wondering what to do with opposing variations in manuscripts when at least two manuscripts have equal authority and multiple textual variations could be correct. He simply wondered if lay people could handle both the concept and the offering of multiple plausible translations. He said : “I have dreamt of a Bible with translations of both versions into english. I wonder if lay folk would accept a Bible where there are doublets of this sort. .... There might be one translation on the top half of the page and the other on the bottom half of the page. I think that it is time for us to stop fooling the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our bible committee got closer to it than their committee did.”

In the case of the NRSV bible, James was forced multiple times, to “take his best guess” at the best text and the best translation OF that text, but he’s admitting the text could be wrong and another translation could be correct. He is admitting that the bible HE (and others on the team) created, is not “perfect”.

Mike555 offered the following : You also made the following false claim...''In fact, all of our scriptures are pseudographical to the extent that we cannot prove the authorship of any of them but instead, we rely on strong tradition as to who wrote them.''

While it is true that the author of Hebrews is unknown, to say that the authorship of none of the books of the Bible can be known is foolish. In Paul's epistles for example, he identifies himself as the author."

Mike555, your claim is a very good example of what I am saying. You are speaking from the viewpoint of your tradition rather from a factual viewpoint. You quote Rom 1:1 as identifying Paul as the author of the epistle, however this is incorrect. Romans 16:22 identifies the author, NOT as Paul, but as Tertius : “I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.” (Rom 16:22 Kjv). Verse one is following a convention of introducing the subject of the biography who is chronicled in the epistle. In the desire to STILL attribute the epistle to Paul, a TRADITION based theory is that Tertius was Paul's secretary. Again, we are speaking of a traditional possibility, and not a theory supported by a FACTUAL BASIS. Was Tertius as inspired when he chronicled the epistle to the romans as Paul was when he said and did the things Tertius writes about in Romans? It could be...

Another example is that we TRADITIONALLY attribute authorship of the first 5 books of the Old testament to Moses, still we know in fact that he did NOT write all that was in the books that carry his namesake. In 5th moses (deuteronomy in english bibles), the writer (whoever he was), describes the death of moses and what happened afterwards. Moses did NOT write about his own death and of events subsequent to his death.


The same issues crop up regarding all sacred texts from 2000 - 5000, years prev. One can rarely know definitively who wrote the text despite the name or claim to authorship. If however, you are able to prove authorship of Romans, the books of Moses, or any other book in any sacred text in existence on a factual basis, rather than on a traditional basis, I would be the first to welcome it and congratulate you if you could somehow do it. It would be a wonderful thing since no one else has been able to do it.

Mike555 says : “The Bible is by its own proclamation the word of God. As for the claim that that is a circular argument, the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible prove its divine authorship."

I very much agree that the bible is a generally and even remarkably reliable historical chronicle of the prophets and the communications from God to such individuals (i.e. the "words of God" to ancient prophets as well as a chronical of sacred history).

Though we differ in particulars Mike555, You and I are on the same side on this issue of general reliability of the Biblical witness.

Like you, I also believe that the original revelations were the word of God, given to prophets of the various ages. Whatever anyone wrote down when they were under the influence of that same spirit was scripture. Modern bibles are a wonderful version of core events and teachings of God chronicled in text given the tendency of imperfect mankind to introduce imperfections into even their finest efforts. Jesus remains the Redeemer of mankind regardless of imperfections in our records and witnesses of him.

However, my point has been that our record is not “perfect” and I do not think we should claim that our record is “perfect” since it will affect the credibility of our witness of Jesus and other salvific doctrines. This "imperfection" in all sacred texts has been my point from the very beginning.


Good luck in your spiritual journey, mike555


Clear

eieieiacvn

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

POST # 76

1) REGARDING WHETHER THE BIBLICAL TEXT IS "PERFECT"

I believe that these and many other descriptions apply to the scriptures. Many of the posters realize that the definition of what the scriptures are is more complicated than simply “the word of God”. My own faith is that the various Bibles represents distant cousins to an original that was, in it's original state, a completely true and inspired chronicle of ancient events. The bible we read is NOT to be worshiped as a thing of “perfection” itself, but rather it attempts to describe the thing we should worship. The bible was inspired, and it contains inspired words, but is it not “perfect”.


I very, very strongly agree with you that the core message regarding Jesus as the redeemer of mankind is not lost to modern bibles in their various versions. Obviously changes in texts affect other important doctrines as I gave examples to.

No. Not just the core message. Nothing has been lost from God's message as set forth in the original autographs. And no doctrines have been changed or affected. I will reply to your earlier post when I get around to it.

This feels like a significant overstatement since some of the people who are pointing out errors in the bible ARE the creators OF the bibles we read and almost all of these translators DO believe in God.


For example, James Sanders, a translator of sacred texts and member of the team that created the
popular NRSV Bible that millions use was NOT engaging in "disbelief" of God by simply wondering what to do with opposing variations in manuscripts when at least two manuscripts have equal authority and multiple textual variations could be correct. He simply wondered if lay people could handle both the concept and the offering of multiple plausible translations. He said : “I have dreamt of a Bible with translations of both versions into english. I wonder if lay folk would accept a Bible where there are doublets of this sort. .... There might be one translation on the top half of the page and the other on the bottom half of the page. I think that it is time for us to stop fooling the people, making them think that there is just one Bible and that our bible committee got closer to it than their committee did.”

I did not say that they don't believe in God. I said that they don't believe God. This was with reference to the fact that God promised to preserve His word.

In the case of the NRSV bible, James was forced multiple times, to “take his best guess” at the best text and the best translation OF that text, but he’s admitting the text could be wrong and another translation could be correct. He is admitting that the bible HE (and others on the team) created, is not “perfect”.

And translators don't CREATE the Bible. They merely translate the Bible.

Mike555, your claim is a very good example of what I am saying. You are speaking from the viewpoint of your tradition rather from a factual viewpoint. You quote Rom 1:1 as identifying Paul as the author of the epistle, however this is incorrect. Romans 16:22 identifies the author, NOT as Paul, but as Tertius : “I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.” (Rom 16:22 Kjv). Verse one is following a convention of introducing the subject of the biography who is chronicled in the epistle. In the desire to STILL attribute the epistle to Paul, a TRADITION based theory is that Tertius was Paul's secretary. Again, we are speaking of a traditional possibility, and not a theory supported by a FACTUAL BASIS. Was Tertius as inspired when he chronicled the epistle to the romans as Paul was when he said and did the things Tertius writes about in Romans? It could be...

Tertius WAS simply Pauls stenographer for the epistle of Romans. Paul wrote Romans as he did the rest of the letters attributed to him. He is the human author of Romans. The fact that he used a secretary changes nothing. Tertius simply gave his personal greeting as did Gaius who was Paul's host in Corinth. And then Erastus and Quartus gave their greetings. The words are Pauls under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I already gave the internal evidence which shows that Paul wrote Romans. And I already gave Peter's attestment to the fact that the letters are Pauls. (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Another example is that we TRADITIONALLY attribute authorship of the first 5 books of the Old testament to Moses, still we know in fact that he did NOT write all that was in the books that carry his namesake. In 5th moses (deuteronomy in english bibles), the writer (whoever he was), describes the death of moses and what happened afterwards. Moses did NOT write about his own death and of events subsequent to his death.

Moses did indeed write the first 5 books of the Old Testament. And he too may have used stenographers to do the actual writing. The fact that possibly Joshua wrote about the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 does not negate the fact that Moses wrote everything which preceded that.

The same issues crop up regarding all sacred texts from 2000 - 5000, years prev. One can rarely know definitively who wrote the text despite the name or claim to authorship. If however, you are able to prove authorship of Romans, the books of Moses, or any other book in any sacred text in existence on a factual basis, rather than on a traditional basis, I would be the first to welcome it and congratulate you if you could somehow do it. It would be a wonderful thing since no one else has been able to do it.

I already did present on a factual basis the fact that Paul wrote not only Romans but the rest of the books attributed to him, and you have NOT welcomed it. You instead welcome the opinions and criticisms of liberal scholarship.

Paul was commissioned by Jesus Christ (Acts 26:14-18) to take the gospel to the Gentiles, as well as the Jews. He did this both in person and in his letters.

I very much agree that the bible is a generally and even remarkably reliable historical chronicle of the prophets and the communications from God to such individuals (i.e. the "words of God" to ancient prophets as well as a chronical of sacred history).

Though we differ in particulars Mike555, You and I are on the same side on this issue of general reliability of the Biblical witness.

No. We are not.

Like you, I also believe that the original revelations were the word of God, given to prophets of the various ages. Whatever anyone wrote down when they were under the influence of that same spirit was scripture. Modern bibles are a wonderful version of core events and teachings of God chronicled in text given the tendency of imperfect mankind to introduce imperfections into even their finest efforts. Jesus remains the Redeemer of mankind regardless of imperfections in our records and witnesses of him.

However, my point has been that our record is not “perfect” and I do not think we should claim that our record is “perfect” since it will affect the credibility of our witness of Jesus and other salvific doctrines. This "imperfection" in all sacred texts has been my point from the very beginning.


Good luck in your spiritual journey, mike555


Clear

eieieiacvn

I did not say that only the original autographs were the word of God. I said that the principle of inspiration applies only to the original autographs. Nevertheless, God has promised to preserve His word, and He has done so.

In spite of the variations in the manuscripts, we have God's original message preserved in writing. Contrary to your attacks on the reliability of the Bible, and they ARE attacks, God's word has been preserved. No doctrines have been changed or lost. Nothing that God intended to communicate to man through the Bible has been lost.

[Clear lens]

POST #78

God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error."
"He is.... everything and has kept His word pure and error free."

REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE BIBLE IS “PERFECT”



REGARDING MIKE555s CLAIM AS TO WHAT WAS SET FORTH “IN THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS”

Mike555 Claimed in post 77 :“Nothing has been lost from God's message as set forth in the original autographs. And no doctrines have been changed or affected.”

Mike555, I know that you mean well, but you are starting to make claims that critics of christianity are going to quote as example s as to why christian claims are not to be trusted. I cannot tell if you are arguing because you actually BELIEVE bibles are perfect, or that you know they are not “perfect” but are arguing out of some other motivation. However, the critics of Christianity are well aware that no "autographs exist" and that you can't possibly know what the "original autographs" said in any exactness.


For you to make such a claim regarding what was “set forth in the original autographs” when No one has ever SEEN the “original autographs” from several thousand years ago is silly at best and at worse, damages Christian credibility. The finest biblical scholars of generations have YEARNED to know what was in the original autographs and to study them or even manuscripts closer to the originals than we now have.

Autographs from three to five thousand years ago no longer exist. NO ONE one knows WHAT autographs looked like (though we believe they were similar in most ways to what we have).


TRANSLATORS AND SCRIBES (AND IN THE AGE OF PRINTING : PRINTERS) OF BIBLES HAVE DELETED; HAVE ADDED TO; AND HAVE ALWAYS CHANGED THE TEXT OF BIBLES. For you to insist that no significant changes occur simply means that you are unaware of changes that have occurred.

I’ve already given examples of how 1 Samuel in the Old Testament Text has changed and enlarged dramatically due to discoveries of earlier larger and better texts than we now have. When such restorations to lost biblical text occur, how then can one take seriously the claim that “nothing has been lost”? The fact that biblical text continually changes should tell us that our text IS NOT “PERFECT”.



REGARDING YOUR CLAIM THAT "NO DOCTRINES HAVE BEEN CHANGED"
Though I've already given examples of how changes in text HAVE altered doctrines and supported oter interpretations, I generally agree on this with you regarding the main doctrines. No bible will intentionally read “Jesus is NOT the Christ”, however some changes DO create doctrine :

Unintentional changes to text :
Consider two versions of king james Bibles, both are authorized King James Bibles, printed within 20 years of each other. They differ only in one word.

One reads : Thou Shalt NOT Commit Adultery (kjv 1611)
The other reads: Thou SHALT Commit Adultery (Kjv 1631)

The second bible is the king james version that suffered from a printer’s omission (Often called "the Wicked bible). The change does create a “doctrine” and it is simply another example of how human error is involved in the creation of bibles. The biblical text is generally, quite reliable, but it is not “perfect”.


Intentional changes to text :
In Luther’s first translation he purposefully left out the second of the 10 commandments (the one prohibiting graven images). He explained that the second commandment was a “judisches sachenspiegel” (a special case law meant for the jews).

The Samaritan’s Pentatuch has worship on mount Gezerim as part of the 10 commandments as a purposeful creation of a doctrine that supported their beliefs.

Both of these intentional changes to the 10 commandments are driven by bias of the translators who create the text. And, all translators have bias of some sort.

Mike555 claimed : “....AND translators don't CREATE the Bible. They merely translate the Bible...”

You are not a translator, otherwise you would not say that. To create a bible is more than translating from one language or medium to another.

If the process was not a creative process, you could not HAVE a bible in another language since translation Is a process involving creativity.. Without creativity, there would have been no progressive changes to our texts such as paragraph divisions; verse and chapter numbers; no standardization; no red letter text. These are NOT bad things, they are generally GOOD, but they involve creativity.

In the process of translation, the translator must creatively interpret a text for meaning and consider multiple possible meanings. Once he formulates a meaning he must then assemble a set of word which have the closest meaning to the original meaning, but in a different symbol set and culture. One may not always BE accurate.

I am reminded that one translator was attempting to translate Isaiah 1;18 for an indian tribe in south america where Isaiah says : “ though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow... Isa 1:18" The difficulty is that the indians had no concept of snow (being near the equator, they had not seen snow and had no word for it. The translator used, instead of “snow”, the name of a very white bird that lived in the Jungle. It is an act of creativity.

I think the translator did the best he could do in creating a text that was meaningful for these indians. Creating a bible is in this way and to a large extent, a human process, but it is a process of creating and variations occur in this process of creation.

To create a good bible, the translator, or team of translators typically compare multiple manuscripts and interpret them for meaning. They must pick between manuscripts and variations of renderings and, sometimes this is a “best guess” scenario as the biblical translator Sanders described. None of this is a straightforward process.




REGARDING your claim that we can factually prove the authorship of ancient biblical texts and specifically that you can prove that it was Paul who wrote the epistle of Romans,

[quote[ “I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord. Romans 16:22 [/quote]

If we are to believe this text in the bible, it is Tertius who wrote Romans, and not Paul. AND, we cannot even prove that Tertius actually wrote it other than the bible claims he did. As I pointed out, you MUST leave the biblical text and resort to tradition in order to claim Paul wrote Romans. Even the assumption that Tertius was a secretary to Paul is an assumption based on TRADITION.

You did NOT give factual evidence that Paul wrote Romans. You quoted Romans 1:1 which describes Paul. It does NOT name Paul as the Writer of the epistle of Romans. Also, You did NOT show where Peter, in his catholic (i.e. general) epistle, referred to Paul as having written romans. Did I miss something?

My claim was that it is TRADITION by which we attribute specific authorship. You simply repeated the tradition that Tertius was Paul’s stenographer. This was my point.

Mike555 said : “Moses did indeed write the first 5 books of the Old Testament.”

I am actually sure that Moses wrote some texts and that some of the Pentatuch are based on Moses’ writings. However, neither you nor I can prove it by referring to any factual information available today, without referring to tradition. It is mainly by tradition and not fact that we attribute specific authorship of ancient texts.

Mike555 claimed in post 77 : "I already did present on a factual basis the fact that Paul wrote not only Romans but the rest of the books attributed to him, and you have NOT welcomed it. You instead welcome the opinions and criticisms of liberal scholarship.

Mike555, again you are misinterpreting and exagerating events.

I WOULD welcome any proof of authorship of Biblical texts. I do believe the Prophets and apostles received the revelations the Bible describes. However, I cannot prove authorship just as you are unable to prove authorship.

If you, or anyone else could prove apostolic authorship, I would rejoice WITH you. If you had a plan to prove it that I thought would work, I would give you financial support to do it.

However, As christians, there are some things that we simply take on FAITH. We are NOT required to PROVE all things, nor do we need to spend energies and time, nor ultimately our lives, arguing about petty things.

You are misrepresenting the players involved as liberal scholars. The observation that some of the biblical texts and translations are not “perfect” has been noted for MILLENNIA. The translator Jerome complained about poor translations, The famous Jew Mamonides noted poor translations. Augustine himself complained against Jeromes work. These are NOT “liberal scholars”.

My point has been that the biblical text is not PERFECT. It’s wonderfully reliable given it’s age and mode of transmission, but it is not PERFECT. Are you claiming it is “PERFECT” and without ANY Flaw, in the face of the evidence I’ve given”? If so, NAME A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT THAT YOU CLAIM IS PERFECT AND WE’LL DISCUSS IT. NAME ONE. ANY ONE FROM AMONG THOUSANDS THAT YOU THINK IS PERFECT.

Mike555 explained : I did not say that only the original autographs were the word of God. I said that the principle of inspiration applies only to the original autographs. Nevertheless, God has promised to preserve His word, and He has done so.

thank you for the correction.

Mike555 Claims : Contrary to your attacks on the reliability of the Bible, and they ARE attacks, God's word has been preserved.

You are again exagerating and inflating the issue. I believe that, as christians, we must be honest. We cannot claim that the bible is PERFECT. I explained that the translators who create the text themselves realize that their work is imperfect.


mike555;

I do wish you the best of luck as you come to terms with the simple but difficult concept of imperfection in ancient sacred texts. I am sorry that this seems to bother you so much and I wish I could make this easier for you.


Clear

[AlabamaStorm]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

TRANSLATORS AND SCRIBES (AND IN THE AGE OF PRINTING : PRINTERS) OF BIBLES HAVE DELETED; HAVE ADDED TO; AND HAVE ALWAYS CHANGED THE TEXT OF BIBLES. For you to insist that no significant changes occur simply means that you are unaware of changes that have occurred.

That's been one of my concerns also. How to weed out the errors in the transcribing of the texts. And not only in that transcribing but also in it's translation from one language to another.

One of the studies I've been currently engaged in is the simple translation of the Greek definite articles. And it appears not to be so simple after all. This is one of the most abused portions of Greek text into English that my own personal studies have found.

It appears that translators take a great deal of liberty by telling their readers what they believe the context of the text is and then defining that context when translating that definite article. Definite articles most often simply point to the context of the text to define or give added emphasis to what is under discussion. Understanding that context and conveying it in translation is another matter however. This inevitably leads to a host of preconceived doctrinal positions that are being inserted into the text and presented to it's readers in English as being truth. It has an immense influence on what the reader is reading.

I believe many bible translators and their translating committees have very deep rooted evils in their hearts..lol...and consequently will often (not intentionally but subconsciously perhaps??) translate the Greek definite articles into evil things and thereby create evil doctrines where no evil exists.

Rightly did Jesus say:

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mat 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

IOW, how can an evil translator translate a good thing? The reality is they cannot! Consequently, we have a lot of evil things to contend with in our English translations of the text! BTW the word "ye" in verse 34 is not being inserted as such by a translators interpretation of the definite article. This time the translators got it right! No translation interpretation of the text needed here...lol

Your thoughts on this Clear would be appreciated..

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Clear lens

POST #78

Quote:
God would not allow His Word to be tainted by human error."
"He is.... everything and has kept His word pure and error free."

When you quote someone, give the name of the person that you are quoting. I did not make that statement.

Nevertheless, despite the variations and differences in the manuscript copies, God's word has been preserved as He promised it would be.

REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE BIBLE IS “PERFECT”



REGARDING MIKE555s CLAIM AS TO WHAT WAS SET FORTH “IN THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS”


Mike555, I know that you mean well, but you are starting to make claims that critics of christianity are going to quote as example s as to why christian claims are not to be trusted. I cannot tell if you are arguing because you actually BELIEVE bibles are perfect, or that you know they are not “perfect” but are arguing out of some other motivation. However, the critics of Christianity are well aware that no "autographs exist" and that you can't possibly know what the "original autographs" said in any exactness.

You continue to misunderstand what I believe I have made quite clear.

As I have said, there is no doubt that there have been copyist errors, insertions, deletions in the manuscript copies. There are differences in spelling of words, differences in word order, things of that nature.

Despite that, God has preserved His word, He has preserved His message to man.

You mention 'Bible' in the plural. ''I cannot tell if you are arguing because you actually BELIEVE bibles are perfect, or that you know they are not “perfect” but are arguing out of some other motivation.''

I am not referring to individual Bible translations, some of which are better than others.

What I am saying is that through a comparison of all available manuscript copies, and there are thousands in various stages of completion, many are just fragments, it can be determined what was likely not in the original autograph. The Johannine Comma is a good example. But even though the Johannine Comma, (1 John 5:7-8) (which is not included in better translations) is not found in most manuscripts, what it says is Scripturally correct and does not contradict the fact that God is triune.

No copyist error, no insertion, no deletion, no change in word order or spelling variation in the manuscript copies has changed any doctrine that God has communicated to man in His written word.

For you to make such a claim regarding what was “set forth in the original autographs” when No one has ever SEEN the “original autographs” from several thousand years ago is silly at best and at worse, damages Christian credibility. The finest biblical scholars of generations have YEARNED to know what was in the original autographs and to study them or even manuscripts closer to the originals than we now have.

Autographs from three to five thousand years ago no longer exist. NO ONE one knows WHAT autographs looked like (though we believe they were similar in most ways to what we have).

Again, God promised to preserve His word. By comparing the many thousand of manuscript copies, it can be determined (I am not talking about whether a word was spelled one way or the other, or whether a particular phrase, such as 'Son of God' in Mark 1:1 was in the original autograph - and again, whether the phrase 'Son of God' was in the original autograph or not, it doesn't change anything doctrinally. The Bible is clear that Jesus is the Son of God. But it can be determined what the original message was. What has come down to us about doctrines such as election, justification, sanctification, eternal security of the believer, eternal condemnation of the one who dies without ever having received Christ as Savior, the trinity, the rapture, etc... are accurate. God has preserved these doctrines despite the variations in the manuscript copies regarding deletions or additions of certain things in certain manuscripts.

And by the way, a good Bible translation, such as the NASB will have a footnote stating that, well here is the actual footnote from my NASB regarding Mark 1:1 - 1 'Many mss. do not contain the Son of God'.

TRANSLATORS AND SCRIBES (AND IN THE AGE OF PRINTING : PRINTERS) OF BIBLES HAVE DELETED; HAVE ADDED TO; AND HAVE ALWAYS CHANGED THE TEXT OF BIBLES. For you to insist that no significant changes occur simply means that you are unaware of changes that have occurred.

I have repeatedly told you that that have been changes in the manuscript copies. That is not the issue. The issue is that despite those deletions, and insertions, God's message has not been changed. God has preserved His word. Now there are some bad translations. There are some which can't even be called translations, but are paraphrases - The Living Bible for example (I haven't personally read it but I am going by what has been said about it).

I’ve already given examples of how 1 Samuel in the Old Testament Text has changed and enlarged dramatically due to discoveries of earlier larger and better texts than we now have. When such restorations to lost biblical text occur, how then can one take seriously the claim that “nothing has been lost”? The fact that biblical text continually changes should tell us that our text IS NOT “PERFECT”.

I said that nothing of doctrinal significance has been lost. No doctrine has been changed. The more complete text regarding 1 Samuel doesn't change anything doctrinally.

REGARDING YOUR CLAIM THAT "NO DOCTRINES HAVE BEEN CHANGED"
Though I've already given examples of how changes in text HAVE altered doctrines and supported oter interpretations, I generally agree on this with you regarding the main doctrines. No bible will intentionally read “Jesus is NOT the Christ”, however some changes DO create doctrine :

Unintentional changes to text :
Consider two versions of king james Bibles, both are authorized King James Bibles, printed within 20 years of each other. They differ only in one word.

One reads : Thou Shalt NOT Commit Adultery (kjv 1611)
The other reads: Thou SHALT Commit Adultery (Kjv 1631)

The second bible is the king james version that suffered from a printer’s omission (Often called "the Wicked bible). The change does create a “doctrine” and it is simply another example of how human error is involved in the creation of bibles. The biblical text is generally, quite reliable, but it is not “perfect”.

You still do not understand the issue. The point is not what any particular manuscript or any particular Bible translation says, or what some paraphrase says. The point, the issue is that through a comparison of all available manuscripts, it can be determined what the original autograph said. And again, because you continue to harp on it, I am speaking of the message, the doctrine, the principle. I am not talking about things such as variations in spelling or whether a phrase such as 'the Son of God' was or wasn't included in Mark 1:1.

Intentional changes to text :
In Luther’s first translation he purposefully left out the second of the 10 commandments (the one prohibiting graven images). He explained that the second commandment was a “judisches sachenspiegel” (a special case law meant for the jews).

The Samaritan’s Pentatuch has worship on mount Gezerim as part of the 10 commandments as a purposeful creation of a doctrine that supported their beliefs.

Both of these intentional changes to the 10 commandments are driven by bias of the translators who create the text. And, all translators have bias of some sort.

Once again. It is not a matter of some particular translation. The issue is that because of the many thousands of manuscripts which are available to us today, we can know what obviously are spurious changes such as your example of Luther's first translation.

You are not a translator, otherwise you would not say that. To create a bible is more than translating from one language or medium to another.

If the process was not a creative process, you could not HAVE a bible in another language since translation Is a process involving creativity.. Without creativity, there would have been no progressive changes to our texts such as paragraph divisions; verse and chapter numbers; no standardization; no red letter text. These are NOT bad things, they are generally GOOD, but they involve creativity.

In the process of translation, the translator must creatively interpret a text for meaning and consider multiple possible meanings. Once he formulates a meaning he must then assemble a set of word which have the closest meaning to the original meaning, but in a different symbol set and culture. One may not always BE accurate.

I am reminded that one translator was attempting to translate Isaiah 1;18 for an indian tribe in south america where Isaiah says : “ though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow... Isa 1:18" The difficulty is that the indians had no concept of snow (being near the equator, they had not seen snow and had no word for it. The translator used, instead of “snow”, the name of a very white bird that lived in the Jungle. It is an act of creativity.

I think the translator did the best he could do in creating a text that was meaningful for these indians. Creating a bible is in this way and to a large extent, a human process, but it is a process of creating and variations occur in this process of creation.

To create a good bible, the translator, or team of translators typically compare multiple manuscripts and interpret them for meaning. They must pick between manuscripts and variations of renderings and, sometimes this is a “best guess” scenario as the biblical translator Sanders described. None of this is a straightforward process.

The Bible existed in the mind of Christ in eternity past. The divine author of the Bible is God. The human authors of the original autographs are many. They were all under the inspiration ot the Holy Spirit.

Translators do not 'create' new Bibles. They make new translations. They translate to the best of their ability into a given lanquage from the Hebrew and Greek. Some translations are better than others. It is a matter of translation. Not creation.

REGARDING your claim that we can factually prove the authorship of ancient biblical texts and specifically that you can prove that it was Paul who wrote the epistle of Romans,

“I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord. Romans 16:22

If we are to believe this text in the bible, it is Tertius who wrote Romans, and not Paul. AND, we cannot even prove that Tertius actually wrote it other than the bible claims he did. As I pointed out, you MUST leave the biblical text and resort to tradition in order to claim Paul wrote Romans. Even the assumption that Tertius was a secretary to Paul is an assumption based on TRADITION.

I've already gone over this. I will simply repeat what I said in post #77.

'Tertius WAS simply Pauls stenographer for the epistle of Romans. Paul wrote Romans as he did the rest of the letters attributed to him. He is the human author of Romans. The fact that he used a secretary changes nothing. Tertius simply gave his personal greeting as did Gaius who was Paul's host in Corinth. And then Erastus and Quartus gave their greetings. The words are Pauls under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I already gave the internal evidence which shows that Paul wrote Romans. And I already gave Peter's attestment to the fact that the letters are Pauls. (2 Peter 3:15-16).'

The author of a book or letter is not the stenographer or secretary who writes down what was given him to write. The author is the one who gave to the secretary what to write.

You did NOT give factual evidence that Paul wrote Romans. You quoted Romans 1:1 which describes Paul. It does NOT name Paul as the Writer of the epistle of Romans. Also, You did NOT show where Peter, in his catholic (i.e. general) epistle, referred to Paul as having written romans. Did I miss something?

My claim was that it is TRADITION by which we attribute specific authorship. You simply repeated the tradition that Tertius was Paul’s stenographer. This was my point.

Your point, as well as your understanding is wrong.

In post #68 I already gave internal evidence that Paul is the author of Romans. Here it is again.

'Internal details attest to Paul's authorship of Romans. He claimed to be of the tribe of Benjamin in Rom 11:1 as he also does in Phil 3:5. He sent greetings to Priscilla and Aquila (Rom 16:3) whom he had met in Corinth (Acts 18:2-3) and left in Ephesus (Acts 18:18-19) on his second missionary journey. Paul mentioned his journey to Jerusalem with the contribution from the churches in Macedonia and Achaia for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem (Rom 15:25-27), which is confirmed in Acts 19:21; 20:1-5; 21:15, 17-19 and in the epistles to the Corinthians (1 Cor 16:1-5; 2 Cor 8:1-12; 9:1-5). Additionally, Paul mentioned a number of times that he intended to visit Rome (Rom 1:10-13, 15; 15:22-32, which is also confirmed in Acts 19:21. These events spoken of in both Romans and Acts support Paul as the author of Romans.

Furthermore, Peter in 2 Peter 3:15-16 speaks of Paul's letters and gives them the same weight as the Old Testament Scriptures.'

The things which are stated in Romans, were given to Paul who dictated to Tertius who then wrote the letter. Paul was the author, not Tertius.

An Old Testament example of how this works is given in Isaiah 36:1

Jeremiah 36:1 'And it came about in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2] ''Take a scroll and write on it all the words which I have spoken to you concerning Israel, and concerning Judah, and concerning all the nations, from the day I first spoke to you, from the days of Josiah, even to this day...17] And they asked Baruch, saying, ''Tell us please, how did you write all these words? Was it at his dictation?'' 18] Then Baruch said to them, ''He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink on the book.''

God gave His message to Jeremiah ---> Jeremiah dictated the message to Baruch ---> Baruch wrote the message ---> Baruch read the message in the temple.

Throughout this process, the message from God to Jeremiah, from Jeremiah to Baruch, to its being written on a scroll, it is the Word of God that is said to be both the original message as well as the end of the process.

I am actually sure that Moses wrote some texts and that some of the Pentatuch are based on Moses’ writings. However, neither you nor I can prove it by referring to any factual information available today, without referring to tradition. It is mainly by tradition and not fact that we attribute specific authorship of ancient texts.

Both Scripture and tradition attribute the Pentateuch to Moses. But I am running short on time right now and will perhaps do a thread on this at a later time.

Mike555, again you are misinterpreting and exagerating events.

To the contrary. Critical scholars have long denied the Mosiac authorship of the Pentateuch.

I WOULD welcome any proof of authorship of Biblical texts. I do believe the Prophets and apostles received the revelations the Bible describes. However, I cannot prove authorship just as you are unable to prove authorship.

If you, or anyone else could prove apostolic authorship, I would rejoice WITH you. If you had a plan to prove it that I thought would work, I would give you financial support to do it.

Since you do not believe the internal evidence of the Bible itself; here is a quote from you, 'AND, we cannot even prove that Tertius actually wrote it other than the bible claims he did.' Now it has already been shown that Tertius was only the stenographer for Paul who is the author of Romans.

But your statement 'other than that the Bible claims' says it all regarding what you think about the Bible. You have made it clear that you don't think that the Bible is the word of God. You are neck deep in the thinking of liberal and critical scholarship.

However, As christians, there are some things that we simply take on FAITH. We are NOT required to PROVE all things, nor do we need to spend energies and time, nor ultimately our lives, arguing about petty things.

You are misrepresenting the players involved as liberal scholars. The observation that some of the biblical texts and translations are not “perfect” has been noted for MILLENNIA. The translator Jerome complained about poor translations, The famous Jew Mamonides noted poor translations. Augustine himself complained against Jeromes work. These are NOT “liberal scholars”.

My point has been that the biblical text is not PERFECT. It’s wonderfully reliable given it’s age and mode of transmission, but it is not PERFECT. Are you claiming it is “PERFECT” and without ANY Flaw, in the face of the evidence I’ve given”? If so, NAME A SINGLE MANUSCRIPT THAT YOU CLAIM IS PERFECT AND WE’LL DISCUSS IT. NAME ONE. ANY ONE FROM AMONG THOUSANDS THAT YOU THINK IS PERFECT.



thank you for the correction.


You are again exagerating and inflating the issue. I believe that, as christians, we must be honest. We cannot claim that the bible is PERFECT. I explained that the translators who create the text themselves realize that their work is imperfect.


mike555;

I do wish you the best of luck as you come to terms with the simple but difficult concept of imperfection in ancient sacred texts. I am sorry that this seems to bother you so much and I wish I could make this easier for you.


Clear

Regarding your last few comments, I don't have any more time now to get into it. You are simply restating things which have already been covered.

Readers can refer to my posts #68, 77.