Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
quote this--Matthew23:37-39--where the Israelite religion stands= 100% in opposition. To this day. They better hurry and do verse39, its almost done.
That is you reading something that you don't understand....All the church Jewish fathers? What about them?
Why did they continue to sacrifice decade after decades after Jesus died? They didn't leave Judaism, and it is decades after Jesus death that Paul presents himself to his own chosen authority, the priests of Judaism. Paul put his life in their hands, now why would Paul do this decades after Jesus death?
That is you reading something that you don't understand....All the church Jewish fathers? What about them?
Why did they continue to sacrifice decade after decades after Jesus died? They didn't leave Judaism, and it is decades after Jesus death that Paul presents himself to his own chosen authority, the priests of Judaism. Paul put his life in their hands, now why would Paul do this decades after Jesus death?
They continued down the wrong path because they rejected their Messiah. It was the last straw. Yes God still wants Judaism to turn back to him. Instead they divided. God would accept them back if they accept the one whom he sent forth to them. And they LISTEN to him.
Paul became what he had to try to teach about Jesus. He was Jesus #1 opposer until Jesus turned him. He left Judaism because they were cut off. The Pharisees saw the new religion begin while Jesus was here( Acts 24:5
I love you too...I have no grudges or hatred toward anyone...I seek Truth, not my Truth or anyone elses Truth, but, the Truth of HaShem...And if I read Scripture and develop questions with regards to what I was taught, then I am obliged to research it out and not sit in my little box saying, 'This is what I was taught, and this is what I believe'...My wife was raised a JW, this is what she was taught, this is what she believes...So, in your opinion, she should research out what she has been taught in order to ascertain its validity?...But, you are not obliged to do the same?...
Take the Oneness Pentecostals, they do not believe in the Trinity, however, they do believe that Yeshua is HaShem, that HaShem came down and inhabited the human form of Yeshua and walked among His people...And that the Spirit of HaShem is as the spirit of anyone, it is who He is...Are they correct in their assessment?...
Yeshua is called the Messiah, but, so were many in the Tanakh and The Prophets...If Yeshua is HaShem, then He is HaShem, but, if He was a man that grew up and learned to refuse the evil and choose the good, thereby, garnering HaShem's approval, was annointed with the Spirit of HaShem on the day of His baptism, thereby being begotten by HaShem as His Son, being the only One of His generation to walk a spotless walk, and if the evidence from the Scriptures shows thusly, are we not obliged to change our views of Yeshua?...Once one learns the Truth, one must change, one has no excuse to remain ignorant...Look in the Tanakh and the Prophets, did the Jews expect HaShem Himself to come down to them in bodily form or did they expect a Messiah from HaShem, who embodied everything that Adam was supposed to be but failed, For Adam was created in the image of HaShem, as was Yeshua, and Yeshua came to be the image of HaShem, one failed, one succeeded?...There are many ancient religions that depict a god coming in human form and walking among his creation, what makes ours so different?...Is it possible that after the flood that people held the Truth, but, as the seperation of the people and division of the earth occured, down through the generations of the various nations, the Truth became corrupted and varied?...There is the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Egyptian story of, I think, Horus, and many others that mirror almost exactly our own beliefs, could these all be corruptions of the Truths held by Noah and his immeadiate family?...And if corruptions of that magnitude could occur, then who is to say that corruptions of a similar magnitude did not occur within the Faith of the Gospel message that Yeshua brought?...
It's not a matter of "corruptions." Study the bible as literature and you see common pre-historical, mythical threads around the world. If there are differences, it might be inadvertent or might reflect a particular writer's "take" on events or the problem or issue he was addressing. The original ending of Mark at 16:8 includes no resurrection appearance account. The others do. I don't think Mark just forgot!
It's not a matter of "corruptions." Study the bible as literature and you see common pre-historical, mythical threads around the world. If there are differences, it might be inadvertent or might reflect a particular writer's "take" on events or the problem or issue he was addressing. The original ending of Mark at 16:8 includes no resurrection appearance account. The others do. I don't think Mark just forgot!
*Please translate HaShem for me.
This is a revival of an old thread …. Richards post is from 2013
The NWT, KJV, NIV or what ever translations you are reading aren't God's inspired word. I hope you know that.
Actually ... any translation that accurately translates the actual original meaning of the Holy Scriptures IS the Word of God. Just because it isn't the original copy doesn't make it any less.
Notice how the words of the Bible writers have survived to our day. . . .
They were Preserved by Meticulous Copyists . . .
Soon after the originals were written, handwritten copies began to be produced. Copying the Scriptures actually became a profession in ancient Israel. (Ezra 7:6; Psalm 45:1) The copies, though, were also recorded on perishable materials, eventually having to be replaced themselves by other handwritten copies.
When the originals passed off the scene, these copies became the basis for future manuscripts.
Copying the copies was a process of necessity that went on for many centuries.
Did copyists’ mistakes over the centuries drastically change the text of the Bible . . . ?
The evidence says no.
The professional copyists were very devoted.
They had a profound reverence for the words they copied.
They were also meticulous.
The Hebrew word rendered “copyist” is so·pherʹ, which has reference to counting and recording.
To illustrate the accuracy of the copyists, consider the Masoretes. (Masoretes (“the Masters of Tradition”) were copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures who lived between the 6th and 10th centuries C.E. The manuscript copies they produced are referred to as Masoretic texts.)
Regarding them, scholar Thomas Hartwell Horne explains:
“They . . . reckoned which is the middle letter of the Pentateuch [the first five books of the Bible], which is the middle clause of each book, and how many times each letter of the [Hebrew] alphabet occurs in all the Hebrew Scriptures.”
Thus, skilled copyists utilized a number of cross-checking tools. To avoid omitting even a single letter from the Bible text, they went so far as to count not just the words copied but the letters as well.
They reportedly kept track of 815,140 individual letters in the Hebrew Scriptures alone!
Such diligent effort ensured a high degree of accuracy.
Nevertheless, the copyists were not infallible. So ... What is the evidence that, despite centuries of recopying, the Bible's text has survived in reliable form?
However, thereis good reason to believe that the Bible has been accurately transmitted.
Despite centuries of recopying, the Bible's text has survived in reliable form. . . .
The evidence consists of existing handwritten manuscripts—an estimated 6,000 of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and some 5,000 of the Christian Scriptures in Greek. Among these is a Hebrew Scripture manuscript discovered in 1947 that exemplifies just how accurate the copying of the Scriptures was. It has since been termed “the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.”
Discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea, were a number of earthenware jars, most of them empty. However, in one which was sealed tight, was a leather scroll carefully wrapped in linen which contained the complete Bible book of Isaiah. This well-preserved though worn scroll showed signs of having been repaired. This ancient scroll eventually received worldwide attention.
In 1947 the oldest available complete Hebrew manuscripts dated from about the tenth century C.E. However, this scroll was dated to the 2cnd century B.C.E.—over a thousand years earlier. . . .
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,by Emanuel Tov, states: “With the aid of the carbon 14 test, 1QIsaa [the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll] is now dated between 202 and 107 BCE (paleographical date: 125-100 BCE) . . . The paleographical method has been improved in recent years, and allows for absolute dating on the basis of a comparison of the shape and stance of the letters with external sources such as dated coins and inscriptions, has established itself as a relatively reliable method.”
Scholars eagerly compared this much older copy of scripture text with manuscripts produced much later. . . . In one study, scholars compared the 53rd chapter of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scroll with the Masoretic text produced a thousand years later. . . .
The book A General Introduction to the Bible, explains the results of that study:
“Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question.
10 of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense.
4 more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions.
The 3 remaining letters comprise the word ‘light,’ (added in Isa 53 vs 11), and does not affect the meaning greatly. . . . Thus, in 1 chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission—and, this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage.”
Professor Millar Burrows, who analyzed the contents of the scrolls for years, came to a similar conclusion:
“Many of the differences between the . . . Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.”
“Reassuring testimony” can also be given about the copying of the Christian Greek Scriptures. For example, the 19th-century discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, a vellum manuscript dated to the fourth century C.E., helped confirm the accuracy of manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures produced centuries later. A papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, discovered in the district of Faiyūm, Egypt, is dated to the first half of the second century C.E., less than 50 years after the original was written. It had been preserved for centuries in the dry sand. The text agrees with that found in much later manuscripts.
The evidence thus confirms that the copyists were, in fact, very accurate.Nevertheless, they did make mistakes. No individual manuscript is flawless—the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah notwithstanding. Even so, scholars have been able to detect and correct such departures from the original.
Correcting Copyists’ Errors . . .
Suppose 100 persons were asked to make a handwritten copy of a lengthy document. . . .
Undoubtedly at least some copyists would make mistakes. However, they would not all make the same mistakes.
If you were to take all 100 copies and compare them very carefully, you would be able to isolate the errors and determine the exact text of the original document, even if you had never seen it.
Similarly, the Bible copyists did not all make the same mistakes. With literally thousands of Bible manuscripts now available for comparative analysis, textual scholars have been able to isolate mistakes, determine the original reading, and make note of needed corrections.
As a result of such careful study, textual scholars have produced master texts in the original languages. These refined editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts adopt the words most generally agreed upon as being the original, often listing in footnotes variations or alternative readings that may exist in certain manuscripts. The refined editions by the textual scholars are what Bible translators use to translate the Bible into modern languages.
So when we pick up a modern translation of the Bible, there is every reason for confidence that the Hebrew and the Greek texts on which it is based represent with remarkable fidelity the words of the original Bible writers.
The record of how the Bible survived thousands of years of recopying by hand is truly extraordinary.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime curator of the British Museum, could therefore state:
“It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain . . .
This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”
Last edited by 2Q&Lrn&Hlp; 04-30-2023 at 10:54 PM..
Actually ... any translation that accurately translates the actual original meaning of the Holy Scriptures IS the Word of God. Just because it isn't the original copy doesn't make it any less.
Notice how the words of the Bible writers have survived to our day. . . . They were Preserved by Meticulous Copyists . . .
Soon after the originals were written, handwritten copies began to be produced. Copying the Scriptures actually became a profession in ancient Israel. (Ezra 7:6; Psalm 45:1) The copies, though, were also recorded on perishable materials, eventually having to be replaced themselves by other handwritten copies.
When the originals passed off the scene, these copies became the basis for future manuscripts.
Copying the copies was a process of necessity that went on for many centuries.
Did copyists’ mistakes over the centuries drastically change the text of the Bible . . . ?
The evidence says no. The professional copyists were very devoted. They had a profound reverence for the words they copied. They were also meticulous.
The Hebrew word rendered “copyist” is so·pherʹ, which has reference to counting and recording.
To illustrate the accuracy of the copyists, consider the Masoretes. (Masoretes (“the Masters of Tradition”) were copyists of the Hebrew Scriptures who lived between the 6th and 10th centuries C.E. The manuscript copies they produced are referred to as Masoretic texts.)
Regarding them, scholar Thomas Hartwell Horne explains:
“They . . . reckoned which is the middle letter of the Pentateuch [the first five books of the Bible], which is the middle clause of each book, and how many times each letter of the [Hebrew] alphabet occurs in all the Hebrew Scriptures.”
Thus, skilled copyists utilized a number of cross-checking tools. To avoid omitting even a single letter from the Bible text, they went so far as to count not just the words copied but the letters as well.
They reportedly kept track of 815,140 individual letters in the Hebrew Scriptures alone! Such diligent effort ensured a high degree of accuracy.
Nevertheless, the copyists were not infallible. So ... What is the evidence that, despite centuries of recopying, the Bible's text has survived in reliable form?
However, thereis good reason to believe that the Bible has been accurately transmitted.
Despite centuries of recopying, the Bible's text has survived in reliable form. . . . The evidence consists of existing handwritten manuscripts—an estimated 6,000 of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures and some 5,000 of the Christian Scriptures in Greek. Among these is a Hebrew Scripture manuscript discovered in 1947 that exemplifies just how accurate the copying of the Scriptures was. It has since been termed “the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times.”
Discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea, were a number of earthenware jars, most of them empty. However, in one which was sealed tight, was a leather scroll carefully wrapped in linen which contained the complete Bible book of Isaiah. This well-preserved though worn scroll showed signs of having been repaired. This ancient scroll eventually received worldwide attention.
In 1947 the oldest available complete Hebrew manuscripts dated from about the tenth century C.E. However, this scroll was dated to the 2cnd century B.C.E.—over a thousand years earlier. . . . Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible,by Emanuel Tov, states: “With the aid of the carbon 14 test, 1QIsaa [the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll] is now dated between 202 and 107 BCE (paleographical date: 125-100 BCE) . . . The paleographical method has been improved in recent years, and allows for absolute dating on the basis of a comparison of the shape and stance of the letters with external sources such as dated coins and inscriptions, has established itself as a relatively reliable method.”
Scholars eagerly compared this much older copy of scripture text with manuscripts produced much later. . . . In one study, scholars compared the 53rd chapter of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scroll with the Masoretic text produced a thousand years later. . . .
The book A General Introduction to the Bible, explains the results of that study:
“Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question.
10 of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense.
4 more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions.
The 3 remaining letters comprise the word ‘light,’ (added in Isa 53 vs 11), and does not affect the meaning greatly. . . . Thus, in 1 chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission—and, this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage.” Professor Millar Burrows, who analyzed the contents of the scrolls for years, came to a similar conclusion:
“Many of the differences between the . . . Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.” “Reassuring testimony” can also be given about the copying of the Christian Greek Scriptures. For example, the 19th-century discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, a vellum manuscript dated to the fourth century C.E., helped confirm the accuracy of manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures produced centuries later. A papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John, discovered in the district of Faiyūm, Egypt, is dated to the first half of the second century C.E., less than 50 years after the original was written. It had been preserved for centuries in the dry sand. The text agrees with that found in much later manuscripts. The evidence thus confirms that the copyists were, in fact, very accurate.Nevertheless, they did make mistakes. No individual manuscript is flawless—the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah notwithstanding. Even so, scholars have been able to detect and correct such departures from the original. Correcting Copyists’ Errors . . .
Suppose 100 persons were asked to make a handwritten copy of a lengthy document. . . .
Undoubtedly at least some copyists would make mistakes. However, they would not all make the same mistakes.
If you were to take all 100 copies and compare them very carefully, you would be able to isolate the errors and determine the exact text of the original document, even if you had never seen it.
Similarly, the Bible copyists did not all make the same mistakes. With literally thousands of Bible manuscripts now available for comparative analysis, textual scholars have been able to isolate mistakes, determine the original reading, and make note of needed corrections.
As a result of such careful study, textual scholars have produced master texts in the original languages. These refined editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts adopt the words most generally agreed upon as being the original, often listing in footnotes variations or alternative readings that may exist in certain manuscripts. The refined editions by the textual scholars are what Bible translators use to translate the Bible into modern languages. So when we pick up a modern translation of the Bible, there is every reason for confidence that the Hebrew and the Greek texts on which it is based represent with remarkable fidelity the words of the original Bible writers.
The record of how the Bible survived thousands of years of recopying by hand is truly extraordinary.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime curator of the British Museum, could therefore state: “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain . . . This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
