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.
The "yes" to your statement is that of those 400,000 "errors" or "differences" in the texts, the vast, vast majority are relatively minor.
The "no" to your statement is that we have absolutely nothing but FAITH on which to rely regarding the original manuscripts, since none exist.
And if there are 12 verses from the book of Mark missing from some texts but present in others, that appears to me to be fairly significant. So for anyone to claim verses 9-20 of Mark 16 are "breathed" by God would appear to be fairly arrogant, or at least lacking in the knowledge that most changes to literature result from "added" material that was not extant in the original.
So I could not criticize anyone who said 9-20 are not a part of Mark's gospel. Because the fact is, we do not know for certain. I can take it on faith that it is, but that is a far different proposition from declaring "all scripture is given from God" when we have no certainty that we don't have biblical scripture with "additions" placed by early Christians to insure their own views were passed on to others.
And that's why I must approach the scripture as a practice of faith as opposed to a knowledgeable certainty that draws hard lines in the theological sand. Further one must see how every verse, chapter, and book, fits in with all the others in order to draw a spiritual connection through them. Of the NT literature, the book of Hebrews stands out as newer than all other manuscripts and thus may have a great deal of insertion of later theological beliefs than earlier manuscripts of the other epistles and the gospels.
For some such a thought is disturbing, for me it is simply interesting as I try to discover how to more closely walk with God.
Modern translations are based off of the texts we actually have, none of which are originals.
I realize that. But by comparing the texts that we do have, and analyzing the lines of manuscripts, we can deduce what the original texts were.
Quote:
Not sure where you got the 99.9% bit, but you are absolute right about one thing -- we're just "guestimating." And "purity" aside, we cannot even begin to guestimate how "complete" a record today's Bibles are.
Of course we can. You really need to do some research into it. This is a good source to start with....it explains the concepts of manuscript trees.
John even pointed out that if all of Jesus words had been recorded, they'd more than fill all of the books in the world. So we have a 99.9% pure (hopefully) record of how much truth in total?
The stuff that was in the Bible.
Quote:
And do you have any idea whatsoever how much the Christian canon has changed over the years?
It was finalized about 1800 years ago. It hasn't changed since.
Quote:
Books now considered authoritative and inspired were once excluded, and visa versa. If that doesn't get you started thinking about the subject of biblical inerrancy, I suspect nothing will.
No...not really. At least not in the past 1800 years or so.
I realize that. But by comparing the texts that we do have, and analyzing the lines of manuscripts, we can deduce what the original texts were.
I'm not arguing that. I'm sure that the vast majority of the Bible is an accurate representation of what the original documents said. I'm just arguing that any time you have human beings involved in a translation, you're looking at the possibility of error. And when you stop to consider the different choice of words in the various Bibles we have today, you've got to admit that some translations are considerable more accurate than others. Of course, different people are going to disagree as to which one is best.
Quote:
Of course we can. You really need to do some research into it. This is a good source to start with....it explains the concepts of manuscript trees.
Sorry, Vizio, but CARM is so far down my list of reputable sources it's not even funny. That particular article may be useful, but CARM has proven to be unreliable on so many issues that I hesitate to pay much attention to it at all.
Quote:
The stuff that was in the Bible.
Yeah. And according to John, that's a fraction of "the stuff" as a whole.
Quote:
It was finalized about 1800 years ago. It hasn't changed since.
No...not really. At least not in the past 1800 years or so.
Good golly! So for 1800 years, things went back and forth between being the word of God and not being the word of God, and you don't see any problem with that? Suppose you had been born back when the canon did not include Hebrews, James, 1 Peter or 2 Peter? Based on what you're saying now, the Bible of that day would have been inerrant! It would have contained all that God wanted us to know.
It was finalized about 1800 years ago. It hasn't changed since.
No...not really. At least not in the past 1800 years or so.
I think the Bible text manuscript tree and variant reading is an excellent, but not sole source of understanding how texts came to be.
However, many of the texts that have been discovered were not available to the Nicene Council. They may have made a difference since there are differences between Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. How much difference? Who knows. So what the Council finalized was not a complete revelation of the texts, some of which remained undiscovered until the twentieth century.
The assumption that all was as holy as it was ever had been, is therefore somewhat flawed. How could it be completely holy if it was incomplete? You have to be honest and take a further leap, that not only the council was "infallible" in their choices, but that somehow the missing material was simply unimportant. That's a pretty big leap---and may go beyond a leap of faith into a leap of folly. I'm not saying that it does, I'm just saying that a Christian who attempting to "work out their own salvation" is constantly searching and does not discount past or present findings regarding scripture.
As a preacher you are daily faced with people who want "certainty" in their lives. There is a horrible temptation to deliver it, rather than encourage them to discover their faith through research and prayer. The difference is astounding!!! When a person has their faith "handed" to them with a certainty that is non-existent, they tend to halt their spiritual progress. Look over at the Eternal Security thread. There are many on it who have been handed a certainty and look no further, test the scriptures no further, make no attempt to reconcile individual verses with the message of the Book as a whole.
What I discovered, was that once I abandoned the certainties that came out of most of the pulpits I listened to, I was able to discover my own faith. What I can hang onto because of my own prayerful research, my own life experiences. It becomes true ownership rather than rote worship.
But I think you have a good heart and are trying to teach your people more than, "I love you Jesus."
It's about getting them to say, "I follow you Jesus."
Good golly! So for 1800 years, things went back and forth between being the word of God and not being the word of God, and you don't see any problem with that? Suppose you had been born back when the canon did not include Hebrews, James, 1 Peter or 2 Peter? Based on what you're saying now, the Bible of that day would have been inerrant! It would have contained all that God wanted us to know.
I'm not sure what you mean. I just said that about 1800 years ago it was finalized. It didn't waver back and forth. Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter have been consider scripture for many many centuries.
I think the Bible text manuscript tree and variant reading is an excellent, but not sole source of understanding how texts came to be.
However, many of the texts that have been discovered were not available to the Nicene Council. They may have made a difference since there are differences between Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. How much difference? Who knows. So what the Council finalized was not a complete revelation of the texts, some of which remained undiscovered until the twentieth century.
The assumption that all was as holy as it was ever had been, is therefore somewhat flawed. How could it be completely holy if it was incomplete? You have to be honest and take a further leap, that not only the council was "infallible" in their choices, but that somehow the missing material was simply unimportant. That's a pretty big leap---and may go beyond a leap of faith into a leap of folly. I'm not saying that it does, I'm just saying that a Christian who attempting to "work out their own salvation" is constantly searching and does not discount past or present findings regarding scripture.
As a preacher you are daily faced with people who want "certainty" in their lives. There is a horrible temptation to deliver it, rather than encourage them to discover their faith through research and prayer. The difference is astounding!!! When a person has their faith "handed" to them with a certainty that is non-existent, they tend to halt their spiritual progress. Look over at the Eternal Security thread. There are many on it who have been handed a certainty and look no further, test the scriptures no further, make no attempt to reconcile individual verses with the message of the Book as a whole.
What I discovered, was that once I abandoned the certainties that came out of most of the pulpits I listened to, I was able to discover my own faith. What I can hang onto because of my own prayerful research, my own life experiences. It becomes true ownership rather than rote worship.
But I think you have a good heart and are trying to teach your people more than, "I love you Jesus."
It's about getting them to say, "I follow you Jesus."
God bless
You have a generous spirit that I trust has, and will continue to, serve you well.
I'm not sure what you mean. I just said that about 1800 years ago it was finalized. It didn't waver back and forth. Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter have been consider scripture for many many centuries.
The "back and forth" only occurred because of false prophets with their claims that God visited them with some message that he forgot to get to earlier when the Holy Spirit (the third person of the Trinity) inspired the writers. So they had to look at these to determine if they were from God by comparing them to what the Apostles wrote.
Despite the false teachers and those who follow them, the OT Biblical canon was firmly set before the time of Christ. Jesus confirms that they got it right.
Also the books God intended for the New Testament canon were all written before the death of the last
surviving apostle, John. This “disciple whom Jesus loved” was of great value to the early church in sorting out authentic inspired writings from counterfeits.
All the books of the New Testament existed before the end of the first century. .... included include Hebrews, James, 1 Peter or 2 Peter.
I think the Bible text manuscript tree and variant reading is an excellent, but not sole source of understanding how texts came to be.
However, many of the texts that have been discovered were not available to the Nicene Council. They may have made a difference since there are differences between Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. How much difference? Who knows. So what the Council finalized was not a complete revelation of the texts, some of which remained undiscovered until the twentieth century.
The assumption that all was as holy as it was ever had been, is therefore somewhat flawed. How could it be completely holy if it was incomplete? You have to be honest and take a further leap, that not only the council was "infallible" in their choices, but that somehow the missing material was simply unimportant. That's a pretty big leap---and may go beyond a leap of faith into a leap of folly. I'm not saying that it does, I'm just saying that a Christian who attempting to "work out their own salvation" is constantly searching and does not discount past or present findings regarding scripture.
As a preacher you are daily faced with people who want "certainty" in their lives. There is a horrible temptation to deliver it, rather than encourage them to discover their faith through research and prayer. The difference is astounding!!! When a person has their faith "handed" to them with a certainty that is non-existent, they tend to halt their spiritual progress. Look over at the Eternal Security thread. There are many on it who have been handed a certainty and look no further, test the scriptures no further, make no attempt to reconcile individual verses with the message of the Book as a whole.
What I discovered, was that once I abandoned the certainties that came out of most of the pulpits I listened to, I was able to discover my own faith. What I can hang onto because of my own prayerful research, my own life experiences. It becomes true ownership rather than rote worship.
But I think you have a good heart and are trying to teach your people more than, "I love you Jesus."
It's about getting them to say, "I follow you Jesus."
God bless
What comes out of most pulpits are from self-taught \ poorly taught preachers or those with no theological training at all. However that doesn't mean that by the simple process of elimination, one discovers the truth which faith is based on... let alone " I was able to discover my own faith."
If one can begin with the Bible to be anything less than inspired and a closed canon, then they can be the "god of me" Moderator cut: deleted
Last edited by june 7th; 08-14-2013 at 06:27 PM..
Reason: Reference to another denomination in a demeaning manner.
I'm not sure what you mean. I just said that about 1800 years ago it was finalized. It didn't waver back and forth. Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter have been consider scripture for many many centuries.
My apologies. I misread your post. Had I read it correctly the first time, I would have said what I'm going to say now...
The fact of the matter is that the biblical canon has changed considerably over the years and was absolutely NOT finalized 1800 years ago or anything close to that.
In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
My apologies. I misread your post. Had I read it correctly the first time, I would have said what I'm going to say now...
The fact of the matter is that the biblical canon has changed considerably over the years and was absolutely NOT finalized 1800 years ago or anything close to that.
In 1740, a list of the canonical books compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. was discovered in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.
Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter where described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.
The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.
And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?
Well done, Katz. Your scholarship is impressive. I have had more than enough opportunity to evaluate the scholarship of the regular posters here . . . and there are some fine ones . . . even among the heathens . But the undeniable reality of the Bible composition and content is that it has had a "very storied past" . . . to say the least. Anyone who is actually familiar with its provenance cannot possibly believe it is the pristine, inerrant, infallible "word of God" . . . the way God intends it to be and completely unsullied and untampered with. It is a ludicrous belief that is no more credible than believing in Magicadoola Midgicaboola Bibbity Bobbity Boo!
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.
I almost agree, Vizio
. But the undeniable reality of the Bible composition and content is that it has had a "very storied past" . . . to say the least. Anyone who is actually familiar with its provenance cannot possibly believe it is the pristine, inerrant, infallible "word of God" . . . the way God intends it to be and completely unsullied and untampered with. It is a ludicrous belief that is no more credible than believing in Magicadoola Midgicaboola Bibbity Bobbity Boo!
