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.
Kat, your study into the Bible's history is admirable, so may I ask your opinion of the Alexandrian Texts upon which the new textual criticism is based, and the Textus Receptus upon which prior translations are based? May I also ask your thoughts on Friar Froy and Erasmus concerning his translation?
I'm not a Bible scholar, Seeker, and I'm not trying to come across as one. I do know that the Bible (i.e. the books that have been considered authoritative and doctrinally binding) has changed considerably over the years. I figured if I were to make a statement like that, I ought to be able to back it up. So if you really want to discuss the Alexandrian Tests, the Textus Receptus, Friar Froy and Erasmus, you'll have to find someone else to chat with.
Kat, your study into the Bible's history is admirable, so may I ask your opinion of the Alexandrian Texts upon which the new textual criticism is based, and the Textus Receptus upon which prior translations are based? May I also ask your thoughts on Friar Froy and Erasmus concerning his translation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I'm not a Bible scholar, Seeker, and I'm not trying to come across as one. I do know that the Bible (i.e. the books that have been considered authoritative and doctrinally binding) has changed considerably over the years. I figured if I were to make a statement like that, I ought to be able to back it up. So if you really want to discuss the Alexandrian Tests, the Textus Receptus, Friar Froy and Erasmus, you'll have to find someone else to chat with.
I believe he is trying to get your view on the Johannine Comma (1 John 5: 7-8) regarding the supposed reference to the Trinity. The original reference in verse 8 to the three witnesses in the earth "spirit, water, and the blood" was co-opted to add three witnesses in heaven to verse 7: " in heaven the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost"
and the added phrase "these three are one." In short, an obvious attempt to provide support for the Trinity doctrine. A similar thing was done with Matthew 28:19 by Eusebius. I am fairly sure you are aware of the deception, Katz.
I was not referring to one specific translation in that sentence. But any translation that accurately translates the known original text as confirmed by the thousands of extant scripts available today. Its a wonderful topic to research and is so easy to do today. You will be amazed at how God has kept His word intact for so many thousands of years. I would suggest taking the time to learn about as opportunity presents itself to you. As a Christian I found it very rewarding and a true blessing to see God's handiwork.
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.
The fact that those verses exist no older manuscripts and the time of their addition can be spotted pretty closely this presents no problem. With the vast number of sources you can weed out any man made error with little effort.
I was not referring to one specific translation in that sentence. But any translation that accurately translates the known original text as confirmed by the thousands of extant scripts available today. Its a wonderful topic to research and is so easy to do today. You will be amazed at how God has kept His word intact for so many thousands of years. I would suggest taking the time to learn about as opportunity presents itself to you. As a Christian I found it very rewarding and a true blessing to see God's handiwork.
I think you may have missed my point. I agree that this is an interesting topic to research, however.
The wonderful thing about the Bible is that now we have so many manuscripts and translations from thousands of years ago that we know we have it the same today. Since the books of the bible were copied so much and so often had an error crept in it would have stood out like a sore thumb. God is amazing and He has amazingly kept His word intact. No other book on earth can be so proven correct as the Bible can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
And which translation are you referring to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faith_Plus_Nothing
I was not referring to one specific translation in that sentence. But any translation that accurately translates the known original text as confirmed by the thousands of extant scripts available today. Its a wonderful topic to research and is so easy to do today. You will be amazed at how God has kept His word intact for so many thousands of years. I would suggest taking the time to learn about as opportunity presents itself to you. As a Christian I found it very rewarding and a true blessing to see God's handiwork.
::Sigh::
As long as this strengthens your Faith in Christ and you follow His commands to "love God and each other" daily and repent when you don't . . . none of this matters.
::Sigh::
As long as this strengthens your Faith in Christ and you follow His commands to "love God and each other" daily and repent when you don't . . . none of this matters.
LOL. Okay, Mystic, but for the purpose of this particular thread, it does. Neither you nor I are Bible inerrantists, so don't at me.
Maybe. I thought it was both to me and to Faith_Plus_Nothing. At any rate, I would agree with Mystic that there are a whole lot more important things to God than whether you believe the Bible to be inerrant or not. And while one translation may be better than another, I don't think He's going to condemn someone just for using the wrong one. On the other hand, I think it's simply ridiculous for anyone to assume that any of today's translations is a 100% accurate representation of the mind of God.
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.
You know that how?
Quote:
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
I feel sorry for you if you've abandoned the certainties of scripture (not the pulpits). I will preach what the Bible says, and I'm confident that it is the Word of God. Unfortunately, there are some preachers that won't do that.
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.
Neither you nor I are Bible inerrantists, so don't 
