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.
As I've apparently failed to get across--when you look at the textual analysis, you'll find that the Bible we have today is the same one that existed 2000 years ago.
It has not been re-written. We've got the manuscripts from thousands of years ago.
Regarding the crazy situations...you seem to have the notion that the Bible is a quaint fairy tale that we can live our lives by. I couldn't disagree with you more--it's much more than that.
I know what you are saying about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
But, it has been pointed out that there are many things from those scrolls that aren't incorporated in the modern bible.
It's as if the writers, as I've said before, picked and chose certain elements to move forward and others to not incorporate in the bible over time.
Also, you probably know, that the texts were controlled by biblical scholars for the first 50 years after their discovery.
Either way, you believe they were not altered, I don't. And there are arguments on both sides.
We also seem to interpret it from your moral and my historic approach. So be it.
It is a fascinating subject though, that is for sure.
Interesting. I would say that the opinion of the author who wrote that prior to the 1,800 years of rewritting it, was talking about it in a population and not moral stance.
The writings of that time period were focused on societal law. And something definitely needed for that law was an expanding Jewish population.
This type of law would discourage male/male relations so to encourage reproductive relationships between men/women.
I look at the biblical writings not as holy, but as a set of laws to protect and expand the Jewish population.
I don't buy it was written about "holy morals", I buy that it was about order and survival of a small group of people.
With all due respect, what you're doing is trying to explain away something you don't like.
Those verses say what they say, and their meaning is clear. In addition, nothing in the Bible has been written and re-written over the past 1800 years. That's not what translation is all about. You are aware, aren't you, that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually verified that the modern translations of the Bible are not at all different than the thousands of years old writings?
Now... what you've admitted, in your last sentence, is the real crux of the issue for you. You don't look at the Bible as holy. That is where you're at.
With all due respect, what you're doing is trying to explain away something you don't like.
Those verses say what they say, and their meaning is clear. In addition, nothing in the Bible has been written and re-written over the past 1800 years. That's not what translation is all about. You are aware, aren't you, that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually verified that the modern translations of the Bible are not at all different than the thousands of years old writings?
Now... what you've admitted, in your last sentence, is the real crux of the issue for you. You don't look at the Bible as holy. That is where you're at.
I think that you are completely wrong actually...I too have studied this for years and the Bible is a composite document through and through. Of course its been re-written, for thousands of years there was no other way to transmit texts than by copying, but scribal error is only a part of the changes that have occurred in the bible.
The early church was very careful to remove any writings that they did not agree with politically ...therefore the Bible you hold in your hands today is missing some original books. This is one reason why the Catholic bible is different from the King James which is different from a standard Greek Orthodox Bible. That is why we have the Gnostic Gospels and works like the Book of Mary and the Book of Thomas...those do not appear in your Bible either.
Plus if you are looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest known version of some of the books it contains) you certainly realize that it only has books from the Old Testament. Yes many modern Bible publishers have used the text from these books to "fix" their Old Testament pages, but this certainly does not mean that the Bible did not change over time...it only means that someone has chosen to favor this version of the text over others because its older. And yes, many of the Old Testament works remained more consistent over the years than the New...mostly because the Middle Ages did not have much use for the Old Testament and so (I would argue) did not copy it as much.
Basically saying that the Bible did not change over time is ludicrous. Medievalists write about textual transmission all the time.
Finally translation IS a serious issue. There are Hebrew words contained in the Bible where nobody can agree exactly how they are supposed to be translated into modern languages, so they do the best they can. The New Testament was mostly originally written in Greek, and translated into Latin, and then into whatever followed (I assume you are reading in English) . Translation like this can substantially change the way the text is interpreted. If you pick up five different Bibles they probably have five different wordings for important passages...I tend to follow the Douay-Rheims version since it is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, but many protestants scorn the LV because they see it as a corrupt Catholic text. So there is politics involved in these decisisons to this day.
Actually, it's possible to verify through many different branches of the documents what is scribal error and what the text should and shouldn't be. Yes, there are errors...but the vast majority of what we have is highly probable that it is what was originally written.
I think you're way off on your belief that the early church removed stuff. The gnostic texts like Thomas were not written until the 3rd century or so, while most, if not all, of the NT texts were written prior to the year 100 AD.
If you were to really dive into it, you'd realize that it has not been written and re-written over time--but if you want to tell yourself that and not actually look at the facts, you'll believe what you want.
As for translation? We have original texts in Greek. We're not talking about translating to latin, then to english.
I think that you are completely wrong actually...I too have studied this for years and the Bible is a composite document through and through. Of course its been re-written, for thousands of years there was no other way to transmit texts than by copying, but scribal error is only a part of the changes that have occurred in the bible.
The early church was very careful to remove any writings that they did not agree with politically ...therefore the Bible you hold in your hands today is missing some original books. This is one reason why the Catholic bible is different from the King James which is different from a standard Greek Orthodox Bible. That is why we have the Gnostic Gospels and works like the Book of Mary and the Book of Thomas...those do not appear in your Bible either.
Plus if you are looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest known version of some of the books it contains) you certainly realize that it only has books from the Old Testament. Yes many modern Bible publishers have used the text from these books to "fix" their Old Testament pages, but this certainly does not mean that the Bible did not change over time...it only means that someone has chosen to favor this version of the text over others because its older. And yes, many of the Old Testament works remained more consistent over the years than the New...mostly because the Middle Ages did not have much use for the Old Testament and so (I would argue) did not copy it as much.
Basically saying that the Bible did not change over time is ludicrous. Medievalists write about textual transmission all the time.
Finally translation IS a serious issue. There are Hebrew words contained in the Bible where nobody can agree exactly how they are supposed to be translated into modern languages, so they do the best they can. The New Testament was mostly originally written in Greek, and translated into Latin, and then into whatever followed (I assume you are reading in English) . Translation like this can substantially change the way the text is interpreted. If you pick up five different Bibles they probably have five different wordings for important passages...I tend to follow the Douay-Rheims version since it is a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate, but many protestants scorn the LV because they see it as a corrupt Catholic text. So there is politics involved in these decisisons to this day.
Stacy, I think you've been reading The daVinci Code, and taking that as scholarly study. I'll also let you know that this "area" is within my professional vocation.
Many of the now-discovered ancient Greek manuscripts are from BEFORE the Roman Catholic Church. Are you going to tell me that Church corrupted those?
In addition, what you did was admitted that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls proves your assertion wrong, then went on to say that it doesn't matter. But it does.
The bottom line (regarding the Bible's use in this particularl discussion) is that what the Bible says about homosexuality is not in question. You'll might notice that I intentionally omitted any reference to 1st Corinthians 6, because it's possible (though this is a topic of lively debate) that what the apostle Paul was writing about was the common Greek practice of pederasty, not the coming together of two consenting adults. That notwithstanding, there is no debate regarding what the Bible says regarding homosexuality.
The debate is whether you choose to believe the Bible is sacred writing or, as is the case with Todd4, a bunch of old stories.
Actually, it's possible to verify through many different branches of the documents what is scribal error and what the text should and shouldn't be. Yes, there are errors...but the vast majority of what we have is highly probable that it is what was originally written.
I think you're way off on your belief that the early church removed stuff. The gnostic texts like Thomas were not written until the 3rd century or so, while most, if not all, of the NT texts were written prior to the year 100 AD.
If you were to really dive into it, you'd realize that it has not been written and re-written over time--but if you want to tell yourself that and not actually look at the facts, you'll believe what you want.
As for translation? We have original texts in Greek. We're not talking about translating to latin, then to english.
Those are good points.
I think most people are unaware of the fact that there are literally THOUSANDS of ancient manuscript fragments, against which modern translators are checking for any errors.
The Bible hasn't been re-written.
I think that what people need to do is be honest enough to say that they either believe the Bible is sacred, or don't. That's the crux of the issue.
Actually, it's possible to verify through many different branches of the documents what is scribal error and what the text should and shouldn't be. Yes, there are errors...but the vast majority of what we have is highly probable that it is what was originally written.
I think you're way off on your belief that the early church removed stuff. The gnostic texts like Thomas were not written until the 3rd century or so, while most, if not all, of the NT texts were written prior to the year 100 AD.
If you were to really dive into it, you'd realize that it has not been written and re-written over time--but if you want to tell yourself that and not actually look at the facts, you'll believe what you want.
As for translation? We have original texts in Greek. We're not talking about translating to latin, then to english.
*Sigh*
I have looked at the facts...believe me I possess a graduate degree in this subject.
First of all there was no such thing as a "Bible" before the church became mainstream. This happened in the fourth century (Constantine, Council of Nicea, and all that). Before that what we today call the New Testament was just a bunch of writings floating around. It was the Church as a political entity that decided what would go into the official sanctioned lituragy. This included putting together an official "Bible".
The book I have dates Thomas to sometime in the latter half of the first century...ie. 70-100 AD (The Complete Gospels, Robert Miller ed, 1994). This is the same time frame as the so-called canonical gospels.
We do not possess an "original" of any of the biblical books, but are relying on the oldest copies we can find. I think that for most of the gospels this is around the fourth century.
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.
