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.
Deut 32:8–9 originally referred explicitly and directly to other gods ruling over the nations of the earth, with Yhwh receiving only Israel as his purview. We know this because the original readings are preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will never advocate for restoring the original reading, though. You will demand that the corrupt reading stand. Why? Because it aligns better with your dogmatism. #208 by Daniel O. McClellan
Hi Daniel;
I’ve been too busy to get back to the forum for the past few days but am very pleasantly surprised that you realized the early Judeo-Christian context of Deut 32:8-9. Outside of a religious history forum, most christians lack this historical background.
The most popular modern paradigm among theologians familiar with the early texts that deal with early Judaism is the emerging picture of Henotheism in pre-exilic Judaism. I think Michael Heiser (the PhD in languages who is the editor of Logos Bible Software) has done a lot to create the linguistic support for this New Understanding. Also since the Creation council of deities who serve under the Lord God has become the predominant theory, this is changing (and clarifying) so many of the early biblical and other sacred references to these themes. Kudos and reps to you for having this historical background and some knowledge of it.
I also think your points that the Dead Sea Scrolls have allowed us to correct many of the errors in the later versions of the biblical texts (OT) in many books (e.g. samuel, etc). It's nice to see more historically minded posters. Thanks
And you are wrong. The original autographs were written by the human authors without error. <snip>
Okay, let's accept that you are absolutely correct and that the original autographs, none of which exist, were written by human authors without error.
The earliest NT document, I believe was Mark and has been dated anywhere from 130 A. D. to 150 A.D. (I think, I havent verified this) Most of us would accept that the original was probably written a minimum of 30 to 35 years after Jesus sojourn on earth, maybe even more. Daniel and Clear Lens might have a better understanding of that.
But how were copies made in that day and age. There were no printing presses. The original author, let's call him "Mark", probably wrote these for the Christians in his own household or perhaps a few others, most likely no more than a score of people. But those people talked about it and one day a visitor to Mark's village said, "Hey! I'd like to take that back to my village so those people can read it." Now early Christians didn't, for the most part, come from the educated classes, they were mostly illiterate. So they probably selected the most literate or perhaps even hired someone to copy the original. He did it by hand with a quill dipped in ink, maybe in poor light in the evenings, perhaps when he was tired, and lo and behold he made an error. Don't think that is possible? Start copying the book of Mark by hand and try to get it all done in say three days!
So he made an error here and there that was carried to the new village, where some weeks later another visitor from another village wanted a copy. So the copyist there copied the "flawed" copy from the original village and probably made an error or two of his own. And on and on---but to make it more complex, another individual shows up at the ORIGINAL village and asks for a copy and gets it with different errors than were made on the first copy and takes that back to his village which starts another chain with a different set of errors.
So how many errors have occurred in the New Testament? There are about 5700 texts of the NT in existence and there are 400,000 errors, or difference, in the writings among them. That's more errors than there are words in the NT. (And by the way, you find this out by going to the internet and listening to scholars debate the differences---even the conservative ones agree on hundreds of thousands of errors).
Now the good news is that the vast, vast majority of those errors are extremely minor. But the bad news is there are some critical ones that have resulted in incorrect theology being passed down through the ages. The one that fascinates me the most is that there are some manuscripts that do not have Mark 16: 9-20 in them. Many end with verse eight. Still others add a completely different verse.
Quote:
The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1948). vv. 9-20. This section is a later addition; the original ending of Mark appears to have been lost. The best and oldest manuscripts of Mark end with ch. 16:8. Two endings were added very early. The shorter reads: "But they reported briefly to those with Peter all that had been commanded them. And afterward Jesus himself sent out through them from the East even to the West the sacred and incorruptible message of eternal salvation." The longer addition appears in English Bibles; its origin is uncertain
The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
So at the very least you do not have in Mark 16:9-20 anything that was in any original autograph. It not only appears to be added, it is stylistically different from the rest of Mark. But my thought is, that any inerrantist will still contend that it is inerrant despite the fact that it was not in an original autograph.
There have been some texts of Luke that do not contain the words of Jesus on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
So for someone to make a hard and fast statement that the original manuscripts are without error when we have no original manuscripts and don't know what they say, but hold that the copies which have been proven have variants are "inerrant" is not a leap of faith, but a leap of folly.
And that's why no verse of scripture can be pulled from context of ALL scripture and read with an uncritical eye. And by "critical" I don't mean "criticize", I mean FIND OUT THE TRUTH!! If this isn't enough to get you to seek the truth instead of proclaiming a version of the truth, then you can be sure that you are a dogmatist, not a truth seeker.
Then there is the fact that even the books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament have been tampered with in terms of their original order as the Hebrews and early Christians saw them----ah, but that is another long post, and I think this is probably enough for most inerrantists to chew on for a bit.
It is difficult to enumerate the number and types of errors within Greek texts and to describe easily and simply the vast accumulated effect and potential effect of all types of biblical textual errors on Christian thought and doctrine over millenia of doctrinal changes and evolution of christian thought.
WHO IS ACTUALLY CLAIMING INERRANCY?
ALL legitimate Scholars of Greek biblical texts tell us that the manuscripts they contain errors. ALL legitimate translators who create bibles from Greek biblical texts tell us that the manuscripts they create bibles from, contain errors. ALL legitimate Textual critics of Greek texts who are trying to determine what the original texts might have said tell us that the manuscripts they are aware of contain errors. Who is it that is making the claim for inerrancy?
If readers of the forum will take the time to notice, they will see that virtually ALL claims that greek New Testament Texts are perfect and without error, originate with from individuals who have not read (nor are they able to read) a critical New Testament Text in greek.
The reason that the claim to inerrancy comes only from those who are least qualified to make the claim becomes obvious. ANYONE who CAN read greek who DOES read ANY critical greek text immediately comes face to face with several types of errors. It is impossible to read a critical text without coming face to face with this fact since critical texts display and categorize errors and conflicts. Also, the readers of the text themselves, must pick between various readings in order to make their way through the greek text (else they cannot move forward in the text that offers them multiple choices of how the early text might have read).
The scholars who actually read greek manuscripts; the translators who actually use greek manuscripts and the textual critics who actually study and analyze greek manuscripts in depth are all qualified to make their claim that errors exist. The non-educated, non-greek reading dogmatists who make the claim of inerrancy without justification are the least qualified and the least objective in creating and support their claim to textual inerrancy. Regarding translators and their claim to errancy in the bibles they created, see an example post //www.city-data.com/forum/30840118-post125.html
EXAMPLES OF ERRORS
If a greek reader simply looks at a critical text of Matthew (Nestle 27 in this example) they cannot help but be exposed to inconsistencies and errors of loss and errors of gloss, with almost every single line they read starting with conflicts in Matthews title to conflicts in it’s very last line. Most conflicts and errors have very little significance (other than they reveal that we don’t know what the originals actually said). However, very quickly the reader is confronted with types of conflicts and errors that cause doctrinal problems. Difficulties caused by textual conflicts and errors have always existed and have been reported to us historically from the earliest ages and from the earliest translators who described their difficulties.
Historical textual conflicts have existed from the earliest major versions
If our reader comes to Matt 4:10 they are immediately confronted with a change from and earlier text to a later emmendation which caused so much consternation to Origen, Jerome, Irenaeus, Pseudo-ignatius, Wettstein, griesbach, Kuhlno, Mattai etc. These are some of the greatest textual critics in history who, early on, pointed out and discussed conflicts and errors and difficulties with this quotation such that the text itself was changed in order to make it fit an interpretation that was acceptable to their christian traditions.
Discomfort with text caused textual changes.
Matthew 4:10 is a good example of what happens when translators, belonging to a later christian tradition, do not know what to make of an original text in an earlier, and unfamiliar christian tradition. Because this text caused such a stir among the early theologians, we know much about why this text was changed. We haven't even discussed the various “correctors” to texts. Regarding the concept of important textual change due to discomfort in actual greek text, see another example post : //www.city-data.com/forum/30803345-post97.html
Losses in text cause loss of meaning and confusion
If our reader comes to Matthew 8:11-12 we can discuss the problem of textual loss. After honoring the centurion for having great faith (vs 10) The current modern text has Jesus saying “11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of [the] heavens, 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there, men will weep and gnash their teeth.” The current text implies many will come to Abraham in heaven only to then be banished into outer darkness” "μετα αβρααμ και Ισαακ και Ιοκωβ εν τη βασιλεια των οθρανων 12 οι δε θιοι τησ βασιλειασ εκβληθησονται εισ το σκοτοσ το εξωτερον. The original probably juxtapositioned the kingdom of heaven with the “sons of the kingdom [of satan]” who are banished into outer darkness. Without a complete text, who knows how to correct the text? Does the text tell us the sons who come to sit with abraham in the kingdom of the heavens are thrown out? what did the original say?
Conflicts in text creates different meanings
If our reader comes to Matthew 9:8 does he accept the greek texts which reads “when the crowds saw it, they were afraid...” (Sinaiticus, B, D, W, 0281 f, 33, 892 etc) or do they accept the greek text which reads “when the crowds saw it, they marveled...” (C, L, Θ 0233,f, etc...) One need simply follow the recent forum discussion regarding whether “fear of God” is healthy or unhealthy to understand why conflicts in words such as these cause doctrinal difficulties or clarify doctrinal questions depending upon what the correct text actually is.
Difficulties in translation cause doctrinal confusion
We've already discussed the difficulties caused by early rendering of certain greek words into other english words that do not offer the same context, and in fact, often produce unintended, yet profound doctrinal changes and evolutions in christian thought. The recent example that comes to mind is the rendering of προορισας as “pre-destinate” in such places as Eph 1:5 and Rom 8:29 which are used to create and support the unusual doctrine of predestination. Regarding this prior point, see yet another example post : //www.city-data.com/forum/30931956-post229.html Such translational errors may cause doctrinal errors of great significance.
A STUBBORN DOGMATIC CLAIM TO INERRANCY AGAINST REALITY IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
I believe that mature and mentally aware Christians who make the claim that their text is perfect and has no errors or loss are motivated by a misguided attempt to strengthen and benefit the Christian claim. I do NOT think their motives are evil.
Despite this benign motive, I think that it does more damage to the Christian aim if individuals are seen as “lying for Jesus” and make claims such as inerrancy and perfection in texts. The reason for this is that increasing numbers of both Christians and non-Christians are aware of imperfections and errancy in biblical texts and to have Christians make ludicrous claims that contradict a wall of firm fact places associates Christianity with dishonesty and incredulity in the eyes of individuals who know better. I think such claims could have been made in earlier ages of ignorance when data was not so readily available. But such a claim cannot survive in an age where information is so readily available.
The reason I think that deceptions and gross exagerations is so harmful is that it decreases credibility rather than enhancing trust in christians who are willing to engage in dubious claims in a misguided attempt to improve the perceived status of a text or a doctrine. Once Christians engage in the spread of obvious error, then they will be seen as irrelevant to one’s personal pursuit of religious truth . Once christians are perceived as having lost both credibility and relevance, then agnostics and other investigators of religion may turn elsewhere for religious meaning and for religious truth and for credibility in personal witness. I know that christians who claim inerrancy are NOT trying to damage christianity (unless they are anti-christians who are trying to make christianity look silly by making the claim of inerrancy...), but nonetheless, I think the claim to inerrancy in the face of data causes christianity harm.
Clear
visenetwou
Last edited by Clear lens; 08-16-2013 at 08:26 PM..
It is difficult to enumerate the number and types of errors within Greek texts and to describe easily and simply the vast accumulated effect and potential effect of all types of biblical textual errors on Christian thought and doctrine over millenia of doctrinal changes and evolution of christian thought.
WHO IS ACTUALLY CLAIMING INERRANCY?
ALL legitimate Scholars of Greek biblical texts tell us that the manuscripts they contain errors. ALL legitimate translators who create bibles from Greek biblical texts tell us that the manuscripts they create bibles from, contain errors. ALL legitimate Textual critics of Greek texts who are trying to determine what the original texts might have said tell us that the manuscripts they are aware of contain errors. Who is it that is making the claim for inerrancy?
If readers of the forum will take the time to notice, they will see that virtually ALL claims that greek New Testament Texts are perfect and without error, originate with from individuals who have not read (nor are they able to read) a critical New Testament Text in greek.
The reason that the claim to inerrancy comes only from those who are least qualified to make the claim becomes obvious. ANYONE who CAN read greek who DOES read ANY critical greek text immediately comes face to face with several types of errors. It is impossible to read a critical text without coming face to face with this fact since critical texts display and categorize errors and conflicts. Also, the readers of the text themselves, must pick between various readings in order to make their way through the greek text (else they cannot move forward in the text that offers them multiple choices of how the early text might have read).
The scholars who actually read greek manuscripts; the translators who actually use greek manuscripts and the textual critics who actually study and analyze greek manuscripts in depth are all qualified to make their claim that errors exist. The non-educated, non-greek reading dogmatists who make the claim of inerrancy without justification are the least qualified and the least objective in creating and support their claim to textual inerrancy. Regarding translators and their claim to errancy in the bibles they created, see an example post //www.city-data.com/forum/30840118-post125.html
EXAMPLES OF ERRORS
If a greek reader simply looks at a critical text of Matthew (Nestle 27 in this example) they cannot help but be exposed to inconsistencies and errors of loss and errors of gloss, with almost every single line they read starting with conflicts in Matthews title to conflicts in it’s very last line. Most conflicts and errors have very little significance (other than they reveal that we don’t know what the originals actually said). However, very quickly the reader is confronted with types of conflicts and errors that cause doctrinal problems. Difficulties caused by textual conflicts and errors have always existed and have been reported to us historically from the earliest ages and from the earliest translators who described their difficulties.
Historical textual conflicts have existed from the earliest major versions
If our reader comes to Matt 4:10 they are immediately confronted with a change from and earlier text to a later emmendation which caused so much consternation to Origen, Jerome, Irenaeus, Pseudo-ignatius, Wettstein, griesbach, Kuhlno, Mattai etc. These are some of the greatest textual critics in history who, early on, pointed out and discussed conflicts and errors and difficulties with this quotation such that the text itself was changed in order to make it fit an interpretation that was acceptable to their christian traditions.
Discomfort with text caused textual changes.
Matthew 4:10 is a good example of what happens when translators, belonging to a later christian tradition, do not know what to make of an original text in an earlier, and unfamiliar christian tradition. Because this text caused such a stir among the early theologians, we know much about why this text was changed. We haven't even discussed the various “correctors” to texts. Regarding the concept of important textual change due to discomfort in actual greek text, see another example post : //www.city-data.com/forum/30803345-post97.html
Losses in text cause loss of meaning and confusion
If our reader comes to Matthew 8:11-12 we can discuss the problem of textual loss. After honoring the centurion for having great faith (vs 10) The current modern text has Jesus saying “11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of [the] heavens, 12 but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there, men will weep and gnash their teeth.” The current text implies many will come to Abraham in heaven only to then be banished into outer darkness” "μετα αβρααμ και Ισαακ και Ιοκωβ εν τη βασιλεια των οθρανων 12 οι δε θιοι τησ βασιλειασ εκβληθησονται εισ το σκοτοσ το εξωτερον. The original probably juxtapositioned the kingdom of heaven with the “sons of the kingdom [of satan]” who are banished into outer darkness. Without a complete text, who knows how to correct the text? Does the text tell us the sons who come to sit with abraham in the kingdom of the heavens are thrown out? what did the original say?
Conflicts in text creates different meanings
If our reader comes to Matthew 9:8 does he accept the greek texts which reads “when the crowds saw it, they were afraid...” (Sinaiticus, B, D, W, 0281 f, 33, 892 etc) or do they accept the greek text which reads “when the crowds saw it, they marveled...” (C, L, Θ 0233,f, etc...) One need simply follow the recent forum discussion regarding whether “fear of God” is healthy or unhealthy to understand why conflicts in words such as these cause doctrinal difficulties.
Difficulties in translation cause doctrinal confusion
We've already discussed the difficulties caused by early rendering of certain greek words into other english words that do not offer the same context, and in fact, often produce unintended, yet profound doctrinal changes and evolutions in christian thought. The recent example that comes to mind is the rendering of προορισας as “pre-destinate” in such places as Eph 1:5 and Rom 8:29 which influenced the later doctrine of predestination. Regarding this prior point, see yet another example post : //www.city-data.com/forum/30931956-post229.html
A STUBBORN DOGMATIC CLAIM TO INERRANCY AGAINST REALITY IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
I believe that mature and mentally aware Christians who make the claim that their text is perfect and has no errors or loss are motivated by a misguided attempt to strengthen and benefit the Christian claim. I do NOT think their motives are evil.
Despite this benign motive, I think that it does more damage to the Christian aim if individuals are seen as “lying for Jesus” and make claims such as inerrancy and perfection in texts. The reason for this is that increasing numbers of both Christians and non-Christians are aware of imperfections and errancy in biblical texts and to have Christians make ludicrous claims that contradict a wall of firm fact places associates Christianity with dishonesty and incredulity in the eyes of individuals who know better. I think such claims could have been made in earlier ages of ignorance when data was not so readily available. But such a claim cannot survive in an age where information is so readily available.
The reason I think that deceptions and gross exagerations is so harmful is that it decreases credibility rather than enhancing trust in christians who are willing to engage in dubious claims in a misguided attempt to improve the perceived status of a text or a doctrine. Once Christians engage in the spread of obvious error, then they will be seen as irrelevant to one’s personal pursuit of religious truth . Once christians are perceived as having lost both credibility and relevance, then agnostics and other investigators of religion may turn elsewhere for religious meaning and for religious truth and for credibility in personal witness. I know that christians who claim inerrancy are NOT trying to damage christianity (unless they are anti-christians who are trying to make christianity look silly by making the claim of inerrancy...), but nonetheless, I think the claim to inerrancy in the face of data causes christianity harm.
Clear
visenetwou
Another powerful message from you, Clear. I'm only a journeyman, but have great appreciation not only for the content of your posts, but your writing which is far more tactful than my own scribblings.
Thank you, once again. Sorry I can't rep you once more---too soon
Okay, let's accept that you are absolutely correct and that the original autographs, none of which exist, were written by human authors without error.
The earliest NT document, I believe was Mark and has been dated anywhere from 130 A. D. to 150 A.D. (I think, I havent verified this) Most of us would accept that the original was probably written a minimum of 30 to 35 years after Jesus sojourn on earth, maybe even more. Daniel and Clear Lens might have a better understanding of that.
No, the gospel of Mark was not the earliest NT document. You perhaps meant to say that Mark is considered by many to have been the first of the four gospel accounts to have been written. But even that is not necessarily true.
Conservative scholarship dates the gospel of Mark anywhere from 57-59 to 64-68 AD.
The unanimous testimony of the early church fathers is that Mark, who was an associate of the apostle Peter, was the author of the Gospel which bears his name. There is both external and internal evidence to that effect.
The last of the NT books to be written was the Book of Revelation which was written around 95-96 AD.
Quote:
But how were copies made in that day and age. There were no printing presses. The original author, let's call him "Mark", probably wrote these for the Christians in his own household or perhaps a few others, most likely no more than a score of people. But those people talked about it and one day a visitor to Mark's village said, "Hey! I'd like to take that back to my village so those people can read it." Now early Christians didn't, for the most part, come from the educated classes, they were mostly illiterate. So they probably selected the most literate or perhaps even hired someone to copy the original. He did it by hand with a quill dipped in ink, maybe in poor light in the evenings, perhaps when he was tired, and lo and behold he made an error. Don't think that is possible? Start copying the book of Mark by hand and try to get it all done in say three days!
So he made an error here and there that was carried to the new village, where some weeks later another visitor from another village wanted a copy. So the copyist there copied the "flawed" copy from the original village and probably made an error or two of his own. And on and on---but to make it more complex, another individual shows up at the ORIGINAL village and asks for a copy and gets it with different errors than were made on the first copy and takes that back to his village which starts another chain with a different set of errors.
So how many errors have occurred in the New Testament? There are about 5700 texts of the NT in existence and there are 400,000 errors, or difference, in the writings among them. That's more errors than there are words in the NT. (And by the way, you find this out by going to the internet and listening to scholars debate the differences---even the conservative ones agree on hundreds of thousands of errors).
Now the good news is that the vast, vast majority of those errors are extremely minor. But the bad news is there are some critical ones that have resulted in incorrect theology being passed down through the ages. The one that fascinates me the most is that there are some manuscripts that do not have Mark 16: 9-20 in them. Many end with verse eight. Still others add a completely different verse.
The Ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
So at the very least you do not have in Mark 16:9-20 anything that was in any original autograph. It not only appears to be added, it is stylistically different from the rest of Mark. But my thought is, that any inerrantist will still contend that it is inerrant despite the fact that it was not in an original autograph.
There have been some texts of Luke that do not contain the words of Jesus on the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
So for someone to make a hard and fast statement that the original manuscripts are without error when we have no original manuscripts and don't know what they say, but hold that the copies which have been proven have variants are "inerrant" is not a leap of faith, but a leap of folly.
And that's why no verse of scripture can be pulled from context of ALL scripture and read with an uncritical eye. And by "critical" I don't mean "criticize", I mean FIND OUT THE TRUTH!! If this isn't enough to get you to seek the truth instead of proclaiming a version of the truth, then you can be sure that you are a dogmatist, not a truth seeker.
Then there is the fact that even the books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament have been tampered with in terms of their original order as the Hebrews and early Christians saw them----ah, but that is another long post, and I think this is probably enough for most inerrantists to chew on for a bit.
No, the fact that the original autographs were without error rests on the ability of God to have set down in writing by the human authors that which He wished to communicate.
And without bothering to address your other comments, you cannot use the errors and variations which exist in the many manuscript copies to claim that the original autographs were in error.
By the way, if you want to educate yourself, I suggest that you read 'The Text of the New Testament' 4th edition by Bruce Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman; 'The Canon of the New Testament' by Bruce Metzger; 'The Canon of Scripture' by F. F. Bruce; 'The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?' by F. F. Bruce; and 'Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament' by Daniel B. Wallace.
Actually, it does. In the Bible, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all said to be God. They are shown to be distinct but not separate from each other.
Was God so non communicative that he needed a book to speak? Why would God need a book...you would think he would and could communicate without some silly book....does he have no voice?
Was God so non communicative that he needed a book to speak? Why would God need a book...you would think he would and could communicate without some silly book....does he have no voice?
God has communicated in various ways. In Old Testament times He communicated directly (as with Moses for example), through angels, dreams, visions, prophets, through Jesus who Himself is God, through the apostles, and through His written word.
God has communicated in various ways. In Old Testament times He communicated directly (as with Moses for example), through angels, dreams, visions, prophets, through Jesus who Himself is God, through the apostles, and through His written word.
God did not stop communicating with us some of us still receive revelations from God,
that is how I know that Christ Worship is wrong and evil because Jesus is not God only his son and Messiah.
Many of my personal beliefs are based upon Revelations I receive from God in the form of dreams and visions.
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.
Accepting your basic premise---
