The Phrase 'Word of God' and its usage in the New Testament. (scripture, Moses)
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.
When you alter a word by expanding its definition to suit a belief – you change the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Show a specific case where a word in the NT was altered by expanding its definition to suit a belief and demonstrate how it changed the context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
Matthew 25:46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
(And we all know the rest of the story)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
'Eternal punishment' is not one word. There is no one word that means or has been expanded to mean eternal punishment. Two separate words are needed to convey the meaning of eternal punishment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
I wasn't talking about two separate words, so why are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You brought up the argument that when a word (a single word) is altered by expanding its definition to suit a belief it changes the context. When asked to give an example of a single word being altered by expanding its definition you gave an entire sentence in which 'eternal punishment' was the point of your argument. Your example does not back up your argument.
When you expand the definition of a word to mean something it doesn't, then you not only change the meaning of the word; but the entire context in which it is used. But you were already aware of that - so why play stupid.
Because - if one of your doctrines crumble the rest will fall as well.
No one denies the existence of textual variants both in the Old and New Testaments. The issue is whether or not the textual variants (the corruptions) change any point of doctrine. With regard to the New Testament, textual scholars say that they do not.
While New Testament textual criticism which deals with the issue of the degree of accuracy with which the original New Testament text has been transmitted down through the ages does not really concern the issue of whether what was originally written is true, before the issue of whether what was originally written is true can be addressed it must first be determined if we can know what was originally written. Though we don't have the original autographs, can we determine to what degree the original New Testament text has accurately been transmitted through the manuscript copies which are extant.
Regarding the issue of New Testament textual reliability (is what we have now what they wrote then), here is what the experts, the textual critics who have studied the matter say.
Gary Habermas comments;
The textual purity of the New Testament is rarely questioned in scholarship. It is well established and agreed among almost all who have ever seriously studied the ancient texts that the text is virtually the same as what was originally written. Even critical scholars question very few words in the New Testament, and those words do not affect doctrinal issues.
[Habermas, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.85]
Most New Testament textual critics (scholars who study and compare the New Testament documents) maintain that the New Testament text is extremely reliable. Though there are an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 textual variants, the vast majority are absolutely meaningless and affect nothing. Many of them are not even translatable from Greek into English. A textual variant is simply a lack of uniformity of wording among the manuscripts regarding a particular word, sentence, or paragraph. These variants fall into the following categories.
1.) Spelling differences and nonsense errors. This category is by far the majority of the variants.
For example, in Greek, the name John may be spelled Ἰωάννῃ (Ióannés) or Ἰωάνῃ (Ióanés). But in English, it is translated as John.
One of the most common textual variants involves the 'movable nu.' This is a nu - 'ν'. In English, it is the letter 'n.' In Greek the nu - 'ν' can occur at the end of certain words which precede a word that begins with a vowel. Whether a scribe used the nu or not is similar to saying 'a' or 'an'. 'An apple', or 'a apple.' Not using it when he should have just means the scribe was careless or couldn't spell. But it doesn't affect the meaning.
A nonsense error is a mistake on the part of a scribe which in context obviously makes no sense and when compared with other manuscripts can be easily seen to not be the original wording.
2.) Minor variations that have no affect on translations or that involve the use of synonyms. This category of variant does not involve spelling or nonsense readings, but which also don't affect translation. For example, The Greek may or may not use the definite article with a proper name, whereas the English does not. Luke 2:16 in Greek says 'the Mary' - τήν τε Μαριὰμ (both the Mary) καὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ (and the Joseph). So 'Mary' or 'the Mary' would be variants which affect nothing. And in English we simply translate it as 'Mary.'
Then there are variants among the Greek manuscripts resulting from the fact that Greek is an inflectional language which means that when writing something the same thing can be said using different word order since the subject is always in the nominative case and the direct object is always in the accusative case. In Greek, the subject and object are not determined by word order as in English, but by the case ending.
Variants are also the result of using synonyms. A scribe of a particular manuscript might use the noun 'Jesus' instead of the pronoun 'He.' For instance, in Matthew 4:18, 12:25; Mark 2:15, 10:52; and Luke 24:36 the Byzantine manuscript text type tends to use the name 'Jesus' while the Alexandrian manuscripts say 'He.' While this affects translation, whether 'Jesus' or 'He' is used, the referent is still Jesus.
Another variant might involve an addition such as a passage saying 'Christ Jesus' instead of 'Jesus'. In Acts 19:4, the Alexandrian manuscripts have 'Jesus' while the Byzantine manuscripts have 'Christ Jesus.' Obviously Jesus is the Christ, and so whether or not a particular passage says 'Christ Jesus' or simply 'Jesus' doesn't affect the meaning.
3.) Differences that affect the meaning, but are not viable (that is, there is no chance of them going back to the original autographs.) As an example, I quote Dan Wallace in an interview.
For example, in Luke 6:22, the ESV reads, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!” But one manuscript from the 10th/11th century (codex 2882) lacks the words “on account of the Son of Man.” That’s a very meaningful variant since it seems to say that a person is blessed when he is persecuted, regardless of his allegiance to Christ. Yet it is only in one manuscript, and a relatively late one at that. It has no chance of reflecting the wording of the original text, since all the other manuscripts are against it, including quite a few that are much, much earlier.
4.) Differences that affect the meaning, and are viable. This last category involves only about 1 percent or less of the varients. These variants affect the meaning of the text to some degree, but not in any major way.
For instance, in Romans 5:1, did Paul write, ''We have peace'' (ἔχομεν - echomen), or did he write, ''let us have peace'' (ἔχωμεν - echōmen)? The difference in the two words is one letter. Regardless of which of the two reading is correct, they don't contradict what the Bible teaches. If Paul was saying that we have peace with God he was referring to the believer's positional status with God in Christ Jesus. If he was saying ''let us have peace with God'' then he was simply urging believers to realize that peace.
The largest textual variant in the New Testament involves Mark 16:9-20. Did Mark intend to end his gospel account at verse 8 or did the last part of that chapter get lost somehow? Scholars debate that question. But verses 9-20 are generally believed not to have been the original reading. Even so, that reading doesn't really affect any cardinal doctrine. The apostles did cast out demons, and did speak in tongues [v. 17]. As well, they did lay hands on the sick and heal them [v.18].
As for picking up snakes and drinking poison, while nowhere in the New Testament are these practices reported as happening, Eusebius tells of a tradition in which a man drank poison but was unharmed.
Church History Book 3.39.9
8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.
9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm. CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)
As well, this could be referring to being compelled to pick up snakes and drink poison rather than to the voluntary practice of them. And it could be restricted to the apostolic period of the Church-age. Regardless, no cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by this variant.
So what do the textual critics say about the reliability of the New Testament?
F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. He stated...
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. [The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce, pgs. 14-15.]
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the most highly regarded scholars of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism. He served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies and was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He commented...
But the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament , whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic quotations is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. [The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth Edition, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 230]
Daniel B. Wallace (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament Studies. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, and has consulted on several Bible translations. He made these comments...
To sum up the evidence on the number of variants, there are a lot of variants because there are a lot of manuscripts. Even in the early centuries, the text of the NT is found in a sufficient number of MSS, versions, and writings of the church fathers to give us the essentials of the original text. [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace, pg. 40]
Even Bart D. Ehrman who puts a skeptical spin on things when writing for the general public made the following statement in a college textbook as quoted by Dan Wallace in 'Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament' on pg. 24...
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Ehrman wrote that in a college textbook called 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To the Early Christian Writings', 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pg. 481.
In an article by Dan Wallace, he wrote...
'Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.' [The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
The following quotes are from the book 'Reinventing Jesus', 2006, by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace.
''Since the earliest texts that we have agree substantially with the later ones, if we were to project backward to the original, the changes from the original text to the earliest copies would be miniscule.'' [p. 55]
''The reality is that, although most of the text of the New Testament is not in dispute, some passages are.'' [p. 61]
''As we look at the materials and methods of textual criticism in the succeeding chapters, we will see that there are solid reasons for regarding the manuscripts of the New Testament as substantially correct in representing the original text.'' [p.70]
''As we saw in the last chapter, only a very small percentage of the New Testament is in doubt.'' [p. 73]
''For the vast majority of the textual variants, there is simply no difficulty determining the original wording.'' [p. 83]
New Testament textual criticism then is a very important endeavor as it demonstrates the reliability of our New Testament text.
Those writer were not talking about textual variance Mike they were talking about how man corrupted the scriptures by adding and taking away from them. Better reread what they said.
Both comments are aimed at ''THEY.'' Yours is aimed at THEY who ''cling so desperately to the Bible as THE authority to which apparently THEY have the correct key and their interpretation is correct because that "Guide" confirms it.''
Of course the Bible states that Jesus did and said many things that weren't recorded. And guess what? We don't know what He did and said that wasn't recorded, and the Holy Spirit is not going to tell us those things that He said which didn't get recorded.
The Bible contains all the information that God deemed necessary for the spiritual growth of the believer. And it provides a look at what is to come with regard to the Tribulation, God's judgment on mankind, life in the Millennial kingdom, and a brief glance at the eternal state. Things which apart from having been recorded in the Bible, we would not know.
The Holy Spirit is not going to teach anyone any new doctrines or teachings pertaining to the church which have not already been recorded in the Bible. It's just not going to happen. What the Holy Spirit will do is to bring to light, bring to memory those Biblical doctrines which have been metabolized into the soul of the believer and guide him in the application of those doctrines to life.
There you go putting the HS in a box called the bible. However you are wrong Mike, Jesus said there were many things that He wanted to say to them but they were not yet ready to bare them. That indicates that there will come a time that they would be able to bare them and the HS takes from Jesus and gives it unto us.
Did you notice that Mike? the HS leads us into all truth by taking from Jesus ( NOT THE BIBLE) andgiving it unto us.
And in fact, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians not to exceed what was written.
I Cor. 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.
In other words, you have to stick with what the Scripture says, “…so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.”
But many people have no respect for the authority of the apostles as Jesus' appointed representatives to the early church and to the authority of the Scriptures which were written by the apostles (and others who were closely associated with the apostles).
Mike you are always preaching context yet forgot to do it here. Paul was talking about judging others and we are not to judge other but only let God do the judging just as the scripture recorded. Paul was not talking about everything in the bible, good grief.
You might as well have come right out with it and called me a liar. I gave you the info where you could get the info right down to the page number. If that is not good enough for you go out and get the study bible it is in.
disagreeing with what you say is not disregarding what you say.
It is NOT the same no matter how much you want to make it the same Mike. People can has respect and awe for others and not love them. Take Rome for instance, even their enemies were in awe and respected their power.
Think about what you are saying Mike. God spoke through Moses correct? Told Moses what to write correct? Moses gave a law that up until Jesus time was thought to have been inspired by God.
So lets make this simple. Was Moses law of divorce inspiration from God? Yes or no If you say yes then you have to deal with Jesus correction. If you say no then you have to deal with something written in the bible that was not inspired by God.
You backed yourself into a corner with no way out.
Neither, just pointing out things you do not want to see.
No, actually, he didn't back himself into a corner, you did. Do you really think Moses did ANYTHING in his administrative duties without the Lord G-d's approval? If so, then you must be calling Jesus a liar when He said Moses was FAITHFUL in all of his house. Not to mention, he appeared as one of the "ones to whom it had already been given" to sit at His right hand and at His left, on the mount. Face it, your doctrine is full of holes. Peace
No, actually, he didn't back himself into a corner, you did. Do you really think Moses did ANYTHING in his administrative duties without the Lord G-d's approval? If so, then you must be calling Jesus a liar when He said Moses was FAITHFUL in all of his house. Not to mention, he appeared as one of the "ones to whom it had already been given" to sit at His right hand and at His left, on the mount. Face it, your doctrine is full of holes. Peace
So your answer is yes Moses was inspired by God to write a law contrary to what God wanted. Noted
When you expand the definition of a word to mean something it doesn't, then you not only change the meaning of the word; but the entire context in which it is used. But you were already aware of that - so why play stupid.
Because - if one of your doctrines crumble the rest will fall as well.
You were asked to provide an example to back up your claim. You have not done so. Now instead of diverting by accusing me of playing stupid, show me an example where the definition of a word was expanded to mean something it doesn't.
You were asked to provide an example to back up your claim. You have not done so. Now instead of diverting by accusing me of playing stupid, show me an example where the definition of a word was expanded to mean something it doesn't.
There you go putting the HS in a box called the bible. However you are wrong Mike, Jesus said there were many things that He wanted to say to them but they were not yet ready to bare them. That indicates that there will come a time that they would be able to bare them and the HS takes from Jesus and gives it unto us.
Did you notice that Mike? the HS leads us into all truth by taking from Jesus ( NOT THE BIBLE) andgiving it unto us.
Jesus was speaking privately to His disciples and encouraged them with that promise. That promise that Jesus made to the disciples in which the Holy Spirit would reveal those things to them which Jesus could not say to them because they could not bear it at that time resulted in the New Testament Scriptures.
The Holy Spirit is not going to lead anyone to any truth apart from taking what is in the Bible and inculcating it into his their soul.
The Holy Spirit does not impart knowledge through osmosis or by magically imparting it to you. The Holy Spirit works in conjunction with the Bible.
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.
(And we all know the rest of the story)
