Agree. Thanks for the resource suggestions.
Are you sure Bart isn't familiar with the origins of the Bible?
/
Reader Poll - Where did the Bible come from?
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
/
What do you mean when you write, "The scriptures are preserved"?
I created a rough outline of the process in an earlier post. Here it is again.
1) Oral traditions
2) Written accounts (usually long after the events occurred)
3) Collected writings (merged into books) Multiple authors
4) The body of original autographs/manuscripts (now all gone)
5) Copies of copies of copies of copies... of manuscripts
6) Oldest "manuscripts" as mere fragments (see image below)
7) Textual Criticism (choosing which manuscript copies to translate from)
8) Early translation work (subject to religious bias and political factors)
9) The King James Version of 1611 (Bibles finally becoming available to commoners)
10) Modern translation work (using modern technology and the Dead Sea Scrolls)
/
Could be inspiring.
I was watching a TV series titled Chosen.
And they were eating pita bread.
I'm wondering if at some point Jesus will raise his piece and say,
"I am the pita of life." Or, "Man does not live by pita alone."
I have the same problem with the "Garden" of Eden.
It was actually an orchard.
The New English Translation actually got that right.
Genesis 2:8-10 NET
The Lord God planted an orchard[a] in the east,[b] in Eden;[c]
and there he placed the man he had formed.[d]
9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil,[e]
every tree that was pleasing to look at[f] and good for food.
(Now[g] the tree of life[h] and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil[i]
were in the middle of the orchard.)
10 Now[j] a river flows[k] from Eden[l] to water the orchard,
and from there it divides[m] into four headstreams.[n]
/
The 1611 translation was a minor blip. Not hardly anyone read it. Because they ALL had Geneva Bibles. The Geneva Bible was the first "common man's" Bible. And scriptures still weren't read or used during church services....the Psalter and Book of Prayers were. They first and second wave of immigration to America all carried the Geneva Bible. Sir Francis Drake carried it, Shakespeare quoted it...it was every common man's Bible.
And if you read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy....you would know. (I posted a link)
The Chicago Statement is the standard most every evangelical subscribes to.
But the youngest scriptures are preserved no different than the oldest. The youngest being 2,000 years old.
With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (oldest manuscripts discovered to date) the scrolls are almost identical to what we have today. A piece of one sentence is different in Deuteronomy....and most do not like the clarification of "Sons of God" being those who believe in God. And I think there was a sentence or two in Samuel....nothing really new in it either.
The Siainiticus Bible is the oldest complete Bible thought to come from around 100-300AD (missing Jude, a chunk of Genesis and Revelations (due to exposure to elements) are missing. But still enough is preserved (in the Septuagint and New Testament) that it differs very little from what we have today.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Actually....it's not loose at all. It's preserved just fine. Nothing substantive is missing, changed, or erased. Just saying.We've got a loose canon here.
A few minor, single verse based theologies are destroyed that conflict with the rest of scriptures...but that's about it. However....that still hasn't actually stopped any of these theologies from being taught.
God has provided two miracles with scriptures. First with the writing of the scriptures and secondly with the preservation of the scriptures so we can know with certainty today what God has said to mankind.
Are familiar with the work of Bible translation called Textual Criticism?
What is Textual Criticism?
Here is an excellent definition of Textual Criticism from Dan Wallace, who is one of the most respected Textual Critics in the world today.Textual Criticism is:
The practice of Textual Criticism is not “criticizing the Bible“, it’s trying to recover the Bible’s original text. A “textual critic” is not someone who criticizes the Bible, but someone who tries their best to reconstruct the original text.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise, but we don’t have the original documents that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and other New Testament writers wrote. They were originally written on either papyrus (essentially paper) or possibly parchment (animal skins) which have long since degraded with time and use. However, the originals were copied many, many times. Those copies were copied, which were copied, which were copied, which were…
Well, you get the idea.
So what we have are copies of copies of the original (sometimes many generations of copying deep). Before Gutenberg invented the printing press in the early-mid 1400s, everything was copied by hand. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the scribes who did the copying occasionally made some mistakes.
When two copies disagree with each other, you have a variant in the text between two documents: this is (unsurprisingly) called a “Textual Variant”.
Clever, right?
Source
/
More from the linked article above.
Now, about the quality of Codex Sinaiticus.
Even those who love the manuscript will admit it has serious quality problems. Even the official Codex Sinaiticus Project website (link above) admits this:
They aren’t the only ones to say this either. The manuscript’s finder Tischendorf – who reckoned it as the greatest find of his life – said the following:
Tischendorf also that said he: “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” He goes on to say:
By any conceivable metric (except age), Codex Sinaiticus is one of the worst manuscripts that we’ve found. You probably couldn’t find a scholar who would praise the scribal work in Sinaiticus, and it’s easy to find those who deride it as the worst scribal work among the manuscripts we’ve found.
Source
/
From the source YOU gave:
The Alexandrian text is about 5% smaller than the Byzantine text, and there are some differences in words between the two texts. No Christian doctrine is omitted from the Alexandrian text, but some appear strengthened in the Byzantine text
Then a word about Westcott and Hort.....
Westcott was a scholar of extra-Biblical texts of Judaism....such as Sifre, Midrash, and Talmud....not scriptures themselves.
Hort was the financier of Westcott ....he believed in mostly money and navigating the politics of the Church to keep his guy Westcott alive and continuing to collect on his investment in Westcott. (Church ruled the world)
Where Westcott and Hort really come into trouble is because they, like many others, had sound reasoning to expose the many abuses of the Church's governance. (Concubine swapping and purgatory fees being chief among them) At no time did these guys ever get a break from those in authority.
There's an axiom that is so true it's ridiculous:
"Tallest nail gets pounded"
Westcott NEVER translated scriptures...he only commented on existing translations. Hort was incapable of doing so but was capable of hiring the work out. Hort tried to get Westcott to translate the scriptures but he refused as the resistance to his comments already was severe and he was already running around trying to escape imprisonment and execution already. He didn't want to add to the heat he was facing.
The scriptures often refer back to famous sections of the works he was extremely proficient with. He knew these quotes well and would bring clarity to the understanding of these allusions and quotes when the scriptures referenced these writings. Which gave the current Church Leadership no end of grief for their many misdeeds because his logic and knowledge was unmistakable.
Where several of Westcott's and Hort's personal beliefs were often not aligned with today's theologies or knowledge Westcott did open the path to a more clear understanding of the scriptures than ever before. Which ultimately lead to the dissolution of the Church's rule over the world.
So in short:
Hort was a rich idiot looking to make money by promoting Westcott.
Westcott knew extra-biblical Jewish writings that scriptures referenced.
Westcott never translated scriptures.
Westcott was a scholar of extra-Biblical texts of Judaism....such as Sifre, Midrash, and Talmud....not scriptures themselves.
Hort was the financier of Westcott ....he believed in mostly money and navigating the politics of the Church to keep his guy Westcott alive and continuing to collect on his investment in Westcott. (Church ruled the world)
Where Westcott and Hort really come into trouble is because they, like many others, had sound reasoning to expose the many abuses of the Church's governance. (Concubine swapping and purgatory fees being chief among them) At no time did these guys ever get a break from those in authority.
There's an axiom that is so true it's ridiculous:
"Tallest nail gets pounded"
Westcott NEVER translated scriptures...he only commented on existing translations. Hort was incapable of doing so but was capable of hiring the work out. Hort tried to get Westcott to translate the scriptures but he refused as the resistance to his comments already was severe and he was already running around trying to escape imprisonment and execution already. He didn't want to add to the heat he was facing.
The scriptures often refer back to famous sections of the works he was extremely proficient with. He knew these quotes well and would bring clarity to the understanding of these allusions and quotes when the scriptures referenced these writings. Which gave the current Church Leadership no end of grief for their many misdeeds because his logic and knowledge was unmistakable.
Where several of Westcott's and Hort's personal beliefs were often not aligned with today's theologies or knowledge Westcott did open the path to a more clear understanding of the scriptures than ever before. Which ultimately lead to the dissolution of the Church's rule over the world.
So in short:
Hort was a rich idiot looking to make money by promoting Westcott.
Westcott knew extra-biblical Jewish writings that scriptures referenced.
Westcott never translated scriptures.
I'm an expert with the Epistles. Don't really care for much of anything else in the Bible. My goal was to master the Epistles to the end that I cannot only understand every verse, but that I could put the whole Christian walk together and know that I'm correct. I have done that with everything except if the Christian can still sin when they are not walking in the spirit, but rather walking in their flesh. Now I will read everybody's grocery list if I can find out that one last piece.
ScottA
Well-Known Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 11,754
- 5,606
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
I would say, that is not the point, not the method that God has at work. But rather that each word, right or wrong has purpose...just as He gave Pharaoh purpose, for example.
Agree.
But I suppose we could say that about anything.
God didn't send Jeremiah to the Synagogue to read a scroll.
He sent him to the potter’s house. How many people passed there that day?
But the message was for Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 18:2-4 NET
“Go down at once[a] to the potter’s house. I will speak to you further there.”[b]
3 So I went down to the potter’s house and found him working[c] at his wheel.[d]
4 Now and then[e] there would be something wrong[f] with the pot he was
molding from the clay[g] with his hands. So he would rework[h]
the clay into another kind of pot as he saw fit.[i]
/
Athanasius377
Member
I think Bart knows about the physical origins of the Bible but rejects the divine orgins of the Bible. Also, be aware that Bart writes books for a popular audience that probably won't challenge him and writes other works for a more academic audience. He tends to be far more nuanced and careful in his academic works.
Athanasius377
Member
Yes I did but the word was also used in works outside the NT so the definition is pretty concrete.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
That's true, but the concrete definition in prior works is "life-giving" rather than "inspired."
Poirier, The Invention of the Inspired Text - Pastoral Epistles
FacebookXRedditEmailLinkedInOf interest to students of the Pastorals, and particularly those who study the theology of the letters: I received notice of a new volume forthcoming in the LNTS series, which mounts a challenge to the traditional understanding of θεόπνευστος in 2 Tim 3:16 and...
pastoralepistles.com
That's an interesting paradigm shift.
Not so much about what when into it, but more about what we get out of it.
Not about the recipe, but about the meal.
/
Carl Emerson
Well-Known Member
A couple of comments.
As the Bible is not understood without the Holy Spirit assisting the inspired reader, any errors of text that might exist will not be witnessed as Truth to the inspired reader.
I think a lot of questions that arise are answered as one comes to understand the character of God.
If you know God's character you will know that what we have in our hands serves the purpose intended for those chosen to understand.
As the Bible is not understood without the Holy Spirit assisting the inspired reader, any errors of text that might exist will not be witnessed as Truth to the inspired reader.
I think a lot of questions that arise are answered as one comes to understand the character of God.
If you know God's character you will know that what we have in our hands serves the purpose intended for those chosen to understand.
Similar threads
