Forgery in the Bible

snr5557 said:

Well, I think I've gotten all that I'm going to get from you. Thank you for letting me see a side of the Creationist perspective on this though

Click to expand...

Your are quite welcome, and pleasure speaking with you.

Quantrill

What is "textual criticism" by the way? It is a term used for the idea that God has no integrity to preserve his word. Neither power to inspire it. Now the critic comes in to "help God out" of what he himself presumably was incapable of. They lack the basic understanding that God is God.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

It's a 'no faith' - academic mindset, starting with 'self' not with God's promises, trying to make sense of differing manuscripts by playing with possibilities and picking one that seems most convienient to the human understanding. It's phrased 'dynamic equivalence', what is another word for playing god inside the territory of your own mind.

The first textual critic was Satan when he came up with that line "yea, has God said", questioning him and swiftly including his own version of what God "actually meant". He still has the same proposition to mankind today. As a consequence and fundamental reason we understand why most translations exist, they are a human work of the intellect, in the flesh. Bible publishing is big business, and corruption Satan's weapon of choice. And only the Spirit can give life, not any human mind and textual criticism.

Besides, copyright laws demand to produce a 'unique work' every time someone creates a translation, otherwise they are copying existing works or pirating intellectual property rights. That cuts into profits and market share and results in law suits... So they MUST change the words of God, in order to have a unique product of their own.

In the 'perfect world' there would simply exisit 1 Bible in every language. Since there is only 1 True God. That God, that cannot lie.

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Quote: "So, you are saying that people have changed His words? I was focusing more on earlier history, but I guess more modern times can be included if you want. I don't know much about more modern things, but if you have more examples to show me I'd like to hear about it."

Good one, yes the main changes are not much older than 100 years. Textual criticism went into overdrive with Westcott and Hort. There are hundreds of examples where they changed words, meanings, as well as erased and added to the texts they have been working on. When I have time I can show you the "top 50 worst ones". However it's easier to read a complete book on the subject. Or even better a few good books, it's a very interesting topic.

Quantrill said:

No, in the Bible.

If it's been taken out of your Bible, then some have taken away from the Word of God.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Again, very convenient. Your Bible is "the Word of God" whereas my Bible has "taken away" from God's Word. How again are you determining "God's Word?" It seems your personal Bible is the standard... because you say so? Again, not very convincing to say "my Bible is God's Word and if yours is different its because they have changed God's Word."

Tropical Islander said:

What is "textual criticism" by the way? It is a term used for the idea that God has no integrity to preserve his word. Neither power to inspire it. Now the critic comes in to "help God out" of what he himself presumably was incapable of. They lack the basic understanding that God is God.

Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

It's a 'no faith' - academic mindset, starting with 'self' not with God's promises, trying to make sense of differing manuscripts by playing with possibilities and picking one that seems most convienient to the human understanding. It's phrased 'dynamic equivalence', what is another word for playing god inside the territory of your own mind.

The first textual critic was Satan when he came up with that line "yea, has God said", questioning him and swiftly including his own version of what God "actually meant". He still has the same proposition to mankind today. As a consequence and fundamental reason we understand why most translations exist, they are a human work of the intellect, in the flesh. Bible publishing is big business, and corruption Satan's weapon of choice. And only the Spirit can give life, not any human mind and textual criticism.

Besides, copyright laws demand to produce a 'unique work' every time someone creates a translation, otherwise they are copying existing works or pirating intellectual property rights. That cuts into profits and market share and results in law suits... So they MUST change the words of God, in order to have a unique product of their own.

In the 'perfect world' there would simply exisit 1 Bible in every language. Since there is only 1 True God. That God, that cannot lie.

Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Click to expand...

It seems you don't understand how translations work. Are you a KJV only proponent? That verse referring to the "word purified 7 times" is used by some in this came to claim it is an inspired translation...I don't think this is at all what the verse means. It is not the actual word that matters, but the meaning behind the words. If I say "Thou shalt not kill" or "You should not kill" are we to claim only one could be authentically God's word where the other is a work of Satan? If both teach me what is right, why must one be of satan? What makes one "of God" whereas the other is of Satan...the "lt" at the end of the word? God is not limited to our Western modern way of thinking that there can be only one perfect word and all others are forgeries or imperfect. It is the Spirit working in the Word that matters and not the dead letters on a page. Sure, some translations are better at communicating the original intent than others, but this does not make one pure and the other a deception and wholly evil. There are no inspired translations. The NT writers didn't have any problem using the Septuagint when they also had access to the original Hebrew Scriptures. There is no inspired translation. Legalists have been trying to argue this since the church began...whether it was the Greek, or fights about the Latin being the only inspired version, or the King James Version (which was viewed as a Satanic translation by the Latin only crowd). Pure nonsense that is perpetuated every generation.

Quote: "There are no inspired translations"

Amazing statement. This is what you believe?

So God is unable to give us a current day Holy Spirit inspired Bible?

That is a very bitter idea, my belief in an all powerful God gets shattered by Wormwood.

Wormwood

Well, you're the one who said your Bible doesn't have John 8:1-11. Therefore it has been removed. It was already there. Im betting your Bible doesn't have Mark 16:9-20 in it either. Because Modern Textual Criticism believes it shouldn't be there. Your Bible is getting smaller. And not very authoratative.

The Bible is the Word of God. And it is not to be tampered with as modern textual criticism does. And if you own a Bible that doesn't have these verses included then you have an incomplete Bible and one that has been tampered with.

Quantrill

Quantrill said:

Wormwood

Well, you're the one who said your Bible doesn't have John 8:1-11. Therefore it has been removed. It was already there. Im betting your Bible doesn't have Mark 16:9-20 in it either. Because Modern Textual Criticism believes it shouldn't be there. Your Bible is getting smaller. And not very authoratative.

The Bible is the Word of God. And it is not to be tampered with as modern textual criticism does. And if you own a Bible that doesn't have these verses included then you have an incomplete Bible and one that has been tampered with.

Quantrill

Click to expand...

It wasn't there for the first 500 years of the church (over twice as long as the United States of America has been in existence)...therefore it has been added. The tampering was done hundreds of years after John lived. We have tons of documents on John's Gospel that predate the 6th century and NONE of them contain this passage. Moreover, early church leaders never reference the passage in their comments on John's Gospel. When it is referenced much later in history, early writers say it was not part of John's Gospel. The evidence is so overwhelming it is comparable to me trying to convince you the world is round. I cant help you if you don't want to examine the evidence.

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66,א B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syr,s and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version2 omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita,*, ). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.
-A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament

Click to expand...

Tropical Islander said:

Quote: "There are no inspired translations"

Amazing statement. This is what you believe?

So God is unable to give us a current day Holy Spirit inspired Bible?

That is a very bitter idea, my belief in an all powerful God gets shattered by Wormwood.

Click to expand...

I believe the original writings were inspired. Translations are subject to error. The closer the translation is to the original, the more we understand the writing of the inspired author. If you believe there are inspired translations...which translation is inspired? How can you prove it? Why is your translation inspired whereas someone else's is not?

Quote: "I believe the original writings were inspired. Translations are subject to error."

Says who? Where is the proof? Why can God inspire the first rendering of his words but not the second? (and 3rd, 4th - even as many as 7 purifications?)

I like to show you something: Psalms 12:6......purified seven times.

What this means is that the 7th purification is purer than the first. And of course the inspiration is maintained during that time.

So here is my question: From all the Bibles in history, which one is the 7th edition in a line of Bibles that originate from an identical set of base manuscripts?

In order to answer that question you have to be familiar with the main text streams in exisitence, i.e. a) Alexandria,Egypt, b) Antioch, Syria c) dead sea scrolls


ok smilies respond to abc's - not part of my post, except this one:

DaDad said:

Hi Wormwood,

I have a question for you in this regard:


In most translations, Daniel 9:25 cites "seven and sixty-two" to an anointed one, as though it were the value of ~sixty-nine~.

NKJV

25 “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street[c] shall be built again, and the wall,[d] even in troublesome times. 26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;


Newton says this does "violence" to scripture, "a way of numbering used by no nation".



However, the RSV says "seven" to an anointed one, and then a second time span of "sixty-two" to a second anointed one.

RSV
25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing;



Which text is authentic?



With Best Regards,
DaDad

Click to expand...

Hi All,

I'd still like to know whether the KJV (which many regard as "inspired") or the RSV correctly reflects the original text.


Thanks,
DaDad

Wormwood said:

It wasn't there for the first 500 years of the church (over twice as long as the United States of America has been in existence)...therefore it has been added. The tampering was done hundreds of years after John lived. We have tons of documents on John's Gospel that predate the 6th century and NONE of them contain this passage. Moreover, early church leaders never reference the passage in their comments on John's Gospel. When it is referenced much later in history, early writers say it was not part of John's Gospel. The evidence is so overwhelming it is comparable to me trying to convince you the world is round. I cant help you if you don't want to examine the evidence.

Let's see. You say John 8:1-11 wasn't there for the first 500 years of the church. How old are the oldest manuscripts that have the complete Gospel of John?

Quantrill

Click to expand...

Wormwood

I would ask that a moderator would delete my last post as it got mixed in with wormowoods.

My last question to wormwood still stands.

You say John 8:1-11 wasn't there for the first 500 years of the church. How old are the oldest manuscripts that have the complete Gospel of John?

Quantrill

Tropical -
First, the purpose of that psalm is not to argue that the AV translation done 3,000 years later is the most pure translation of the Bible. The claim is about a foreign from the author's intent as one could imagine. Second, even if this WAS what the verse means (which its not) it is highly convenient to argue that the AV translation is the "seventh" translation...as if there were seven major translation efforts that took place uniformly through history. This is simply not the case. Its a bit of historical revision to argue for a position one has already determined to be true. Its amazing to me that one could think that God has determined the most pure form of his world would not come about until it was written in the King's English a millennium and a half after the original writings of the NT. The Bible clearly states that the authors of Scripture wrote as they were "carried along" by the Holy Spirit. There is no verse that says translators translated that message in an inspired fashion. I think the discrepancies in translations make this evident.

Quantril,

P66 dates back to 200AD. P75 contains John 1-15 and dates back to early third century as well. Both are pretty much complete texts on John and neither has the passage in question.

DaDad,

Sorry for the delay...working on your response now...

DaDad,

Unfortunately, Hebrew is not my strong suit. I only know enough to get me in trouble. I did a little research on translations and commentators and it seems there is a split here. Some argue that the 70 weeks is split into two groups in the Hebrew language, 7 weeks (sevens) and 62 weeks (sevens). They claim it is worded this way to indicate something significant happening at the end of the first seven sevens (the building of Jerusalem) and then the coming of the Anointed One after the 69 sevens.

Others argue that there are two anointed ones mentioned in the passage and the first seven weeks indicates the coming of an anointed one (possibly the High Priest Jeshua as a foreshadowing of Christ) and then another anointed one coming after the sixty two weeks...Jesus.

Again, I am not fluent in Hebrew so I have to defer to the scholars on this one. Since there seems to be a pretty even split on how this is translated and discussed, it seems the Hebrew is fairly vague. I don't think I would be comfortable saying either is definitely mistranslated. Both are probably trying to provide a little more clarity on a vague Hebrew expression. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Wormwood said:

DaDad,

Unfortunately, Hebrew is not my strong suit. I only know enough to get me in trouble. I did a little research on translations and commentators and it seems there is a split here. Some argue that the 70 weeks is split into two groups in the Hebrew language, 7 weeks (sevens) and 62 weeks (sevens). They claim it is worded this way to indicate something significant happening at the end of the first seven sevens (the building of Jerusalem) and then the coming of the Anointed One after the 69 sevens.

Others argue that there are two anointed ones mentioned in the passage and the first seven weeks indicates the coming of an anointed one (possibly the High Priest Jeshua as a foreshadowing of Christ) and then another anointed one coming after the sixty two weeks...Jesus.

Again, I am not fluent in Hebrew so I have to defer to the scholars on this one. Since there seems to be a pretty even split on how this is translated and discussed, it seems the Hebrew is fairly vague. I don't think I would be comfortable saying either is definitely mistranslated. Both are probably trying to provide a little more clarity on a vague Hebrew expression. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Click to expand...

Hi Wormwood,

Thanks for the note back. If it helps, please allow me to provide an honest (and correct) assessment of this chapter by Montgomery:


The history of the exegesis of the 70 Weeks is the Dismal Swamp of O. T. criticism. The difficulties that beset any "rationalistic" treatment of the figures are great enough, but the critics on this side of the fence do not agree among themselves; but the trackless wilderness of assumptions and theories and efforts to obtain an exact chronology fitting into the the history of Salvation, after these 2,000 years of infinitely varied interpretations, would seem to preclude any use of the 70 Weeks for the determination of a definite prophetic chronology. ... "

John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 217


In this light, one could question the veracity of ALL the commentators which ignored the Angelic instructions from Daniel 12:


"... 4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. ..."
...
9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. ..."


So I would propose that NONE of the opinions which you cite are correct. As Newton demonstrated, one would be well served to admit defeat for ancient fulfillments. But the question is whether there is a modern fulfillment, -- exactly as the Angel prescribed.


With Best Regards,
DaDad

DaDad,

Well, my view on this prophecy is probably quite different from most. I would argue that the 69 weeks ends at the arrival of Jesus (most commentators agree on this although they debate starting points for the "decree"). However, I do not believe that the final week is postponed until the "great tribulation." Rather, I think the final 3.5 years of the last week refers to Jesus' ministry and sacrifice that puts an end to sacrifice. Remember, Daniel's prophecy is not about the end of the world here. It is in regard to a time when God would, "finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place." I think Jesus accomplished all these things in at the cross. I think Revelation plays off the remaining half week metaphorically to refer to the time of trial and testing of the Church. Daniel is told to "seal up" the messages whereas in Revelation, the opposite directions are given to John. In Christ, the seals are open and the meaning of Daniels prophecies are realized.

Just my two cents.

Wormwood said:

DaDad,

... I would argue that the 69 weeks ends at the arrival of Jesus ...

Click to expand...

Hi Wormwood,

Not to belabor the point, but scholars disagree with virtually every point of the the "ancient" fulfillment premise. But if you are satisfied with what you don't know, (what Rumsfeld called unknown unknowns), then I won't pursue this any further. However if you might be interested in what Walvoord's experts say regarding these verses and words, then I would be glad to have that conversation.

And toward this, please be aware that Montgomery was correct in his assessment, as well as other sources, such as the New Bible Commentary: Revised:


“This prophesy of the seventy sevens is one of the most difficult in the entire OT, and although the interpretations are almost legion, we shall confine ourselves to the discussion of three which may be regarded as of particular importance.”[SIZE=8pt][1][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Note: According to the dictionary a legion consists of 3,000 to 6,000 foot soldiers, and 300 to 700 cavalry.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Guthrie, D., & J.A. Motyer, New Bible Commentary: Revised, Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1970, p. 699[/SIZE]


Toward this, one must understand that the commentators DO NOT have a solution, they can only present an explanation with the fewest problems. So if you like buying a new car for which the engine doesn't run, or the transmission doesn't work, or the body panels aren't bolted on, or the paint is already peeling, then that's YOUR choice. As for me, I prefer a car which is built and performs as advertised. And I encourage others to enjoy the same.


With Best Regards,
DD

Wormwood

If you only have parts of John from 3rd century on, then you can't say John 8:1-11 wasn't there for the first 500 years of the Church. Pretty much complete means not complete. Therefore it can just as easily be said that John 8:1-11 was there but was removed by some well meaning scribe.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown though recognizing the critics evidence against John 8, say: " Of the four most ancient MSS. which want this Secdtion, the leaves of two at this place have been lost--of A, from ch.vi, 50 to vii 52, and of C, from ch. vii 3 to vii, 33. We have therefore no certainity whether those MSS. contained it or not......But it is found in seven Uncial MSS, ....it is found in above three hundred of the Cursive MSS. without any note of question, and above 50 more with and asterisk or other mark of doubt." (A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, vol.3, p. 401)

And, the external evidence is not the only evidence to consider. Wouldn't you agree. And without John 8:1-11, verse 12 does not fit.

Quantrill

DaDad,

You will need to explain this statement more clearly for me.

Not to belabor the point, but scholars disagree with virtually every point of the the "ancient" fulfillment premise

Click to expand...

Are you saying that most scholars disagree that the 69 weeks lead to Jesus? I don't know if I would agree with that. However, I do agree that most evangelical scholars today believe the final week is related to the last 7 years before the return of Jesus, which I would not accept. Anyway, you will have to explain that sentence for me.

Toward this, one must understand that the commentators DO NOT have a solution, they can only present an explanation with the fewest problems. So if you like buying a new car for which the engine doesn't run, or the transmission doesn't work, or the body panels aren't bolted on, or the paint is already peeling, then that's YOUR choice. As for me, I prefer a car which is built and performs as advertised. And I encourage others to enjoy the same.

Click to expand...

You may also need to clarify this for me. I agree that the interpretations are legion on this passage and there is a lot of debate on the issue. However, this statement makes it sound like you have the right interpretation amongst the myriad of scholars who all are driving around interpretations that are seriously flawed. I think every person who writes on this issue feels their interpretation is the right one or they wouldn't bother to waste the paper and ink. I don't think anyone CHOOSES to interpret scripture poorly. Wouldn't you agree? What is it about your view that makes it so clearly the unflawed and perfect interpretation...if that is what you are getting at?

Quantrill,

interesting, because those same authors also say, "This whole narrative is wanting in some of the earliest and most valuable manuscripts, and those which have it vary to some extent." They may have had a "theory" as to why it was missing, but they also lived in the mid 1800's. We have tons more textual evidence today than they had then. I assure you that the evidence does not point to a couple early documents that may have been missing this section.

Just about every modern scholar who looks at our present wealth of textual evidence makes the same conclusion on this section...

[SIZE=medium]This passage was doubtless not an original part of the Gospel of John, and for that reason TEV places it in brackets. Several other translations also do so, or else place the entire passage in a marginal note. It is not found in the earlier and better Greek manuscripts, it differs in style and vocabulary from the rest of John’s Gospel, and it interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12 and following.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on the Gospel of John, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 257.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

[SIZE=medium] 1. Many of the oldest and best manuscripts of John do not have this text and proceed seamlessly from 7:52 to 8:12.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] 2. Among those manuscripts that do have 7:53–8:11, some have it at different locations, including after 7:36, after 7:44, after 21:25, or even after Luke 21:38.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] 3. Thematically it seems out of place in John. There is no other place in John where the topic of adultery or sexual sin comes up. In general “sin” in John is not so much behavioral but much more the general attitude of unbelief (cf. John 16:8–9).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] 4. The vocabulary of this passage is very unlike the rest of the book. About 9% of the words do not occur elsewhere in John. This is quite a high percentage for John, where the vocabulary tends to be repetitious and limited. Of the 15 non-Johannine words, four are not found elsewhere in the New Testament.5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] 5. Stylistically, leaving out this section does no damage to the flow of the text. If we read from the end of 7:52 and go immediately to 8:12, it merely seems that Jesus is continuing his public discussions during the Feast of Tabernacles. A more subjective side to this is that the style seems somewhat unlike John, and more like that of the Synoptic Gospel authors.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]For these and other reasons, most scholars agree that the story of the woman caught in adultery was not part of the Fourth Gospel as it came from the hand of the author.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Beauford H. Bryant and Mark S. Krause, John, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co., 1998), Jn 7:53–8:11.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

[SIZE=medium]Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges to prove that this narrative was originally part of John’s Gospel, the evidence is against him, and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (NIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV). These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative, not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it here (i.e. at 7:53–8:11), some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and other witnesses variously place it after John 7:44, John 7:36 or John 21:25. The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the material is authentic, it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: there are numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular (cf. notes, below).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; W.B. Eerdmans, 1991), 333[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

[SIZE=medium]As is widely recognized, the status of the pericope of the adulterous woman in 7:53–8:11 as an original part of John’s Gospel is highly in doubt. Virtually all translations (for good reasons, as will be seen) place the passage in square brackets, indicating probable noninclusion in the original Gospel. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 245..[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

[SIZE=medium]This little pericope is one of the great jewels of Christian Scripture. But as I indicated earlier, I have not set it in my commentary at the usual place where it appears in our English Bibles for several reasons. In the first place, it disrupts the logic of the Johannine Tabernacles argument. In the second place, from all that I can determine, it is hardly Johannine in style or form. In the third place, in the history of the transmission of our New Testament documents, it is from my perspective a text looking for a context.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Gerald L. Borchert, vol. 25A, John 1–11, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 369.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Wormwood said:

Are you saying that most scholars disagree that the 69 weeks lead to Jesus? I don't know if I would agree with that. However, I do agree that most evangelical scholars today believe the final week is related to the last 7 years before the return of Jesus, which I would not accept. Anyway, you will have to explain that sentence for me.


You may also need to clarify this for me. I agree that the interpretations are legion on this passage and there is a lot of debate on the issue. However, this statement makes it sound like you have the right interpretation amongst the myriad of scholars who all are driving around interpretations that are seriously flawed. I think every person who writes on this issue feels their interpretation is the right one or they wouldn't bother to waste the paper and ink. I don't think anyone CHOOSES to interpret scripture poorly. Wouldn't you agree? What is it about your view that makes it so clearly the unflawed and perfect interpretation...if that is what you are getting at?

Click to expand...

Hi Wormwood,

Thanks for the opportunity to more fully explain a few more of the scholars observations.

You ask whether the 69 ends at Jesus. I would merely suggest that if a "navigator" says to first drive North, and the line on the map shows the road to the south, it doesn't make any difference from that point what the navigator says!

So here's the first driving direction:

1. [SIZE=12pt]Per Young, regarding "the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem": "This phrase has reference to the issuance of the word, not from a Persian ruler but from God." , [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]John Wolvoord, "Daniel, The Key to Prophetic Revelation", Moody Press, Chicago, 1971, p. 224 [/SIZE]


Given the above, please be aware that Young perceives the significance of the text, but cannot resolve a solution, -- therefore, I would suggest that he has no hidden agenda. However, others ignore this aspect, as ascribe the dictate to a Medo/Persian King, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY ARRIVED TO A JESUS FULFILLMENT.


And to add more food for thought:

2. Regarding Dan. 9:2 where Daniel "perceived in the books", everyone treats this as though Daniel read the Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 25. This might be true if Daniel used the word shama, which is analogous to reading a newspaper. However, Daniel used the word biyn which is the application of "Solomon" wisdom. -- (Please read 1 Kings 3, where Solomon asks for shama to understand the needs of the people. And GOD promised HE would give him what he asked for, BUT HE DIDN'T. Instead GOD gave him such biyn that no man before him and no man after him shall have such wisdom.)

So the question is: Where in the "books" can we use Solomon wisdom find the "[SIZE=12pt]the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem[/SIZE]"? -- It's in the Psalms.


One can consider the implications set forth in the book "Hidden Prophecies in the Psalms", by J.R. Church. In this, he proposes that the Psalms is the 91th Book of the Bible, and is prophetic to the Jews for the 1900's, Chapter for year, such that Book 19, Chapter 48 = 1948, which prescribes the international recognition of the nation of Israel. Of course several years stand out as significant including Book 19, Chapter 44, where verses 11 & 22 depict the holocaust; or Book 19 Chapter 91 depicts Desert Storm; etc.


If you are interested, I would be more than happy to walk through ALL the aspects of this 9th Chapter, but possibly we could start this as a new topic.


With Best Regards,
DD

Wormwood said:

DaDad,

You will need to explain this statement more clearly for me.


Are you saying that most scholars disagree that the 69 weeks lead to Jesus? I don't know if I would agree with that. However, I do agree that most evangelical scholars today believe the final week is related to the last 7 years before the return of Jesus, which I would not accept. Anyway, you will have to explain that sentence for me.


You may also need to clarify this for me. I agree that the interpretations are legion on this passage and there is a lot of debate on the issue. However, this statement makes it sound like you have the right interpretation amongst the myriad of scholars who all are driving around interpretations that are seriously flawed. I think every person who writes on this issue feels their interpretation is the right one or they wouldn't bother to waste the paper and ink. I don't think anyone CHOOSES to interpret scripture poorly. Wouldn't you agree? What is it about your view that makes it so clearly the unflawed and perfect interpretation...if that is what you are getting at?

Quantrill,

interesting, because those same authors also say, "This whole narrative is wanting in some of the earliest and most valuable manuscripts, and those which have it vary to some extent." They may have had a "theory" as to why it was missing, but they also lived in the mid 1800's. We have tons more textual evidence today than they had then. I assure you that the evidence does not point to a couple early documents that may have been missing this section.

Just about every modern scholar who looks at our present wealth of textual evidence makes the same conclusion on this section...

Click to expand...

Well, as I said, you cannot vouch for the absences of John 8:1-11 for the first 500 years of the Church. The manuscripts we have and the pieces of writings we have are not sufficient in age and amount for you or others to say that. Based on what critics say now, then it is not to be allowed. But it is already there. And there is no proof of anyone adding it. It is not found in the oldest that we have, but it is found. And they got it from somewhere.

There was plenty of evidence in Jamison, Fausset, and Browns day to say the same as you do. They recognized the evidence but still said that it belongs there. " On the whole, thouigh we admit the difficulties with which this question is encompassed, as the narrative itself bears that stamp of originality, truth, purity, and grandeur which accord so well with its place in the Gospel History, so the fact, that wherever it is found it is as part of the Fourth Gospel, and among the transactions of the Feast of Tabernacles, is to us the best proof that this is, after all, its true place in the Gospel History;". ( A Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, vol.3, p401)

Plus as was mentioned, with out these Scriptrues , 8:12 makes no sense. With this story, it flows naturally. Because it is part of the Bible.

Modern 'scholars' are a dime a dozen. They are like the evolutionist scientist who must accept evolution, because, who as a 'scientist' would disagree.

Quantrill