Is our Bible of 66 Books, the inerrant Word of God?
- Thread starter StanJ
- 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!
Stan, even if you want to assume that a 1th century carpenter’s son from Galilee was multilingual, His audience certainly was not. So of course Jesus preached in Aramaic. Aside from the few Aramaic insertions, what we find in the gospels aren’t Jesus’ actual words, but what people memorized of His teachings, translated into GreekStanJ said:
Mind you, this isn’t a ‘liberal’ viewpoint. Go check it out with Daniel Wallace, whom you respect as a scholar. I'd be very surprised if he did not agree.
Stranger, please! We’ve got about 2000 manuscripts/fragments of the Septuagint. It’s contained in the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. You can go and see these manuscripts for yourself in the Vatican Library, the British Library, the British Museum, the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem…Stranger said:
NO if it was you and all teh rest of christiantiy woudl be walking in agreement and in truth for it would be impossible to do anything else. And again the bible does not say it is the word of God is declares that Jesus is, WHY dont tyou listen to Him. 1000 different denominations based upon the bible cant all be wrong can they.
You used the word "study" I said interpret!!Stranger said:
Baptism is interpreted and practiced in many different ways and all based on the same bible verses:
1. Some believe scripture doesn't say it saves you. Others believe it does save. (1 Peter 3:21)
2. Some believe it does not wash away sins. Others believe it does. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)
3. Some believe that baptism did not replace circumcision and infants/children should not be baptized. Others believe opposite. (Col. 2:11-12) (Acts 16:33, 18:8)
4. Some believe that one has to be immersed in water to receive a valid baptism. Others do not believe in immersion only for a valid baptism since scripture does not say immersion only.(Matthew 3:16)
5. Some see it as a symbolic or public display of your acceptance of Jesus. Others believe it actually does something to you and it is necessary.
So, as you can plainly see, what you believe and what is reality are two different things.
So I ask you again: If 5 believers interpret scripture 5 different ways how do you know who interpreted correctly?
junobet
There is nothing to indicate that these are from a so called 'Septuagint'. And these are only 4th and 5th century manuscripts. Are they not? What makes them a 'Septuagint'? What makes the Septuagint existent before Christ?
Stranger
There is nothing to indicate that these are from a so called 'Septuagint'. And these are only 4th and 5th century manuscripts. Are they not? What makes them a 'Septuagint'? What makes the Septuagint existent before Christ?
Stranger
You said: The one who is right is the one who is true to the Scripture.Stranger said:
So which one is right and how do you know which one is being true to scripture?
My question is still not answered: If 5 believers interpret scripture 5 different ways how do you know who interpreted correctly?
Because He did, not because the bible says so, but because He did. Its like a hungry man who goes into a shop for something to eat, picks up a menu, stands and reads about all the wonderful delicacies he has to pick from, but never goes to the counter to ask for food,and so remains hungry and it is with the bible christians read it every day, yet they wont do the one thing that it says to do, go to Christ so they can have life,.. Have you not ever wondered why he said He is the bread of life???? But like the foolish virgins who wouldnt go to the market to get oil, christians wont go to Jesus so He can feed them. What was it He said to Peter. "feed my sheep".
But men are carnal and teh carnal mind cannot understand teh things of God.
My faith is in God not a book.
First of all, may I remind you of John 1 again: nothing was existent before Christ, not even the Bible or any of its versions and translations, including the Masoretic text or the Septuagint.Stranger said:
That said:
The oldest fragments of the Septuaginta we have are from the 2th century BC.
The oldest fragment that we have of the Gospel of John is Papyrus P52, dated at around 100-150 AD. So as for your question what makes such manuscripts a ‘Septuagint’: Seeing that the pericope of Jesus and the adulteress (John 8:1-11) doesn’t show up in any its earliest textual witnesses, you may as well ask what makes the Gospel of John the Gospel of John.
The oldest still existing codices (originally) containing the entire Bible with (pretty much) all the Books of our Canon(s) in them, are also ‘only’ from the 4th and fifth century. They are the very Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus that I already mentioned as containing the Septuagint. So as a ‘bible-believing’ Christian you may want to be a bit more careful with your criteria, otherwise you risk cutting the bow you are sitting on.
However, should you ever come across skeptics/atheists who tease you about the Bible’s oldest copies being rather ‘young’, tell them that the oldest manuscript we have for the writings of Tacitus is from the 9th century, and yet they’d never doubt the reliability of such secular textual transmission http://ho-logos.blogspot.de/2009/02/canon-textual-criticism-and-more-with.html
Not that I’m a massive nerd in the field of textual criticism myself, Stranger, in fact if anything I’m the proverbial one-eyed man here. But I really wonder why it is that so many Christians who pride themselves to be the most ‘bible-believing’ are apparently utterly uncurious concerning the question how its texts got to us in the first place.
Stranger said:
We do have Koine Greek manuscripts that were obtained from the dead sea scrolls.
What made the fragment a supposed piece of the 'Septuagint'?junobet said:First of all, may I remind you of John 1 again: nothing was existent before Christ, not even the Bible or any of its versions and translations, including the Masoretic text or the Septuagint.
That said:
The oldest fragments of the Septuaginta we have are from the 2th century BC.
The oldest fragment that we have of the Gospel of John is Papyrus P52, dated at around 100-150 AD. So as for your question what makes such manuscripts a ‘Septuagint’: Seeing that the pericope of Jesus and the adulteress (John 8:1-11) doesn’t show up in any its earliest textual witnesses, you may as well ask what makes the Gospel of John the Gospel of John.
The oldest still existing codices (originally) containing the entire Bible with (pretty much) all the Books of our Canon(s) in them, are also ‘only’ from the 4th and fifth century. They are the very Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Alexandrinus that I already mentioned as containing the Septuagint. So as a ‘bible-believing’ Christian you may want to be a bit more careful with your criteria, otherwise you risk cutting the bow you are sitting on.
However, should you ever come across skeptics/atheists who tease you about the Bible’s oldest copies being rather ‘young’, tell them that the oldest manuscript we have for the writings of Tacitus is from the 9th century, and yet they’d never doubt the reliability of such secular textual transmission http://ho-logos.blogspot.de/2009/02/canon-textual-criticism-and-more-with.html
Not that I’m a massive nerd in the field of textual criticism myself, Stranger, in fact if anything I’m the proverbial one-eyed man here. But I really wonder why it is that so many Christians who pride themselves to be the most ‘bible-believing’ are apparently utterly uncurious concerning the question how its texts got to us in the first place.
How do you know these oldest codices contain the Septuagint? And these manuscripts are only 4th and 5th century. Is there something or someone who says this is the Septuagint? The Septuagint, as the story goes, must exist before Christ. Else He can't quote from it. Yet the story of the Septuagint is proven to be a fraud. Don't you agree?
A side note....It is easier then some think to cut off a limb that your standing on. Literally. I have done it with a chain saw before, so, I won't be surprised if I do it on theological grounds also.
I am not uncurious. I am very curious about how we got our Bible.
Stranger
The LXX is a collection of Koine Greek scrolls.Stranger said:
Unless you want to split hairs on the origin of them, those scrolls are part of the LXX. There are some changes from later Koine Greek manuscripts.
No the one who is right is God , Jesus and the Holy Spirit for they are all in agreement, and we are only right when we agree with them.
Because he did. Do you think someone needs to read the bible to know God?? Lots of people know the bible very few know God. Did you not know that God is the God of the living and that Jesus is the"living" word. So why dot you ask them, they do have a lot to say its just that few ask, i suppose its " you have not because you ask not". Dont need the bible I have Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit who are all true. why cant you comprehend that.
\Cant give you the answer you want will make me a liar. I gave you my answer.
Identify the 'said' Greek manuscripts or fragments found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are a Greek translation of the Old Testament.kerwin said:
Who said the LXXII is a collection of Greek scrolls? The story was that there were 72 Jews who translated the Old Tesatment into Greek. So, why is it a collection of Scrolls. It should be one item.
You bet, I don't mind splitting hairs. Who said any thing found written in Greek, if it was, is part of the Septuagint?
Stranger
Similar threads
