Jump to content

The sentimental original Bible manuscripts?


Guest acorn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest acorn

Is the original manuscripts of the Bible like a sentimental possesion that has been passed down for protection?Care through the years? Untampered with?

 

Is this hypothetical reasoning, proof that it hasn't been corrupted?

 

 

Opinions wanted :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  IsAre the original manuscripts of the Bible  like a sentimental possesion that has been passed down for protection?Care through the years? Untampered with?

 

Is this hypothetical reasoning, proof that it hasn't been corrupted?

Opinions wanted :grin:

 

I'm have a bit of a hard time getting any reasoning at all out of this.

 

I'm supposing that you mean if the originals existed, would that be proof that the text was not corrupted?

 

The fact that the extant copies are not in complete agreement with each other is an indication that what we have is corrupt whether or not the originals existed. If the originals existed then you could know to what extent that what we have is corrupted, ie changed from the original. If the originals existed it would not add to their veracity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, Acorn, your question as you phrased it is incoherent. Second, there are no autograph manuscripts of the Bible or of any other work of ancient literature. The science of textual criticism concerns itself with the problem of determining, from comparison of errors in the extant manuscripts and use of conjecture, what the original writers must have written. Papyrus is not a durable material. The only major papyrus fragments of any length of an ancient author are partial texts of the comedies of Menander and a work by Aristotle. The oldest copies in extenso of the NT are parchment manuscripts at their oldest 4th century A.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they ever existed, they were rolled and smoked up with some of that fine lebanonese hash centuries ago...

 

Reason piss poor copies exist now is that the cats didn't want to scorch lungs lighting up a *wholly ghost experience* with bum papers..

 

Heard that shit takes the edge off the potent chemicals, and one can't find the goHdZ so easily...

 

n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well...you are assuming that it was never "tampered with" but...Council of Nicea decided which Gospels went in (Matthew Mark Luke and John) and which ones didn`t (Thomas ,Phillip ,Mary Magdelene,Barnabas etc)

 

and then there was Scottish Jimmy aka Queen James (for his same sex daliances) aka King James VI of Scotland (or King James I of England) who wanted a modern translation to fit his religious (Protestant) views

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Is the original manuscripts of the Bible  like a sentimental possesion that has been passed down for protection?Care through the years? Untampered with?

 

Nope. Study the how the doctrine of eternal hell came about (rarely anyone ever touches the subject) and you'll see why. Lot's of other little things here and there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that the text of the Bible has been substantially tampered with is false.

 

Up until the 1950's the oldest copy we had of the Scriptures was about a thousand years old. Skeptics were hootin' and hollaring about all the supposed changes made to the text through Medieval times and yet after the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls (which pushed the oldest texts back to before Medieval times) it was found the text is essentially unchanged.

 

The best evidence we have is that the text is largely unchanged (1), the pathetic appeal to ignorance, nothwithstanding.

 

 

 

 

--------------------

NOTES:

1: There are scribal errors, and variants, but little of significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well...you are assuming that it was never "tampered with" but...Council of Nicea decided which Gospels went in (Matthew Mark Luke and John) and which ones didn`t (Thomas ,Phillip ,Mary Magdelene,Barnabas etc)

 

I don't know why people find this unusual.

On one hand Christians are criticized for believing something merely because it was written down and on the other they are criticized for showing some discernment. The textual evidence for many of those spurious gospels puts them very late and the teachings they contain are indicative of early heresy well known by the church.

 

I suppose if someone would have slapped a copy of 'Spider Man' on the table at the Council of Nicea that if it weren't included the council would still be suspect?

 

and then there was Scottish Jimmy aka Queen James (for his same sex daliances) aka King James VI of Scotland (or King James I of England) who wanted a modern translation to fit his religious (Protestant)  views

 

We can compare this translation with older manuscripts and find little to be concerned about. Furthermore, I find your appeal to his homosexuality, as a means to discredit his efforts, to be offensive. :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Is the original manuscripts of the Bible  like a sentimental possesion that has been passed down for protection?Care through the years? Untampered with?

 

Is this hypothetical reasoning, proof that it hasn't been corrupted?

Opinions wanted :grin:

 

In sentimentality is what the holder say, because in truth their leavings will not tamper. Through many years are one thing, but protection behind is all said by many. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, I find your appeal to his homosexuality, as a means to discredit his efforts, to be offensive.  :scratch:

Agreed. For the record, King James I being identified as a homosexual is a matter of conjecture, remains questionable and is still in debate. Regardless of his sexual preference or habits, he had no input in the translation work of the text of the Bible which bears his name, so his sexual proclivities are irrelevant.

 

Despite the somewhat homophobic tone of author Stephen A. Coston, King James, Unjustly Accused? seems to be a well documented, well researched historical piece. It is available through some Christian websites. Though I found it to be on the boring side, it was still quite informative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Son of Belial

Let's assume, then, that Gerbil is right. Let's assume the oldest texts match PERFECTLY with the modern translations in every regard.

 

Do they still contain talking snakes and donkeys, worldwide floods, failed prophecies? Does it still contain the story of two twins, one of whom sticks his hand out of his mother first, but is born second(impossible)?

 

Yes?

 

Then whether the oldest texts are in agreement with the modern ones or not is irrelevant. It's still all bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's assume, then, that Gerbil is right. Let's assume the oldest texts match PERFECTLY with the modern translations in every regard.

 

Do they still contain talking snakes and donkeys, worldwide floods, failed prophecies? Does it still contain the story of two twins, one of whom sticks his hand out of his mother first, but is born second(impossible)?

 

Yes?

 

Then whether the oldest texts are in agreement with the modern ones or not is irrelevant. It's still all bullshit.

 

I respect your opinion -- I really do.

It makes sense to me to reject the Scriptures because you find them incredible or you simply don't want to believe them.

 

What doesn't make sense is to claim there have been substantial changes to the text when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise.

 

Your approach is open, straight to the point, and honest.

 

----------------------------------

 

Important Aside:

Some who claim textual corruption are battling the KJV only crowd. In those instances, the claims people make here about textual variance become very legitimate objections because at that point the Dead Sea Scrolls actually harm the KJV only position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The oldest copies in extenso of the NT are parchment manuscripts at their oldest 4th century A.D.

 

This is only true for complete books. There are a good number of manuscript fragments (small ones) going back to as early as ~120 CE (with the usual couple-of-decades margin of error).

 

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well...you are assuming that it was never "tampered with" but...Council of Nicea decided which Gospels went in (Matthew Mark Luke and John) and which ones didn`t (Thomas ,Phillip ,Mary Magdelene,Barnabas etc)

 

The council of Nicea did not vote on the Canon. They voted on the diety/humanity of Christ and on the Trinity. The "Four Gospels" tradition is recorded as early as Irenaeus in the late 2nd century, with the rationale that there is one gospel for each wind (North, South, East, West).

 

Assertions like that lovely bit of disinformation makes us freethinkers look pretty stupid.

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that the text of the Bible has been substantially tampered with is false.

 

Up until the 1950's the oldest copy we had of the Scriptures was about a thousand years old.  Skeptics were hootin' and hollaring about all the supposed changes made to the text through Medieval times and yet after the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls (which pushed the oldest texts back to before Medieval times) it was found the text is essentially unchanged.

 

The best evidence we have is that the text is largely unchanged (1), the pathetic appeal to ignorance, nothwithstanding.

--------------------

NOTES:

1: There are scribal errors, and variants, but little of significance.

 

There are several important doctrinal differences in the OT books found at Qumran and the Masoretic Text used by all modern Bible Translations - particularly bearing on ancient Hebrew paganism and so-called "prophecies." There are NO New Testament books in the Qumran collection.

 

There are doctrinally significant variations in the thousands of manuscripts that are averaged together - differences in Jesus' teaching on miracles, healing, faith, differences in grammar that implies different translations on passages traditionally translated as referencing homosexuality and "licentiousness." If you are interested in SEEING where the translators make their pick instead of taking their word for "nothing doctrinally significant" get a couple transations that have in-depth translators notes (like the New English Translation and the Jerusalem Bible) and read them side by side with Metzger's Greek text. The apologetic dodge about "nothing doctrinally significant" being changed is a bald-faced lie, and is used because it is true insofar as none of the variants (as far as I know) question the diety of Christ. But that's ONE doctrine of a whole raft of them that make up Christianity.

 

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  The apologetic dodge about "nothing doctrinally significant" being changed is a bald-faced lie, and is used because it is true insofar as none of the variants (as far as I know) question the diety of Christ.  But that's ONE doctrine of a whole raft of them that make up Christianity.

 

-Lokmer

 

In order to facilitate meaningful discussion I think it is important to point out that I'm sharing my understanding of the textual evidence. I'm not lying about anything here -- which is to say, I'm not aware of huge textual differences and hiding that fact in order to reconvert someone here.

 

Since you seem to be aware of major doctrines that were manufactured in later copies of the texts I'd invite you to share them here -- along with appropriate documentation. Please show both variants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The apologetic dodge about "nothing doctrinally significant" being changed is a bald-faced lie, and is used because it is true insofar as none of the variants (as far as I know) question the diety of Christ.  But that's ONE doctrine of a whole raft of them that make up Christianity.

 

-Lokmer

Right you are. One word can make a big difference. Doctrinally, Paul taught on dying to self and being empowered, led, controlled, filled, etc... by the Holy Spirit. In the well-known fruit of the Spirit passage of Galations 5:22-23, modern Bible translations use the term, "self-control" where the King James translators chose the word, temperance. It's not just a minor argument of semantics that comes from such variance, but this doctrinally undermines the integrity of the Bible, where there is such incongruence. Self-control is not what Christ taught either, but rather Spirit-control. That's a big doctrinal difference in just one word/term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to facilitate meaningful discussion I think it is important to point out that I'm sharing my understanding of the textual evidence.  I'm not lying about anything here -- which is to say, I'm not aware of huge textual differences and hiding that fact in order to reconvert someone here.

 

Since you seem to be aware of major doctrines that were manufactured in later copies of the texts I'd invite you to share them here -- along with appropriate documentation.  Please show both variants.

 

I wasn't accusing you of lying, Mad_Gerbil, but of unknowingly repeating a lie.

 

The first textual variant that pops to mind is the long ending of Mark, and the last chapter of John (where authorship is claimed by the Apostle John).

 

I'll post more of them as I have time to look them up.

 

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't accusing you of lying, Mad_Gerbil, but of unknowingly repeating a lie.

 

The first textual variant that pops to mind is the long ending of Mark, and the last chapter of John (where authorship is claimed by the Apostle John).

 

I'll post more of them as I have time to look them up.

 

-Lokmer

 

While I'd agree those are variants, they are doctrinely insignificant aren't they?

 

This is a case of it being problematic for a KJV only adherent, but I've no problem with these sorts of things.

 

Take your time - no rush. I'm so busy it might be 2 days before I can respond again. :wicked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'd agree those are variants, they are doctrinely insignificant aren't they?

 

This is a case of it being problematic for a KJV only adherent, but I've no problem with these sorts of things.

 

Are they? The long ending of John is the basis for the claim of apostolic authorship of the Gospel of John, which serves as one of the major underpinnings of the notion of biblical authority. The long ending of Mark contains the resurrection story - otherwise not present in Mark (the oldest gospel). It also contains the promise (a promise of GOD!!!!) that the faithful followers of Jesus will work miracles (a claim found nowhere else but in the now-suspect-authorship gospel of John). Both of those are VERY doctrinally significant, as removing them removes support for two extremely important doctrines: Apostolic Authorship of the New Testament, and the Physical Resurrection.

 

--------------

 

And, I must ask, why did you blow off Reach like that? The difference between temperence and self-control is doctrinally significant - and the surviving Greek in that passage IS variant (it's not just a change in English usage), so you have two-fold textual tampering on something that's doctrinally VERY significant: once (at least) in the greek, and then again when translated they select the greek and the translation to fit a particular doctrinal agenda rather than letting the text speak for itself.

 

It's very irritating and more than a bit upsetting to watch you habitually give less weight to the words of our female members - Christian and not - than you do to even the most wacky male members here.

-Lokmer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lokmer to Mad Gerbil:

And, I must ask, why did you blow off Reach like that?  The difference between temperence and self-control is doctrinally significant - and the surviving Greek in that passage IS variant (it's not just a change in English usage), so you have two-fold textual tampering on something that's doctrinally VERY significant: once (at least) in the greek, and then again when translated they select the greek and the translation to fit a particular doctrinal agenda rather than letting the text speak for itself.

 

It's very irritating and more than  a bit upsetting to watch you habitually give less weight to the words of our female members - Christian and not - than you do to even the most wacky male members here.

-Lokmer

Thank you for noticing Mad Gerbil's rudeness, Lokmer. This is why I generally avoid any attempt at interaction with Gerbil (and those of his ilk who systematically treat women like they are inferior to men). It is highly offensive and ignorant but worse than that, it exposes an ugliness at the core, a cancer that Christianity should have cured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.