Do we have accurate copies of the Bible?

[Bible man]

An argument which is made repeatedly in these Great Debates, is the notion that the Bible can be, and has been changed numerous times throughout the centuries. The implication is that, even if it was originally a divine communication, it is now unreliable or corrupted. On that basis, some claim it can't be appealed to as the "Word of God" or innerrant, or inspired in the sense of coming directly from God's mouth to our ears.
In this thread I am undertaking with Tomndebb's assistance what might seem to some to be the Herculean task of proving (yes, proving) that changing a book, epistle, phrase, or a even word of the Bible has been, and will alway be, absolutely impossible. And this proof can even be demonstrated by anyone by using their own computer. I want to start the thread using a statment from one of tomndebb's (the moderator) recent posts. I recently posted a Bible quote and Tom challenged a word in the quote by saying:

" In the Greek, that phrase is:
"ou | gar | qelhmati | anqrwpou | hnecqh | pote | profhteia" (vB is not amenable to diacritical marks)
or
"not | for | by will | of man | was brought | ever | prophecy"
Every single extant version of the Greek manuscripts agree with this wording. (The Sinaiticus and some derivative texts change the order of pote profhteia to profhteia pote (which does not change k) and a single third century manuscript inserts the word "may be" before the phrase "ever prophecy." In other words, you are claiming that I have "an interpretation" that is false when you have deliberately changed what was written.
Now, you may feel you have ample reason to change the words of the passage, based on your beliefs from the word "prophecy" to the word "scripture," but you cannot claim that you have rendered the verse the way it was written and it is dishonest of you to make that claim. I am not reading some "commentary" or some "interpretation" I am reading the words that we have in every Greek manuscript available to us."

My premise in this thread is that the same appeal Tom made to our existing Bible manuscripts has existed from the instant that the very first copy of a book or epistle was created. It is done by simply comparing the copy with the original and verifying its accuracy. As more copies are created and distributed the original work becomes increasingly protected against change. Any variation from the original will be instantly exposed because of the existence and testimony of every accurate copy. When a mistake or change is introduced, the accurate copies reveal it instantly and Tom has quite eloquently shown how the process has worked for us from the very day of the original writing right up to our time. Further, while the original author of the writing was alive and copies were being produced and distributed, his personal testimony would also serve as a living and vocal witness against any mistakes or counterfeits. The writer's living witness and the increasing number of accurate copies serve, from the very first day the work was made public, to make any successful change virtually impossible. Further, this would hold true for almost any written work but is especially true for writings that are considered special or holy. Greater quantities of those works are made, and extra care is always devoted to them. Considering it a holy calling, some gave their entire lives to producing numerous, accurate copies of the Bible. Each copy produced and distributed provided more assurance that the original writer's work was protected from mistakes and counterfeits.

The proof of this can be performed at your own computer. When I posted my scripture quote, even I, the original writer, could never successfully retrieve it or change it, nor can anyone else. There were instantly thousands of copies in existence and no one can alter the original successfully. Although the ancient process of "posting" writings was slower than ours, the process was exactly the same. Further testimony about this process and the reliability of our Bibles was the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. These dated 10 centuries before any ancient manuscripts we had, and they are futher testimony that the copies of the Bible we have today remain unchanged from the original writings. The topic of translations and versions of the Bible is a related thread and should also be taken up in the future.

[Sam Stone]

I think the more likely argument you're going to hear on this board is that the first extant copies of the gospels we know of were written at least decades after the actual event, and therefore the accuracy of the very first copies as a transcription of what actually happened is already suspect.

[Jojo]

you're right that the discovery of the dead sea scrolls was a jaw-droppingly staggering thing, and I think that many people still haven't grasped the enormity of what was found in those caves at Qumran. I still have problems processing it in my head.

However you don't seem to address the fact that, in it's early years, the Old Testament was an oral tradition and was never intended to be written down. Back then, writing either didn't exist (not invented yet) or else was a rarified thing existing only in some places in the world and even then was only done by leaders (like pharoahs) on stone carvings etc.

Thus saying the bible is the inerrant word of God and arguing about exact translations is a bit iffy when it existed for hundreds (thousands?) of years merely in spoken form.

[Bible man]

I think the more likely argument you're going to hear on this board is that the first extant copies of the gospels we know of were written at least decades after the actual event, and therefore the accuracy of the very first copies as a transcription of what actually happened is already suspect.

No question that such creations like the Documentary Theory and Q (and possibly some other capital letters) will be brought up. Most who try to make those theories hold water just wind up holding an empty bag. I guess I'll just have to see if the thread gets some serious thoughts\discussions on the table. Most of those textual theories and arguing that a document must exist because of the way other documents were written is kind of like trying to jump on an imaginary airplane that's going to a non-existent island. Stay in touch with the thread if you have some further input, I probably won't make much commentary for awhile. There was a sudden death in the family today and I will probably be traveling.

[cosmosdan]

Bible Man I'm glad you're still here and willing to discuss. I do thinnk you missed a couple of key points.

1Even if we accept that the Bible is inspired where does it say that inspired equals inerrant? Keep in mind that since we're talking about God's will, Christian traition or individual reasoning isn't good enough. Is there anything within this book you consider inerrant to clearly indicate that inspiration equals inerrant?

2. What evidence do you have that it was ever the will of God that we have one final authoratative compilation of writings and then inspired writings would cease? Is there anyting in this inerrant book to indicate that?

3. What evidence is there that the books that are in the Bible are the right ones, or the only ones we should consider? There is evidence within the Bible itself that there are other writings we don't possess. How do we know they don't contain crucial information? If they were discovered would we value them or dismiss them.

4. Of all the writings available who decided which ones would be included and which ones would be left out?

For some of your arguement it will take someone with a lot more Biblical background than I to answer but I still have some concerns. Because of the other threads we weer discussing scripture in I started reading different versions on Bible Gateway{ an excellent site for bible study} I noticed that in different translations subtle word differences can make a big difference in meaning.

examples;
Philippians 2:5-7 (New International Version)
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very natureGod,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Philippians 2:5-7 (New King James Version)

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

In my opinion the difference between "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped"
and "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" could be fairly significant.

The point is that several scholars might not interpret the exact same manuscript in the same way, and a subtle word change might mean a major doctrinal change.

[Jojo]

Oh are you talking about the New Testament rather the the Old Testament? I thought you were referring to the bible as a whole. In any case the oral tradition thing still holds true even for the NT (in its first years). Jesus never told anyone to write anything down and most of his followers couldn't have written it down anyway, even if they'd wanted to, since most people were illiterate.

We've done all that Q stuff about a gazillion times but I suppose you can't search as a guest. Have you read the straight dope columns on who wrote the bible ("http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html)?

Sorry for the death in your family.

[Jojo]

Sorry, fixed link:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

[tomndebb]

In general, I would agree that there seem to be several people who have a mistaken notion of the provenance of the books that were accepted as scripture, with odd claims that they were each revised and even re-written over hundreds of years before being frozen in a corrupted form in the fourth century. I have, on several occasions, pointed out the errors of that idea along with the potentially corrective actions that we can find by comparing the existing Greek to Syriac, Coptic, Latin, and other translations that date back to the same early periods.

Unfortunately, you seem to go too far in claiming that "our existing Bible manuscripts [have] existed from the instant that the very first copy of a book or epistle was created." If this were true, we would not have all the polemics written regarding the Textus Receptus against the "challenges" of the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus and other majuscule texts. There are variants in the oldest copies we have of scripture. None of them are enough to justify a claim that the basic message has been changed and manipulated, but they are sufficient to indicate that we cannot claim to know with 100% certainty every word that had been written in the first century (for the New Testament) or earlier for the Hebrew Scriptures.

Regarding the latter, by the third century, C.E., several Jewish scholars reported inconsitencies and apparent corruptions in the Hebrew text. To address that issue, the Masoretes began a systematic attempt to create a perfect recension of the text, a task they completed by the tenth century. When the Qumran scrolls were discovered, comparisons showed that the Masoretes had done an outstanding job of creating a text that was nearly flawless when compared to the text that had existed 400 years before they began. Nearly. While many books are, line for line, identical to the Qumran scrolls, (Isaiah is, I believe, an example of such), there are several books in which entire passages differ, with the unanswered question being: did the Qumran community add to or delete from the "common" texts in order to provide special meanings for the (presumably Essene) theology or do the Qumran texts reveal the original texts that the Masoretes missed? (None of the disputed texts occur in any of the "major" works and none of the additional passages change Jewish theology in any significant way.)

So, while the idea that the "real" bible was "created by the church" in the fourth century is clearly false, it is no more accurate to pretend that we know exactly every word that was originally written in the books that were eventually accepted as scripture. Note that even when I challenged your substitution, I qualified it by pointing out that there were differences in the texts, but that none of the differences supported your substitution.

[ainigma]

bible man said
""My premise in this thread is that the same appeal Tom made to our existing Bible manuscripts has existed from the instant that the very first copy of a book or epistle was created.""



I find it strange that there is no proper psysical description of jesus in the NT, which might suggest that some editing might have taken place. The only description of jesus comes from the apocrypha, and the church will have nothing to do with those.

[Monty]

Slight hijack:

Back then, writing either didn't exist (not invented yet) or else was a rarified thing existing only in some places in the world and even then was only done by leaders (like pharoahs) on stone carvings etc.
Huh? There were a number of scripts around the world, most notably in that particular area, and the Hebrew alphabet for one wasn't restricted to just the aristocracy.

[Monty]

p.s. I know that the New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew. I was giving a local example of a script that was available to "the common person."

[Mangetout]

Either:
-we have 100% accurate copies of the original texts and they were never perfect in the first place
-they started off as perfect and were corrupted over time
-they were flawed to begin with and have also been corrupted over time.

We can be sure of this because there are parts of the Bible that do not agree with other parts of the Bible, even though the same events are being described in both cases; perhaps the clearest of these is the comparison of 1 Chronicles 21 and 2 Samuel 24 - both describing a census of fighting men, but the Chronicles says it was Satan's idea and that the count was reported back as 1,100,000 men (including 470,000 from the tribe of Judah), whereas Samuel says it was God's idea and that the count was reported back as 800,000 men (including 500,000 from Judah).

Another one that isn't so easy to see at first is the various gospel accounts of events immediately following the resurrection of Jesus; a plain reading of them leaves you with the impression that they are all highly consistent, but try to actually write down a timetable of events, including who went where, what they said and what they saw, in what sequence - it all turns into a bit of a mess.

None of this necessarily means that David never commissioned a census of his fighting men, or that Jesus was not resurrected, it just means that the Bible, as it currently stands, does not contain infallible accounts of these events.

[ainigma]

Either:
it just means that the Bible, as it currently stands, does not contain infallible accounts of these events.


...If that is the conclusion (and its very logical) than it makes sense that we cannot be assured of the bible being the ULTIMATE truth.
And since we only have the bible to tell us about christ (no other varification of miracles resurection etc) .......

[cosmosdan]

...If that is the conclusion (and its very logical) than it makes sense that we cannot be assured of the bible being the ULTIMATE truth.
And since we only have the bible to tell us about christ (no other varification of miracles resurection etc) .......

Don't be shy.......spit it out.

In fact, there are other writings about Christ other than the Bible but the facts are that we don't know how accurate the gospels are in describing Christ. If are really honest, we don't have any solid scientific evidence that Christ existed at all.

[Mangetout]

...If that is the conclusion (and its very logical) than it makes sense that we cannot be assured of the bible being the ULTIMATE truth.
And since we only have the bible to tell us about christ (no other varification of miracles resurection etc) .......It means that whether (and how much) you believe is a matter of faith and personal inquiry; just like it would be with any other document. The existence of specific errors in the Bible is no more reason to discard the whole of it than the existence of specific truths in the Bible (and there certainly are some of those) is a reason to uncriticially accept the whole of it.

[ainigma]

I grew up in a religious enviroment, and there wasnt a lot of space for free thinking, the questions were seen as doubts, so I stoped asking and allowed my faith to guide me (i was going to be a priest) until one day i saw in corinthians something that startled me.

Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.

p.s. i concluded that faith was the many years of tutoring(for a better word) by my family, enviroment, teachers....if i was born in the jungles of papua new guinea I would have no faith to speak of....so faith is also a man made product.

[Mangetout]

Fair enough; not everybody has the same history as you though.

[Polycarp]

...If that is the conclusion (and its very logical) than it makes sense that we cannot be assured of the bible being the ULTIMATE truth.
And since we only have the bible to tell us about christ (no other varification of miracles resurection etc) .......

Nor are our ideas about cosmology, biogenesis, etc., the absolute, ultimate truth ... they are simply the best explanations available for the range of data we have discovered. The quest for absolute truth is foredoomed to failure, because there are always new data becoming available that must be explained.

The Bible is (pace Bible Man) a collection of writings by Israelite writers (plus Luke and possibly a few others), of equal or better reliability than any other random ancient ethnic group's collected writings, but not the dictation of a prolix and nitpicking deity.

Can it be relied on? To some extent. For example, the court history of King David is almost certainly accurate (if viewed through the eyes of a Yahwist moralist). The ethnology of Genesis 10-11 is almost certainly suspect. Etc.

But there are two issues I would like to address here:

1. Even if the accuracy of Scripture is debatable, some definite conclusions can in fact be reached from it. We have information about Jesus, for example, from four Evangelists (Gospel writers, not preachers), along with incidental details included in a few letters. But the character depicted is reasonably clear. Exactly what His knowledge of supernatural matters might have been, or His own conception of His role (evolving, with Gethsemane a tough moral decision? certain from the first? or what?), is questionable. But one can be certain of some things: Jesus was never a legalist, though he did call for firm moral self-control from His followers. He was not an ethnic or sexual chauvinist, though raised in a culture that was. Depicting Jesus as a white supremacist, a nihilistic terrorist, etc., is a stroll through the absurd.

2. The methodology used for textual criticism differs in very little from that used for the collected documentary evidence for most other ancient cultures. I have at times criticized Diogenes (and to his credit he has accepted that criticism graciously) for phrasing his comments as if the JEPD and Q source theories were absolutely proven, not merely the most probable explanations from the material at hand. It is therefore most reasonable to presume that they are accurate explanations, within the limits of their own capabilities, as scholarly experts are agreed in general principles, though in dispute on detail. But, as Bible Man suggests, none of this constitutes proof in some absolute sense.

However, the onus, IMO, is on him to prove that the verbatim inspiration/ traditional authorship theories are to be accepted over and above the modern theories, that God or Moses was so schizoid as to write two variant explanations of the Red Sea Crossing using different names and methodologies for God.

And I think that his claim to prove his assertions in the OP is where we need to go in this thread, not the defense of the modern theories against it. He said he'd prove it; let him.

[Homebrew]

Even if the books we have now are exact duplicates of the originals, it makes them no more convincing as history then if the Illiad, Epic of Gilgamesh or Beowulf were exact duplicates.

[Bible man]

you're right that the discovery of the dead sea scrolls was a jaw-droppingly staggering thing, and I think that many people still haven't grasped the enormity of what was found in those caves at Qumran. I still have problems processing it in my head.

However you don't seem to address the fact that, in it's early years, the Old Testament was an oral tradition and was never intended to be written down. Back then, writing either didn't exist (not invented yet) or else was a rarified thing existing only in some places in the world and even then was only done by leaders (like pharoahs) on stone carvings etc.

Thus saying the bible is the inerrant word of God and arguing about exact translations is a bit iffy when it existed for hundreds (thousands?) of years merely in spoken form.

The oral tradition theory is contrary to what the Bible states in both the Old and New Testament (see verses below). Ultimately, to support\believe those arguments one has to take the position that both the Old and New Testament are complete fabrications from cover to cover (and some try to argue exactly that), there's no in-between position. Additionally, just an objective view of history would never lead one to an oral traditon conclusion. That is, even those who make the "oral" argument will (usually) acknowledge from archaeology finds that the surrounding nations had writings that date up to 1500 years before the time of the Exodus. It's illogical to think that the Hebrews were so backward that they were 15 centuries behind every other nation in developing a system of writing. Even if it were true, Moses himself was among the most educated in the Egyptian culture, he would have been more than capable of recording the awesome events that took place when God delivered the Hebrews from Egypt, as well as the details of the Covenant which followed.
Exodus24:4 "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord."
John5:46 For if you believed in and relied on Moses, you would believe in and rely on Me, for he wrote about Me, But if you do not believe and trust his writings, how then will you believe and trust My teachings ?"
(There are many other supporting verses).

The Bible presents a homogenous message and it finally comes down whether one decides to believe it or not. Indeed, it's either all true or it's all false because it's that well integrated. If it's a fabrication, it would have to be a deception handed down by people through many generations and cultures who not only perpetrated a fraud but who also made it amzazingly well integrated. And since they usually received no earthly benefit for doing so, but instead usually received torture and death for their efforts, it really strains credulity to believe they did so for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud. Further, those who might engage in such gross deception don't exhibit the kind of character that the Bible writers displayed (despite times of failure).

[Mangetout]

I can't believe it, but you've just argued that the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.

[FriarTed]

I find it strange that there is no proper psysical description of jesus in the NT, which might suggest that some editing might have taken place. The only description of jesus comes from the apocrypha, and the church will have nothing to do with those.

Besides vague references like referring to David as "ruddy", Sarah as "fair", the Shullamite as "black and beautiful", there's not any detailed physical description of anyone in the Bible. Why? Because it really wasn't important to Jewish religious thought which valued The Word over The Image.

The Church (Catholic & Orthodox) most certainly deals with Apocryphal books & even accepts some as canonical. I've read the writings describing JC & they add nothing to the teachings of the NT, nor do they have any tradition of authenticity. They may or may not have an accurate description. It is interesting tho that the man they describe is the traditional picture of JC, and even the man on the Shroud.

[Polycarp]

Ultimately, to support\believe those arguments one has to take the position that both the Old and New Testament are complete fabrications from cover to cover (and some try to argue exactly that), there's no in-between position.

Or in other words, I was wasting my time, as far as you were concerned, in writing my last post to this thread! :mad: This is called the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, and is a common device of demagogues: "If not the way I insist, then inevitably the complete antithesis of what I insist, which nobody wants." That there may be other, intermediate possibilities is rejected. By your own premises, sir, you are now bound for Hell as violating the Third Commandment as regards me and what I had to say.

Exodus24:4 "Moses wrote all the words of the Lord."

Interesting case of quoting out of context. In context, this passage applies directly to the preceding chapters and verses. Exodus 20-23 contains the Lawgiving at Sinai, where God gives the Ten Commandments and follows it with a series of ordinances for the Israelites. Then:

1. Then he said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship at a distance.
2. Moses alone shall come near the LORD; but the others shall not come near, and the people shall not come up with him."
3. Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do."
4. And Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. He rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and set up twelve pillars, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.
5. He sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed oxen as offerings of well-being to the LORD. (Exodus 24:1-5, NASV)

Clearly "all the words of the Lord" refers directly to the divine commandments of Exodus 20-23. Nice job of "prooftexting" by quoting out of context.

The Bible presents a homogenous message and it finally comes down whether one decides to believe it or not. Indeed, it's either all true or it's all false because it's that well integrated. If it's a fabrication, it would have to be a deception handed down by people through many generations and cultures who not only perpetrated a fraud but who also made it amzazingly well integrated. And since they usually received no earthly benefit for doing so, but instead usually received torture and death for their efforts, it really strains credulity to believe they did so for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud. Further, those who might engage in such gross deception don't exhibit the kind of character that the Bible writers displayed (despite times of failure).

This is an unsupported assertion advanced as fact. You will find hundreds of threads here where respected members and Sophomore Atheists (TM) alike have demonstrated clear contradictions in not merely detail but theme between disparate portions of the Bible.

Presuming an unchanging God, one is forced to the conclusion that the Israelites/Jews/early Christians went through an evolving understanding of God and His purposes. In fact, Paul makes this extremely clear in his passages in Romans about the purpose of the Law, as paidogogos to the spiritually young Children of Israel.

I completely concur that the (largely non-Biblical) accounts of martyrdoms do support the idea that those who were martyred were willing to place their lives at risk to stand by something vitally importand and meaningful to them. There is, however, the point made at me when I advanced that argument that men have stood steadfastly for and given their lives for things we now know to be false. Many brave and stalwart Confederate soldiers, for example, fought for a complexus of ideas including the right to secede and to maintain chattel slavery. Does their willingness to put their lives on the line make those two concepts right?

[ainigma]

If it's a fabrication, it would have to be a deception handed down by people through many generations and cultures who not only perpetrated a fraud but who also made it amzazingly well integrated. And since they usually received no earthly benefit for doing so, but instead usually received torture and death for their efforts, it really strains credulity to believe they did so for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud. .



On the contrary religion through the ages was a political power (still is) and the one who can deliver the most powerfull deighty has enormous benefits to reap.

[tomndebb]

These [Qumran scrolls] dated 10 centuries before any ancient manuscripts we had, and they are futher testimony that the copies of the Bible we have today remain unchanged from the original writings.This is silly. The Qumran scrolls predate the completed Masoretic recension by roughly 1,000 years, but we certainly have other intermediate scrolls and books that exist between them. And the Qumran scrolls do not address the issue of the New Testament in any way. The Qumran scrolls date between (roughly) 200 B.C.E. and 70 C.E. and contain no New Testament writings, but we have fragments of the New Testament dating to around 125 C.E. and more or less complete copies dating to the fourth century.

[ainigma]

And lets not forget those suicide bombers ...they also have faith that 60 odd virgins are waiting for them once they complete the task their clergy has set them.

faith might be more closely associated with fanatism, 'cause it needs no proof it needs no reason

[Contrapuntal]

Or in other words, I was wasting my time, as far as you were concerned, in writing my last post to this thread! :mad:Not as far as I was concerned, however. I always find your posts on topics such as these illuminating. I profess no religion, and am no friend to Christianity, but your thoughts and and the facts at your disposal always make me think.

[tomndebb]

And lets not forget those suicide bombers ...they also have faith that 60 odd virgins are waiting for them once they complete the task their clergy has set them.Actually, the virgins bit is something taken from a spurious bit of Islam and it is unlikely that the suicide bombers believed it. In other words, they were committing their actions purely for the glory of God and not for reward.

Regardless, the "look at all the martyrs" argument is simply without merit. Was Jonestown an example of the Truth of God? Were thousands of Catholics and Protestants who were martyred from the 14th though the 18th centuries proof that their version of Christianity was the correct one? Does the slaying of Muslims and Jews during the Crusades prove that Islam or Judaism is the true religion?

[Polycarp]

An argument which is made repeatedly in these Great Debates, is the notion that the Bible can be, and has been changed numerous times through the centuries. The implication is that, even if it was originally a divine communication, it is now unreliable or corrupted. On that basis, some claim it can't be appealed to as the "Word of God" or innerrant, or inspired in the sense of coming directly from God's mouth to our ears.
In this thread I am undertaking with Tomndebb's assistance what might seem to some to be the Herculean task of proving (yes, proving) that changing a book, epistle, phrase, or a even word of the Bible has been, and will alway be, absolutely impossible. And this proof can even be demonstrated by anyone by using their own computer. I want to start the thread using a statment from one of tomndebb's (the moderator) recent posts. I recently posted a Bible quote and Tom challenged a word in the quote by saying:

" In the Greek, that phrase is:
"ou | gar | qelhmati | anqrwpou | hnecqh | pote | profhteia" (vB is not amenable to diacritical marks)
or
"not | for | by will | of man | was brought | ever | prophecy"
Every single extant version of the Greek manuscripts agree with this wording. (The Sinaiticus and some derivative texts change the order of pote profhteia to profhteia pote (which does not change k) and a single third century manuscript inserts the word "may be" before the phrase "ever prophecy." In other words, you are claiming that I have "an interpretation" that is false when you have deliberately changed what was written.
Now, you may feel you have ample reason to change the words of the passage, based on your beliefs from the word "prophecy" to the word "scripture," but you cannot claim that you have rendered the verse the way it was written and it is dishonest of you to make that claim. I am now reading some "commentary" or some "interpretation" I am reading the words that we have in every Greek manuscript available to us."

My premise in this thread is that the same appeal Tom made to our existing Bible manuscripts has existed from the instant that the very first copy of a book or epistle was created. It is done by simply comparing the copy with the original and verifying its accuracy. As more copies are created and distributed the original work becomes increasingly protected against change. Any variation from the original will be instantly exposed because of the existence and testimony of every accurate copy. When a mistake or change is introduced, the accurate copies reveal it instantly and Tom has quite eloquently shown how the process has worked for us from the very day of the original writing right up to our time. Further, while the original author of the writing was alive and copies were being produced and distributed, his personal testimony would also serve as a living and vocal witness against any mistakes or counterfeits. The writer's living witness and the increasing number of accurate copies serve, from the very first day the work was made public, to make any successful change virtually impossible. Further, this would hold true for almost any written work but is especially true for writings that are considered special or holy. Greater quantities of those works are made, and extra care is always devoted to them. Considering it a holy calling, some gave their entire lives to producing numerous, accurate copies of the Bible. Each copy produced and distributed provided more assurance that the original writer's work was protected from mistakes and counterfeits.

The proof of this can be performed at your own computer. When I posted my scripture quote, even I, the original writer, could never successfully retrieve it or change it, nor can anyone else. There were instantly thousands of copies in existence and no one can alter the original successfully. Although the ancient process of "posting" writings was slower than ours, the process was exactly the same. Further testimony about this process and the reliability of our Bibles was the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. These dated 10 centuries before any ancient manuscripts we had, and they are futher testimony that the copies of the Bible we have today remain unchanged from the original writings. The topic of translations and versions of the Bible is a related thread and should also be taken up in the future.


It is worth remembering that it is within the lifetime of the oldest members here that precise copies could be mechanically made by even moderately substantial groups, much less individuals. For most of the history of Biblical manuscripts, they were produced by either persons copying from dictation (someone reading from a manuscript) or simple copying (read original, write what you read). In the course of this, inevitably, minor (and probably a few not-so-minor) errors crept in. I misquoted BibleMan's OP (arguably violating a minor rule here, but with good intent, and with an explanation here) to show exactly how these work.

In his second sentence, I changed "throughout" to "through" -- which does not change the meaning of what he wrote, but is a good example of a minor error. However, in the paragraph beginning "Now you may feel..." I changed "I am not reading..." to "I am now reading..." -- a one-letter change that reverses the meaning of the sentence, and the point being made.

This is a good example of why people feel that manuscripts are not in and of themselves reliable, and why scholars tend to prefer the readings of the older uncial (majuscule) codices over the more prevalent but newer minuscule texts on which the Textus Receptus relied -- there was more chance for copying error.

How reliable and accurate even the oldest texts are is therefore debatable. Further, this argument applies a reversal to the basic point Tom~ made to the issue at hand: that "prophecy" does not equal "Scripture," nor has it ever except in the sense that BibleMan argued in the other thread. To apply that forcing of synonymy to the text is unquestionably interpretation. Further, it raises the issue of what "God's Word" means as applied to the Bible -- clearly, what someone wrote alleging it to be the verbatim words of God, as in "Thus saith the Lord..." can reasonably be referenced as "God's Word" -- but what of something like the censuses of the Children of Israel or some random passage in Acts? Are they in some sense "God's Word"? If so, in what sense?

Finally, the issue of the varying canons, brought up in GQ recently, is worth looking at. Is this Scripture:

May God grant me to speak with judgment, and to have thoughts worthy of what I have received; for he is the guide even of wisdom and the corrector of the wise. (Wisdom 7:15

The numerical majority of Christians belong to churches which say so. But I suspect that BibleMan accepts only the proterocanonical OT (=the Tanakh).

[Scott Plaid]

I misquoted BibleMan's OP (arguably violating a minor rule here, but with good intent, and with an explanation here) to show exactly how these work.Nah. You took his quote, but you clearly-

Hey, wait a minute! That's my shtick! :mad: Why, this sophomore atheist think you need to cool off.

*Scott throws a bucket of water all over Polycarp, yet again*

:D

[Bible man]

[QUOTE=Polycarp]Or in other words, I was wasting my time, as far as you were concerned, in writing my last post to this thread! :mad: This is called the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, and is a common device of demagogues: "If not the way I insist, then inevitably the complete antithesis of what I insist, which nobody wants." That there may be other, intermediate possibilities is rejected. By your own premises, sir, you are now bound for Hell as violating the Third Commandment as regards me and what I had to say.


I have only read the first 2 posts and answered them. My second post was to Jojo and was made without seeing yours. Scrolling through the posts before I have to take a trip I happened upon the red face and thought I should make a brief reply. It looks like you made some very good points and I would like to take a try at answering them when I return. In the meantime maybe others will have some input. My apologies to everyone for having to "post and run" (sudden death in the family).

[devilsknew]

The psychic structure of language and hence its meaning evolves, changes, and varies from language to language, individual to individual, time within time. The "word" will never be recovered or understood as the original, as all of us are new synthesizers for the word. The "word" is lost to eternity. Ironically, the story of the tower of Babel within the bible points this out completely.

The bible is as infallible and inspired as the last newspaper article you read. These are objective, inspired accounts....the problem is, there is no real objectivity...only synthesis upon motive. Motives for control, teaching, slander, fear, power, wisdom, good, evil, prejudice. If the emotive of the bible is accurate as communicated I find a great deal of that which is communicated is fear and death.

Understanding of the bible will never be complete and without error. An unerring, infallible, direct communication of the hypothetical Word of God is only as accurate as a modern man's synthesis of motive, culture, language, and time listening to the conversation of an ancient man's synthesis of motive, culture, language, and time relaying another man's synthesis of the same, perhaps through thousands of accounts yet again.

As an amateur student of language, I have never heard nor seen an entirely accurate translation or interpretation ever between any two languages, let alone within a single common language between two people (Hence the existence of this forum, to wit.). There are only approximations of the truth and your personal understanding. Language carries meaning but is unique to each synthesizer. Infallibility of the bible is an impossibility as dictated by the very limits of language, written and spoken. Synthetic truth is all you will ever glean from the Bible, or any other book for that matter.

[Bible man]

=cosmosdan]Bible Man I'm glad you're still here and willing to discuss. I do thinnk you missed a couple of key points.
1Even if we accept that the Bible is inspired where does it say that inspired equals inerrant? Keep in mind that since we're talking about God's will, Christian traition or individual reasoning isn't good enough. Is there anything within this book you consider inerrant to clearly indicate that inspiration equals inerrant?
The concept of innerrancy is incorporated in the Biblical declarations that God and His Word are the Truth. For example, "God is Truth" (John14:6) and "Your Word is Truth" (John17:17). Nothing that has error can be true.

2. What evidence do you have that it was ever the will of God that we have one final authoratative compilation of writings and then inspired writings would cease? Is there anyting in this inerrant book to indicate that?
No, the only writing that even comes close is the warning in the book of Revelation about adding to or removing from the Words of its prophecy (Rev22:19). Considering the magnitude and scope of its content, it's unlikely that any further input will be added by the Holy Spirit but technically, there is no basis to close the Canon.
Further, inspired writings and utterances have never ceased, but in most cases there is no warrant to add them to the Biblical writings. For instance, Phillip's four daughters were prophetesses (Acts 21:9), and certainly whatever they spoke by the Holy Spirit was important to the particular hearers, but not of sufficient weight to be added to the Canon for the general body of believers. The Rules for speaking in God's Name are clearly posted in Deut18:18-22. If, and when, utterances or writings are presented, the same rules that applied to the previous writers of the Scriptures can be used to verify their authenticity and if what is presented is tested, proven to be genuine, and is of sufficient weight to add to the Canon, there is nothing in the Scriptures to prevent it.

3. What evidence is there that the books that are in the Bible are the right ones, or the only ones we should consider? There is evidence within the Bible itself that there are other writings we don't possess. How do we know they don't contain crucial information? If they were discovered would we value them or dismiss them.
4. Of all the writings available who decided which ones would be included and which ones would be left out?
A fair summary of the general rules for Canonicity are summed up by the Baker Encylopedia of Christian Apologetics: 1) Was the book written by a prophet of God?, 2)Was the writer confirmed by acts of God? 3)Does the message tell the truth about God? 4) Did it come with the power of God? 5) Was it accepted by the people of God?
There are writings which have been deemed counterfeits, some are lost, some are considered historical and accurate but not considered directly inspired by God. In the final analysis it's each individual's responsibility to consider any or all of them that they might have access to, and make their own decision about their authenticity\inspiration. But its not those "lost books" of the Bible, or missing information, or even the paradoxes of the Bible that cause any real problems, its the clarity of the main Bible message that causes so many to stumble over it ie, we must acknowledge our sin, come to repentance, accept Christ's sacrifice as the only way back to God, etc, It also declares an eternal blessing for acceptance of its message and eternal destruction for rejecting it. People just have trouble with its authority, its narrowness, and its requirements, and they want a different, easier message. But the testimony of vast numbers of past and present Christians is that the assembled books of the Bible have all the information needed to know the Truth about God and to lay hold of the salvation that He has offered to mankind, no outside books or knowledge is needed.


For some of your arguement it will take someone with a lot more Biblical background than I to answer but I still have some concerns. Because of the other threads we weer discussing scripture in I started reading different versions on Bible Gateway{ an excellent site for bible study} I noticed that in different translations subtle word differences can make a big difference in meaning.

examples;
Philippians 2:5-7 (New International Version)
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very natureGod,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Philippians 2:5-7 (New King James Version)

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

In my opinion the difference between "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped"
and "did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" could be fairly significant.

The point is that several scholars might not interpret the exact same manuscript in the same way, and a subtle word change might mean a major doctrinal change.

Looking at different translations is important because differences in language, the technical skill of the translator, and even the theological orientation of the translator can make a difference in some cases. It's wise to investigate all aspects of what is presented to us as being God's Word and decide for ourselves if it has been communicated to us as accurately as it should. But in those verses, both translations communicate the essential idea: Christ was God before taking human form and willingly left His position to come to earth as a humble servant. There's no difference in the essentials.

And thanks for waiting, and if you have a response\rebuttal, take your time - I'm going to be playing catch up on some things and won't be responding very rapidly.

[Clothahump]

I think the more likely argument you're going to hear on this board is that the first extant copies of the gospels we know of were written at least decades after the actual event, and therefore the accuracy of the very first copies as a transcription of what actually happened is already suspect.

You'll also hear that there is nothing divine about the bible whatsoever, that it was written solely to support a scam. Therefore, worrying about accurate translations is meaningless.

[Kimstu]

You'll also hear that there is nothing divine about the bible whatsoever, that it was written solely to support a scam. Therefore, worrying about accurate translations is meaningless.


Gotta object to this argument. Speaking as a textual historian, I'd say that making accurate translations of important ancient texts is an absolutely crucial issue of scholarship. That's irrespective of whether the original ancient text was directly revealed by a deity, written by a divinely-inspired human scribe, composed by human authors who merely thought they were inspired, or perpetrated as a deliberate fraud by unscrupulous con-men.

And I'd be surprised to learn that anybody here at the Straight Dope disagrees with that. You got a cite for the claim that somebody here thinks accuracy in Biblical translations doesn't matter unless it's actually a divine book?

[tomndebb]

You got a cite for the claim that somebody here thinks accuracy in Biblical translations doesn't matter unless it's actually a divine book?His post is his cite.

However, since the topic is the age and quality of texts, not the quality or accuracy of beliefs, pursuing that train would be a hijack to this thread and anyone wishing to pursue it should open their own thread.

[cosmosdan]

The concept of innerrancy is incorporated in the Biblical declarations that God and His Word are the Truth. For example, "God is Truth" (John14:6) and "Your Word is Truth" (John17:17). Nothing that has error can be true.
I can't agree.
The problem with this is that the Word of God which is the truth, being refered to is not any written word. Very often the scriptures refering to God's word are used to support the inerrency of the the Bible are not speaking of any written word but the Living word of God which is the Spirit of God that lives within us and allows us to commune with God.
Heb 4: 12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
1 peter 1: 23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Jesus taught us to rely on this personal communion with God as our source.
John 16: 12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I see it as an unfortunate mistake that so much of Chistianity has elevated the Bible to a place that it was never intended to occupy where it has equal authority with the true Word, which is the Spirit of God within us.

Look at the other evidence. The Bible is loaded with contradictions {perhaps we should start a thread about those} which show it is not inerrant. It is also obviously influenced by the culture of the day with scriptures like
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing–

What you propose is a long held Christian traditon which is only man's
teaching, and doesn't hold up long to any realistic examination of what the Bible says and our understanding of it's history.

No, the only writing that even comes close is the warning in the book of Revelation about adding to or removing from the Words of its prophecy (Rev22:19). Considering the magnitude and scope of its content, it's unlikely that any further input will be added by the Holy Spirit but technically, there is no basis to close the Canon.
I appreciate your honesty here. As far as I can see, it was men who decided which writings would be included and it is men that keep any other writings from being considered.That is in Christianity of course because we know that other religions have their own Holy books. In fact LDS and Community of Christ both have latter day scripture in thier doctrine and covenants. The Course in Miricles is supposed to be communication directly from Christ. There are also the Gnostic gospels. Why shoould we let men and the traditions of men keep us from considering those writings? Jesus taught us that we should not give ultimate spiritual authority to other men no matter how well intentioned. That belongs only to our personal communion with God through the Spirit.
Further, inspired writings and utterances have never ceased, but in most cases there is no warrant to add them to the Biblical writings.

You speak of the scope and magnitude of Biblical writings and what they cover. Don't you think there are things that could be clearer by new revelations. What about the issue of slavery which continued for centuries in Christianity? Issues that we struggle with today such as abortion, stem cell research, gay rights? Even Christians don't agree on these issues amongst themselves because they are unlcear in the Bible.


A fair summary of the general rules for Canonicity are summed up by the Baker Encylopedia of Christian Apologetics: 1) Was the book written by a prophet of God? The authorship of the books of the Bible is not clear. 2)Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?Since we don't know who the authors are we can't know this either. 3)Does the message tell the truth about God? Which man or group of men gets to decide this. The Pharisees thought they had spritual authority in their day. We know how Christ felt about them. 4) Did it come with the power of God? Does this mean confirmed by miricles? 5) Was it accepted by the people of God? Since Jesus taught us that all people are the children of God which "accepted writings should we consider legit? What do we do when the people of God can't agree with each other?
But its not those "lost books" of the Bible, or missing information, or even the paradoxes of the Bible that cause any real problems, its the clarity of the main Bible message that causes so many to stumble over it ie, we must acknowledge our sin, come to repentance, accept Christ's sacrifice as the only way back to God, etc, It also declares an eternal blessing for acceptance of its message and eternal destruction for rejecting it. People just have trouble with its authority, its narrowness, and its requirements, and they want a different, easier message. But the testimony of vast numbers of past and present Christians is that the assembled books of the Bible have all the information needed to know the Truth about God and to lay hold of the salvation that He has offered to mankind, no outside books or knowledge is needed.

Or perhaps they want the truth instead of the traditions and teachings of men. Paul recognized that we would be seeking the truth our entire lives. "Now we see through a glass darkly" The testimony of vast numbers of Christians past and present is not enough to turn tradition into truth, any more than the testimony of vast numbers of Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindu's can. Especially since we plainly see these vast numbers can't even agree with each other. Obviously something else is needed. You have people like Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, and Jimmy Swaggart advocating killing people in the name of God and Christ. They know the scriptures but the living word is not within them.


Looking at different translations is important because differences in language, the technical skill of the translator, and even the theological orientation of the translator can make a difference in some cases. It's wise to investigate all aspects of what is presented to us as being God's Word and decide for ourselves if it has been communicated to us as accurately as it should. But in those verses, both translations communicate the essential idea: Christ was God before taking human form and willingly left His position to come to earth as a humble servant. There's no difference in the essentials.

I agree we need to study and decide for ourselves. I don't limit my study to the Bible. Since we can trust the Holy Spirit to discern the truth for us we can be open for God to use any book as well as other sources to teach us. We carry the ultimate authority within us every moment of every day. We don't need an external authority.

[Bible man]

Oh are you talking about the New Testament rather the the Old Testament? I thought you were referring to the bible as a whole. In any case the oral tradition thing still holds true even for the NT (in its first years). Jesus never told anyone to write anything down and most of his followers couldn't have written it down anyway, even if they'd wanted to, since most people were illiterate.
All the Old Testament books were preserved in written form from the time that the particular prophet received the communication from the Holy Spirit, although copies of the earlier writtings like the Pentateuch probably were not made until years later when the materials and methods of copying became more refined and easier to produce. In those early years the oral tradition was the main form of communication by necessity, as it was in all cultures, but the Writtings existed in written form and served to guard against errors of oral transmission. By the time of the New Testament writings, the oral means of communication was declining rapidly and many copies of the books were made immediately and continuously, and dispersed throughout the various churches. Some of the disciples were indeed illiterate (Mark was obviously Peter's scribe) but Matthew clearly could write or he could not have been a tax collector, Luke (being a physician) was quite literate, and John had to have written his own letters since Revelation was written while he was alone on Patmos.
Jesus didn't tell the apostles to write anything while He was with them but did so after His Ressurection, for example Rev1:11, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Write promptly what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches..."

We've done all that Q stuff about a gazillion times but I suppose you can't search as a guest. Have you read the straight dope columns on who wrote the bible ("http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html)?
I'm aware of Q and the other capitals that go with the Documentary Theory (JDPE) and I describe those theories as trying to get on an imaginary airplane that's going to a non-existent island. The best use for those theories is to find out who believes them and sell them your extra Florida swampland, they make great customers
]

[tomndebb]

Jesus didn't tell the apostles to write anything while He was with them but did so after His Ressurection, for example Rev1:11, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Write promptly what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches..."The book of Revelation was written around 60 years after Jesus had departed, so he was not addresssing his Apostles and there is no evidence that the "John" of the Revelation of John is the same person as John the Apostle, so your claim that Jesus said anything about writing to the Apostles is based solely on your personal belief that the vision to John of Revelation has to be a statement by Jesus to John the Apostle, which is not supported by any facts.

The best use for those theories is to find out who believes them and sell them your extra Florida swampland, they make great customersInterstingly, I find that the people who are most eager to reject actual scholarship are the most likely to beggar themselves in their old age while enriching the likes of Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jim Baker.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Q is not part of the Documentary Theory. The Documentary Theory refers only to the Pentateuch (specifically the process of redaction and syncretism which edited several strands of originally discrete narratives into a unified whole. Q refers to a hypothetical shared sayings gospel (or other common written source) which is believed by most New Testament scholars to have been necessary to explain the common material in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke which did not come from Mark. While the latter is still at least somewhat controversial and other solutions to the synoptic problem (notably the Farrer Hypothesis) have some currency these days, the fact that the Pentaeuch was woven from multiple, prexisting narratives is disputed by almost no one except those with overtly conservative religious biases and agendas. The belief, for instance, that Moses wrote the Torah is purely a faith-based position and is not a product of methodical scholarship.

As to your OP, it is manifestly untrue to say that the texts that comprise the Christian and Jewsh canons "cannot be changed," because all one has to do is read the Textus Receptus in conjunction with the Textus Sinaiticus. Tom has addressed that issue pretty well. As to the precise question asked in your thread title. The answer is that we simply don't know. Until we actually find autographs for any of the Biblical manuscripts (and it's enormously unlikely that we will ever find even one), it isn't possible to know exactly how accurate the extant manuscripts are. I would also argue that this is not an important fact since the extant manuscripts, as they are, are the literary basis for those religions for better or for worse. I also have to inform you that your OP involves a giant strawman in that people who are skeptical of the historicity of these books do not base their skepticism on the reliability of its copies but on the testable claims which are made in the extant books. We don't care if they are perfect duplications of the autographs or not. That has nothing to do with whether their claims are verifiable or credible. It would of course be hugely informative and interesting to know exactly what the autographs said but even you were able to prove that one line or another of manuscript transmission was perfectly accurate it would not have any significance to people who do not believe they were divinely inspired.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]Jesus didn't tell the apostles to write anything while He was with them but did so after His Ressurection, for example Rev1:11, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Write promptly what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches..."

Um... This command is in regard to one vision only. It doesn't relate at all to the other writings that became the New Testament. You mentioned Rev 22: 18, 19 where there is a warning not to add to or take away from the book. This too is about Revalations rather than the Bible. A similar warning is in Duet. and we got plenty of scripture after that. I also have to wonder why God would issue such a warning if it was his plan to not allow either to happen. If it's God's will that scripture remain inerrant, and in it's original inspired form, why bother with such a warning?

I'm aware of Q and the other capitals that go with the Documentary Theory (JDPE) and I describe those theories as trying to get on an imaginary airplane that's going to a non-existent island. The best use for those theories is to find out who believes them and sell them your extra Florida swampland, they make great customers


Theories, yes, which means they may or may not be accurate. Theories based on honest scholastic study have at least as much weight as years of Christian tradition that is not fact based.
You seem to be defending Christian tradition based solely on the fact that many Christians have believed these things for many years so they must be true. That's your choice. A commitment to the teachings of Christ means a commitment to the truth no matter where that takes you. If Christian tradition doesn't stand up any kind of honest realsitic examination then it's time to leave it behind in favor of the honest truth.

[Polycarp]

Theories, yes, which means they may or may not be accurate. Theories based on honest scholastic study have at least as much weight as years of Christian tradition that is not fact based.
You seem to be defending Christian tradition based solely on the fact that many Christians have believed these things for many years so they must be true. That's your choice. A commitment to the teachings of Christ means a commitment to the truth no matter where that takes you. If Christian tradition doesn't stand up any kind of honest realsitic examination then it's time to leave it behind in favor of the honest truth.

First, cosmosdan, let me commend you for your long post of 9/11 in which you saliently answer a variety of issues raised by Bible Man. I found it singularly well done.

However, I would like to draw to your attention the question of tradition. Obviously, in dealing with issues transcending the contemporary, some attention to tradition needs to be paid. But not undue reverence.

Along with Orthodoxy, Anglicanism draws the distinction between Tradition and tradition – the first, the understanding and the custom of Christendom in (nearly) all times and places, vs. the convenient that has over time become “the way we do things.” Taking Catholicism as our example, a very clear delineation can be drawn between the celebration of the Eucharist (Mass, Divine Liturgy, Holy Communion, Lord’s Supper, etc.) in the manner we know to have been in place since at least 110 A.D., an example of Tradition, and the celibacy of the priesthood, a law of the (Roman Rite of the Catholic) church which can be changed at any time, if in the good judgment of the Pope and his advisors it becomes wise.

And Anglicanism founds its teachings on Scripture, Tradition, and Reason – the proverbial three-legged stool, without each element of which the entire edifice collapses.

The Tradition of the Church is that which can be proven, not by implication but by good evidence, to have been carried on everywhere and since earliest days. But even that does not make it sacrosanct. When the Anglican Church was confronted with the question of women’s ordination, there was little doubt that both Scripture and Tradition called for exclusively male clerical orders, the possibility of deaconesses to one side. Paul forbade women to teach, and the time-honored church practice was to ordain only males. However, when Reason was applied, we found that Paul’s strictures were given to a Greek church where women were traditionally taught only the domestic and commercial arts, and would thus not have the foundation on which to build the theological, exegetical, and homiletic abilities called for among the clergy. This was clearly no longer the case. And while Jesus called the Twelve, all male, he honored and taught the women who followed Him. Ergo, the application of Reason to Scripture and Tradition authorized the change, and we now have Spirit-filled, scholarly, inspiring women deacons, priests, and bishops.

The traditions to which Bible Man appeals are issues scarcely 200 years old, before which the idea that parts of Scripture were to be interpreted symbolically, typologically, and in other non-literal ways was a commonplace held by anyone sufficiently interested to raise the questions.

And, of course, the first chapter of the Gospel According to John equates God’s Word first and foremost to Jesus Christ, not to the Law and the Prophets, and certainly not to the New Testament books which had yet to be written when He carried out His ministry and Atonement.

When not used in reference to the Incarnate Son of God, “God’s Word” is used in Scripture to mean “God’s message to humanity” as is evident from the quotes already cited in this thread. It is a bit of special pleading to say, as Bible Man implies, “*I* use ‘God’s Word’ to mean the whole of Scripture, so therefore, when the writers use the term, they must be meaning the Bible, and the Bible as I understand it, not the books held as Scripture in East and West between 400 and 1600 A.D. which my ancestors decided to drop from the Bible.” (I never did get a straight answer about my quote from Wisdom – which, by the way, happens to have a passage [19:18-19] that might be read as supporting evolution.)

Nor is the portrait of God as prepared to condemn all those who do not repent and accept Jesus in a classic conversion experience the one which Jesus Himself paints of Him. This God-as-Cosmic-Bogeyman is perhaps the greatest perversion of the faith which the evangelicals have perpetrated. A God of unconditional love is far from their conceptions – but not, thank God, from His.

[cosmosdan]

Polycarp

Thanks for the kind words. One of the things I appreciate about the SDMB is how the other posters challenge and stimulate my thinking. Also just the pure educational value ranging form interesting links to my own research when I look things up.

I have often appreciated the information offered in your posts as well as the manner of their presentation. This one is no exception. I was unaware of some of the history of certain traditioanl beliefs and when they became accepted.

I have always been a fairly non traditional kind of guy. Years ago when serving in the priesthood I would often change the way services were done to try and get people to actually think about what they were doing and why. I can appreciate the value of tradition as long as we see it for what it is and what it isn't. I think your term "undo reverance" has a lot to do with how I view many Christian traditions. There is a big difference between "we choose to do it this way and we find it meaningful" and "we know this is how God wants it done and any other way is just wrong"

Other traditions I find simply steer people in the wrong direction and don't help us draw closer to God and each other. In all fairness, those traditons are no worse than anything that hinders our growth and each individual must choose when to surrender. Ultimately people must not forget the purpose that any Christian tradition should serve. To help in our own transformation. If our beliefs don't change us into kinder, more loving, more compassionate people in thought and deed, then it is fruitless.

[newcrasher]

I have not read the entire thread, but have you discussed the fact that the original copiers of scripture were not scribes, but semi-literate copyist who often simply drew the letters they saw without comprehending them?

It is suspected many errors come from this situation.

[tomndebb]

I have not read the entire thread, . . .including the dates. :D

In the interest of not dragging up any disputes among posters no longer among us, I am closing this thread. The topic is fine and any new thread with links to this thread is welcome.


[ /Moderating ]