Do the "Dead Sea Scrolls" prove the Bible wasn't altered?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by maximara

True and the Bible itself refers to books that didn't survive the centuries get to Council of Nicea: Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18) <snip> and several others.

Just a few moments before reading this post I was perusing The Doubts of Infidels, Anonymous, London 1819, which has some wonderfully ironic comments on the Book of Jasher, one of which may account for its exclusion from the canon of Jewish scriptures.

Quote:

David commanded that the children of Judah should be taught the use of the bow: "behold, it is written in the Book of Jasher". 2 Sam. i. 18. Many difficulties arise here about the Book of Jasher. It was extant previous to the writing the Book of Joshua, Josh. x. 13, the author of that book quoting it, and by the foregoing text it appears, it was not finished till after the accession of David to the throne of Israel. Now, if Joshua wrote the account of his own transactions, as is generally believed, the author of Jasher must have lived upwards of four hundred years.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

So is anybody who believes that the Dead Sea scrolls prove bible inerrency a complete nut-case? Perhaps, but perhaps their idea of 'inerrency' is not what we think it is.

Well, once you get to 3=1, mucking around with definitions is easy.

If a scientist or a writer said something like you're saying in this quote, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Translations by definition aren't 100% word-for-word accurate, so getting the message right is the important thing. But inerrantists tend to be the folks that demand that the Bible had pi 100% completely correct, that 7 days means 168 hours, that Noah put ALL the animals on the ark, etc.

This is essentially the argument about deep time all over again. Inerrantists demand that NOTHING in the Bible be wrong, in ANY sense (except that passage, and this one, and those over there--you know, those that, if we assume they're metaphorical will agree with my beleifs). Rational people already accept that much of the Bible is poetic in nature in many places. In other words, most followers of Christ won't have a problem with your argument, but they aren't the ones saying that the Bible has never been altered anyway.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

That's actually a point I should have mentioned: the concept of "the Bible" being a single, bound book is fairly recent. In the Middle Ages the books of the Bible were often exactly that--individual books, copied separately. Often a single book would contain several cannonical books, along with commentary and bits of other theological thought.

Science has long recognized the power of putting a lot of separate data into a single book. It facilitates analysis by making it relatively easy to flip back and forth between the various parts you're comparing. Anyone with a modern Bible can compare the prophesies in the Old Testament with Jesus' acts in the New Testament. It was a tad harder to do that in the Middle Ages. Also, it's harder to add new data to compelations like the Bible. If "the Bible" refers to a large number of books, slipping in a few extras (or removing them) really isn't that hard. An individual sect can get away with it, simply by writing a new book when they copy the old one. Once it's all bound together, though, you can easily see if new books have been added or old ones taken out.

So there are at minimum three distinct alterations to any modern Bible from the original: 1) picking which books go into it; 2) combining them all into a single volume; and 3) translation. These are by no means in chronological order.

The change in perception of what is a book may also have been precipitated by the change in technology. Both the ancient Jews and the ancient Graeco-Roman world used the scroll as information storage medium. Between the 1st and 4th Century AD the scroll was gradually replaced by the codex. In the 7th Century, Isidore of Seville explains it as follows:

Quote:

A codex is composed of many books (librorum); a book is of one scroll (voluminis). It is called codex by way of metaphor from the trunks (caudex) of trees or vines, as if it were a wooden stock, because it contains in itself a multitude of books, as it were of branches.

The codex had unmistakable advantages over the scroll: more robust; more efficient storage; random access instead of sequential access; and finally, a codex can contain much more content than a scroll. The traditional Jewish Torah scroll notwithstsanding, a typical scroll consists of 20 leaves. Ancient writings like Herodotus' Histories, or Livy's History of Rome, or Josephus' Antiquities, were also divided into "books" in parts that we'd now think of as chapters.

Interestingly, it seems that Christians were at the forefront of replacing the scroll by the codex. This unpublished paper explores that point. The reason is not clear; it might be to distinguish them from Jews who held to the scroll-format. But it may very well be that the change of format gave rise to the question and resolution of which books were Biblical canon.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou

As I understand it, I don't see how the canon could have been established before the Vulgate was published. I'm not saying a consensus was not about to emerge, but I don't think it was as definitive as the Vulgate put it. And the damasine list was a fake http://www.tertullian.org/articles/b...gelasianum.htm.

What do you mean with the highlighted point? AFAIK, there was more discussion on the OT canon and virtually none on the NT canon around the Vulgate.

[Akuma Tennou]

Originally Posted by ddt

What do you mean with the highlighted point? AFAIK, there was more discussion on the OT canon and virtually none on the NT canon around the Vulgate.

Sorry my use of the word "definitive" was not clear. I wanted to say that in my opinion, no canon could have ever been set before the Vulgate, and not that the Vulgate set it. It is Jerome who coined the word apocrypha, and I take it as a hint that this issue was still unclear then.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ddt

This is not right, IMHO. The 1546 Council of Trent (re)affirmed the canon of the RCC Bible. Before that, the 382 Council of Rome and the 397 Council of Carthage had drawn up lists of the canonical books.

From the first link:

This historical synod at Rome gained additional importance long afterwards. According to a document appended to some manuscripts of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum or "Gelasian Decretal" and given separately in others, at this council the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal, sometimes referred to as the damasine list. The document was first connected to this council of Rome in 1794, when Fr. Faustino Arevalo (1747–1824), the editor of Coelius Sedulius, expressed his theory that the first three of the five chapters of the Decretum were really the decrees of a Roman council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382.

Arevalo's conclusions were widely accepted until the early 20th century, but further studies led by Ernst von Dobschütz showed this decretal to be a forgery, probably from a scholar of the 6th century.[1]

[Akuma Tennou]

Originally Posted by tsig

From the first link:

This historical synod at Rome gained additional importance long afterwards. According to a document appended to some manuscripts of the so-called Decretum Gelasianum or "Gelasian Decretal" and given separately in others, at this council the authority of the Old and New Testament canon would have been affirmed in a decretal, sometimes referred to as the damasine list. The document was first connected to this council of Rome in 1794, when Fr. Faustino Arevalo (1747–1824), the editor of Coelius Sedulius, expressed his theory that the first three of the five chapters of the Decretum were really the decrees of a Roman council held a century earlier than Gelasius, under Damasus, in 382.

Arevalo's conclusions were widely accepted until the early 20th century, but further studies led by Ernst von Dobschütz showed this decretal to be a forgery, probably from a scholar of the 6th century.[1]

Err, I feel really uneasy as I am the one who modified the article. To be fair I must provide you with the link in the state ddt linked to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=534962121

The article had only one source that contradicted what I presumed to be mere apologetics. This one : http://www.tertullian.org/articles/b...gelasianum.htm

I'm sorry for that ^^

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou

Sorry my use of the word "definitive" was not clear. I wanted to say that in my opinion, no canon could have ever been set before the Vulgate, and not that the Vulgate set it. It is Jerome who coined the word apocrypha, and I take it as a hint that this issue was still unclear then.

The books that Jerome coined as apocrypha (and the RC church now calls deuterocanonical) are essentially those that are in the Septuagint but not in the Masoretic Text, isn't it?

How much support did Jerome have for his position? Eventually, he did translate those apocrypha, on orders of the Pope. And the Eastern churches even hold the Septuagint to be the official original text, so it seems he was in a clear minority position.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Akuma Tennou

Err, I feel really uneasy as I am the one who modified the article. To be fair I must provide you with the link in the state ddt linked to :
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=534962121

The article had only one source that contradicted what I presumed to be mere apologetics. This one : http://www.tertullian.org/articles/b...gelasianum.htm

I'm sorry for that ^^

No need to feel uneasy, but thanks for the clarification as well as the wiki edit.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Again, it demonstrably hasn't remained unaltered--it was altered at least twice.

And you really should take some time to learn your history. A major problem the early Church faced was the fact that different congregations considered different texts cannonical.

In other words, a follower of the Bible that knew enough to appreciate the Dead Sea Scrolls wouldn't have their religious faith shaken because the existence of other gosples from that time is common knowledge. The exact texts are interesting, but their existence is something knowledgeable Christians are forced to accept once they learn the history of their religion.

Do you have any recommendations, sites or books, for me to bone up with?

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by truethat

No biblical scholar in the world would take the King James Version seriously.

Ridiculous.

Christianity isn't chiefly comprised of Biblical scholars, truethat. It's composed of clergy and laity. If the KJV were found to be incorrect it would damage Christendom significantly.

Cpl Ferro

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Do you have any recommendations, sites or books, for me to bone up with?

Cpl Ferro

If you're really curious, I'd recommend talking to a priest, or someone studying late Romen Empire/Lower Middle Ages history at a university. If you talk to a priest, I'd recommend looking for a Jesuit. Remember, this isn't a question of theology, but of archaeology--denomination isn't all that important, and the Jesuits have always impressed me as being a bit more well-read outside of theological literature than other orders of priests.

As far as recommendations, there have been a number of them in this thread, posted by people more knowledgeable on the topic than me. Start there.

Quote:

Christianity isn't chiefly comprised of Biblical scholars, truethat. It's composed of clergy and laity. If the KJV were found to be incorrect it would damage Christendom significantly.

Christianity isn't a monolithic entity. The non-Catholic denominations following the Bible tend to undergo schisms relatively easily. Things that would disprove the entire concept behind the Southern Baptist sect may not have any impact on othe Kalvenists. I honestly don't think that there's any single thing, short of absolute proof that Jesus never existed, that would disprove all of Christianity. And the Roman Catholic Church doesn't consider the KJV to be definitive, so if someone demonstrated it to be incorrect, everyone from Rome on down would respond with a resounding "Yeah, no kidding. See? Here's a list of issues with it." So Christendom as such won't actually be that heavily impacted.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Getting back to the OP:

"Do the "Dead Sea Scrolls" prove the Bible wasn't altered?"

No, they are not 'proof' one way or the other.

It is obvious that a collection of earlier works can neither refute nor verify the 'accuracy' of a Bible that was created afterwards - unless it was supposed to be an exact duplication of those earlier works, ie. an anthology. But even if this was the intent, the existence of older documents which were different does not prove that the Bible itself is in error, only that there were variations in earlier texts. The only way we could know for sure whether or not the Bible was 'errant' at its inception would be if we had all the original texts which were used to create it at the time. Since the Dead Sea scrolls precede that event by several hundred years, their evidential value is practically zero.

OTOH, we already have irrefutable evidence that the Bible has been altered since it was created. Therefore the question has already been answered, and any 'proof' that the Dead Sea scrolls could provide is simply unnecessary.

So, given that nobody can seriously suggest that the Bible has not been altered in any way over the last 2000 years, just exactly what are Christians who claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls are proof of Bible inerrancy trying to argue?

One might imagine a case where the Dead Sea scrolls were found to be word-for-word identical to a particular modern Bible, therefore 'proving' that this particular Bible is Unaltered. But this seems like a ridiculously high standard to aim for, given that any modern Bible must have been translated at least once to be of any use, and therefore cannot not reasonably be expected to be 'word-for-word' identical. Of course in practice the Dead Sea scrolls themselves show numerous variations, making this proposal a complete non-starter anyway.

So is anybody who believes that the Dead Sea scrolls prove bible inerrency a complete nut-case? Perhaps, but perhaps their idea of 'inerrency' is not what we think it is. Perhaps it is the message, not the exact wording, that makes the difference for them. By this standard the Wicked Bible would certainly fail, but what about the others? If the message found in the Dead Sea scrolls affirmed what we find in modern Bibles, could that be considered evidence that the Bible has not been 'altered' (as in: had its meaning changed)?

This is assuming the Bible has a consistent message which it doesn't. As the Skeptic's Annotated Bible there are serious problems with the Bible's message even in the New Testament (it is even worse in the Old Testament.)

Biblical Family Values are totally horrid even by the standards of Ancient Rome.

The Contradictions in the Bible section includes messages as well. The Bible can't make up its mind regarding Adultery (if it even is a sin or if it should be punished), if anyone will go to Hell, the way to achieve salvation (good works, believing Jesus, or both), and I could go on.

If the message in modern Bibles is a cluster-FUBAR then what do the Dead Sea scrolls do for you?

[eir_de_scania]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Christianity isn't chiefly comprised of Biblical scholars, truethat. It's composed of clergy and laity. If the KJV were found to be incorrect it would damage Christendom significantly.

Cpl Ferro

It would? Why? And how?

Especially, why should a non-English-speaking christian worry about the KJV? Or even care?

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by eir_de_scania

It would? Why? And how?

Especially, why should a non-English-speaking christian worry about the KJV? Or even care?

Perhaps the expression "Bible Belt" should be used in place of "Christendom". But for some people it may be more or less the same thing.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Err...when was the Bible supposed to have been written, exactly?

Sunday afternoon, about 4:30, just before tea time.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by maximara

True and the Bible itself refers to books that didn't survive the centuries get to Council of Nicea:

Book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18)

The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14)

Book of Songs (1 Kings 8:12-13)

The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (lost/missing) and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:19, 14:29).

The Book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the Seer (II Chr 9:29, 12:15, 13:22)

and several others.

The dedication page is also missing, but is thought to be something like this:

"This book is for my darling Mary, who has put up with me writing this novel for 10 hours a day without protest. I would also like to thank my editor, Pontius Pilot, for his help with the local geography and laws of the Roman Empire.

All characters contained in this work are purely fictitious and any resemblance to anyone, alive or dead, is purely coincidental."

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Perhaps the expression "Bible Belt" should be used in place of "Christendom". But for some people it may be more or less the same thing.

I'm not sure that the KJV is that big a deal in the Bible Belt.

Furthermore many of the KJV Only group seem ignorant that the Apocrypha was part of the 1611 King James and it wasn't until the 19th century that these books were removed (mainly as a cost cutting measure).

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by eir_de_scania

It would? Why? And how?

Especially, why should a non-English-speaking christian worry about the KJV? Or even care?

Dear eir,

The latter might not be directly concerned, but they might ask questions about their own translations.

How would discovering major errors in one's primary religious text not affect one? "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and all that.

Fortunately to my understanding the Bible is consistent on most points across most translations, so even if the KJV were found to have major errors it wouldn't collapse Christendom.

Cpl Ferro

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Fortunately to my understanding the Bible is consistent on most points across most translations, so even if the KJV were found to have major errors it wouldn't collapse Christendom.

Cpl Ferro

It's a book of fables and fairy tails with demons, witches, sorcery, talking snakes, talking donkey, walking on water, water into wine, etc., etc. If Christians can believe in a book that isn't much more than a Harry Potter book, then there is nothing about the book that could possibly collapse Christendom.

It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be consistent. It just needs people to have faith that it is true. Religious faith and reason are two very different things. Look, there are highly educated and very intelligent people that believe in it when it is full of erroneous information like people with mental disorders having demons. We now know that there is no firmament. We have no evidence for the Exodus. We've no evidence that there was a resurrection other than thousand year old 3rd party hearsay evidence, yet people who are otherwise objective believe in it. Honestly it makes no difference what the book says. It could have been the Bhagavad Gita.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's a book of fables and fairy tails with demons, witches, sorcery, talking snakes, talking donkey, walking on water, water into wine, etc., etc. If Christians can believe in a book that isn't much more than a Harry Potter book, then there is nothing about the book that could possibly collapse Christendom.

It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to be consistent. It just needs people to have faith that it is true. Religious faith and reason are two very different things. Look, there are highly educated and very intelligent people that believe in it when it is full of erroneous information like people with mental disorders having demons. We now know that there is no firmament. We have no evidence for the Exodus. We've no evidence that there was a resurrection other than thousand year old 3rd party hearsay evidence, yet people who are otherwise objective believe in it. Honestly it makes no difference what the book says. It could have been the Bhagavad Gita.

Dear RandFan,

Perhaps you're right about true believers believing in anything written. What I meant was, if different Bibles say different things, it would be hard to say there was any coherent entity called Christendom or Christianity, wouldn't there? Every schismatic sect already believes a different interpretation of the book, but we still all call them Christian, in a manner of speaking. If their books were different, we would have a hard time calling them all by that name, wouldn't we?

Cpl Ferro

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear RandFan,

Perhaps you're right about true believers believing in anything written. What I meant was, if different Bibles say different things, it would be hard to say there was any coherent entity called Christendom or Christianity, wouldn't there? Every schismatic sect already believes a different interpretation of the book, but we still all call them Christian, in a manner of speaking. If their books were different, we would have a hard time calling them all by that name, wouldn't we?

Cpl Ferro

No, I do not at all think so. All that is needed is to believe in Jesus Christ. BTW: We do have a hard time. Many if not most Christians do not consider the many Christian cults Christian. They don't accept Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses or 7th day Adventists. And it should be noted that your argument is basically an ad populum fallacy. I don't accept your premise but even if I did it would not change my opinion.

[eir_de_scania]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear eir,

The latter might not be directly concerned, but they might ask questions about their own translations.

How would discovering major errors in one's primary religious text not affect one? "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and all that.

Fortunately to my understanding the Bible is consistent on most points across most translations, so even if the KJV were found to have major errors it wouldn't collapse Christendom.

Cpl Ferro

So why bring up the KJV?

The bible is full of errors,and I don't mean only translation errors, but that doesn't seem to affect christendom.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear eir,

The latter might not be directly concerned, but they might ask questions about their own translations.

How would discovering major errors in one's primary religious text not affect one? "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and all that.

Fortunately to my understanding the Bible is consistent on most points across most translations, so even if the KJV were found to have major errors it wouldn't collapse Christendom.

Cpl Ferro

On most points no doubt. But if versions disagree on any points then none of them can be shown to be inerrant. Error is a mere inconvenience in a railway timetable, but a real problem in the Word of the God Who neither deceives nor can be deceived.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

The latter might not be directly concerned, but they might ask questions about their own translations.

How would discovering major errors in one's primary religious text not affect one? "Blessed are the cheesemakers" and all that.

Swing and a miss there, Cpl. The KJV is NOT the primary religious text for most who follow Christ. Secondly, the Church already has a perfect solution to the problem: no copies of the original books are extant. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are just another copy. "Oh, some editor screwed up. A copyist made a mistake. It's a divine inspiration filtered through fallable human minds; what can you do?" See how easy it is to make the problem go away?

Quote:

Fortunately to my understanding the Bible is consistent on most points across most translations, so even if the KJV were found to have major errors it wouldn't collapse Christendom.

You still don't accept that the educated in Christiandom accept that the book has been altered numerous times, do you?

Quote:

What I meant was, if different Bibles say different things, it would be hard to say there was any coherent entity called Christendom or Christianity, wouldn't there?

It is a cunundrum, isn't it? That said, the unifying factor is that they all, at least ostensibly, follow the teachings of Christ.

Originally Posted by Craig B

But if versions disagree on any points then none of them can be shown to be inerrant.

A minor quibble: This is not true. It merely proves that at least one of them is not inerrant (italics merely to make my disagreement easier to see). It may be that one is true.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear RandFan,

Perhaps you're right about true believers believing in anything written. What I meant was, if different Bibles say different things, it would be hard to say there was any coherent entity called Christendom or Christianity, wouldn't there? Every schismatic sect already believes a different interpretation of the book, but we still all call them Christian, in a manner of speaking. If their books were different, we would have a hard time calling them all by that name, wouldn't we?

Cpl Ferro

But then, there is no coherent entity called Christendom. They all believe in Jesus Christ, but differ as to his nature. Most Christian denominations adhere to the trinitarian view, but some don't, such as the Mormons and the JW's. Within the trinitarian branch, most subscribe to the Chalcedonian creed about the two natures of Christ, but then again, the Armenian Church and the Coptic Church don't. The RCC subscribes to the dogma that Christ is present during the Eucharist (transsubstantiation), while Calvinist churches see Communion as a purely symbolic affair. Et cetera.

And while the above describes the official teachings of those churches, most of their flock hardly have a clue about such notions.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Christianity isn't a monolithic entity. The non-Catholic denominations following the Bible tend to undergo schisms relatively easily. Things that would disprove the entire concept behind the Southern Baptist sect may not have any impact on othe Kalvenists. I honestly don't think that there's any single thing, short of absolute proof that Jesus never existed, that would disprove all of Christianity. And the Roman Catholic Church doesn't consider the KJV to be definitive, so if someone demonstrated it to be incorrect, everyone from Rome on down would respond with a resounding "Yeah, no kidding. See? Here's a list of issues with it." So Christendom as such won't actually be that heavily impacted.

Alright, Dinwar, although I didn't mean a discredited KJV would disprove all of Christianity, I must reduce my "significantly" significantly. Thanks.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No, I do not at all think so. All that is needed is to believe in Jesus Christ. BTW: We do have a hard time. Many if not most Christians do not consider the many Christian cults Christian. They don't accept Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses or 7th day Adventists. And it should be noted that your argument is basically an ad populum fallacy. I don't accept your premise but even if I did it would not change my opinion.

Dear RandFan,

I'm not appealing to the passions of the masses in order to make a point, so I fail to see how I am arguing ad populum. That there is, or at least recently was, a large body of people organised into countries that collectively was called "Christendom" is a fact, whatever signficance we make of it.

As to the acceptance of all cults, well it depends on whether they accept the four basic mysteries of Christianity, namely the Trinity, the Theodicy, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. If there is another key mystery I would avidly like to know it. The Mormons deny the Trinity, the JW's deny the Trinity and the Incarnation, and the 7DA's appear to be on the level. These are hardly trivial details of Christianity to be removing, more like vital organs without which the entity dies.

Cpl Ferro

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear RandFan,

I'm not appealing to the passions of the masses in order to make a point, so I fail to see how I am arguing ad populum. That there is, or at least recently was, a large body of people organised into countries that collectively was called "Christendom" is a fact, whatever signficance we make of it.

As to the acceptance of all cults, well it depends on whether they accept the four basic mysteries of Christianity, namely the Trinity, the Theodicy, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. If there is another key mystery I would avidly like to know it. The Mormons deny the Trinity, the JW's deny the Trinity and the Incarnation, and the 7DA's appear to be on the level. These are hardly trivial details of Christianity to be removing, more like vital organs without which the entity dies.

Cpl Ferro

They are not trivial only because those who disagreed where ostracized or killed. Now you are appealing to tradition. The trinity is not in the Bible BTW and was very controversial prior to the Roman consolidation of religions. Check out the Gnostics. They were around from the beginning and they did not believe in the trinity.

And yes, you are making an ad populum argument. What many people believe does not make it true. Geocentrism was once believed true. Just because most Christians believed that it was true didn't make it true. There is no such thing as a "true" Christian. There never was.

"To assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

~ Cardinal Bellarmine, at the trial of Galileo in 1615.

Bellarmine was right by the way. The Earth does revolve around the Sun and Jesus was not born of a virgin.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear RandFan,

I'm not appealing to the passions of the masses in order to make a point, so I fail to see how I am arguing ad populum. That there is, or at least recently was, a large body of people organised into countries that collectively was called "Christendom" is a fact, whatever signficance we make of it.

As to the acceptance of all cults, well it depends on whether they accept the four basic mysteries of Christianity, namely the Trinity, the Theodicy, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. If there is another key mystery I would avidly like to know it. The Mormons deny the Trinity, the JW's deny the Trinity and the Incarnation, and the 7DA's appear to be on the level. These are hardly trivial details of Christianity to be removing, more like vital organs without which the entity dies.

Cpl Ferro

Dead man walking.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by tsig

Dead man walking.

Dear tsig,

Isn't that covered by the Atonement? If not, throw it in for an even five.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by RandFan

They are not trivial only because those who disagreed where ostracized or killed. Now you are appealing to tradition. The trinity is not in the Bible BTW and was very controversial prior to the Roman consolidation of religions. Check out the Gnostics. They were around from the beginning and they did not believe in the trinity.

And yes, you are making an ad populum argument. What many people believe does not make it true. Geocentrism was once believed true. Just because most Christians believed that it was true didn't make it true. There is no such thing as a "true" Christian. There never was.

"To assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

~ Cardinal Bellarmine, at the trial of Galileo in 1615.

Bellarmine was right by the way. The Earth does revolve around the Sun and Jesus was not born of a virgin.

Dear RandFan,

But, I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to do. I'm not saying Christianity is true because many people believe in Christ. Nor am I saying Christianity is true because it has a long tradition. Nor am I judging who is a true Christian or not; a job for God, if anyone.

I am saying that the fabric of Christianity is woven of words and the chief words are those organised into the varying versions of the Bible. The more the common tradition were violated by revelations of gross errors in translation, the weaker the fabric becomes. Surely it is not beyond anyone's apprehension in such an estimable place as this to imagine that Christianity has a cohesion to it that goes beyond mere lip service to a figure known as Jesus Christ. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Cpl Ferro

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear RandFan,

But, I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to do. I'm not saying Christianity is true because many people believe in Christ. Nor am I saying Christianity is true because it has a long tradition. Nor am I judging who is a true Christian or not; a job for God, if anyone.

I am saying that the fabric of Christianity is woven of words and the chief words are those organised into the varying versions of the Bible. The more the common tradition were violated by revelations of gross errors in translation, the weaker the fabric becomes. Surely it is not beyond anyone's apprehension in such an estimable place as this to imagine that Christianity has a cohesion to it that goes beyond mere lip service to a figure known as Jesus Christ. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Cpl Ferro

I think I know what you are saying but I cannot reconcile your statements. I'll let it go. I apologize if it's my fault and I'm just being thick. Wouldn't be the first time.

Thank you.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Craig B

On most points no doubt. But if versions disagree on any points then none of them can be shown to be inerrant. Error is a mere inconvenience in a railway timetable, but a real problem in the Word of the God Who neither deceives nor can be deceived.

Dear Craig B,

It's only a seriously problem if the translators and copyists were, to a man, expected to be influenced by the Holy Spirit unto infallibility. I'm not convinced they were. Without such, we're left with a potentially real message that is prone to mistranslation and typographical errors. I suppose that the ensuring of faithfulness would fall to...a church, say?--which may well be under the influence of the aforementioned Spirit.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Swing and a miss there, Cpl. The KJV is NOT the primary religious text for most who follow Christ. Secondly, the Church already has a perfect solution to the problem: no copies of the original books are extant. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are just another copy. "Oh, some editor screwed up. A copyist made a mistake. It's a divine inspiration filtered through fallable human minds; what can you do?" See how easy it is to make the problem go away?

You still don't accept that the educated in Christiandom accept that the book has been altered numerous times, do you?

It is a cunundrum, isn't it? That said, the unifying factor is that they all, at least ostensibly, follow the teachings of Christ.

A minor quibble: This is not true. It merely proves that at least one of them is not inerrant (italics merely to make my disagreement easier to see). It may be that one is true.

Dear Dinwar,

Thank you for helping me clarify my understanding.

I meant that for some people the KJV is their primary religious text. Revelations of unfaithfulness would be, if taken seriously by said, traumatic.

Your second point is wonderful.

Third, no, I don’t accept that the Bible in its present form is significantly different from whatever the originals was. This understanding bases on the guess that the original composers composed what amounts to “the real thing” and that this “real thing” is what has descended virtually intact down to today.

Fourth, yes, that is a pickle.

Cpl Ferro

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

I meant that for some people the KJV is their primary religious text. Revelations of unfaithfulness would be, if taken seriously by said, traumatic.

That's fairly irrelevant. The KJV has inconsistencies stemming from a stylistic choice in interpretation. If that's traumatic to people, frankly they have to get over it. It's calouse and cold-hearted, but it's also the truth. Scientists have to deal with it all the time, every time one of our pet theories gets disproven or a paper we've been working on for months or years gets rejected. And they should know better than to expect comfort in a Fallen world anyway.

Quote:

Third, no, I don’t accept that the Bible in its present form is significantly different from whatever the originals was. This understanding bases on the guess

What evidence would prove you wrong?

Unfortunately for your position, a great deal of information has been presented in this thread that disproves it. Several people have pointed out that there are multiple Biblical traditions. Sure, the fact that there are multiple versions doesn't prove that none of them are divinely inspired, but it DOES tend to indicate that the books, even if they were divinely inspried, were subject to very human manipulations.

Quote:

that the original composers composed what amounts to “the real thing” and that this “real thing” is what has descended virtually intact down to today.

Seems to contradict your earlier statement:

Quote:

It's only a seriously problem if the translators and copyists were, to a man, expected to be influenced by the Holy Spirit unto infallibility. I'm not convinced they were. Without such, we're left with a potentially real message that is prone to mistranslation and typographical errors.

Quote:

Fourth, yes, that is a pickle.

Not really. I gave the answer, and the wink was intended to show that it's not that hard. What you consider foundational mysteries in Christianity other denominations would consider minor points, or even heresy. The only truly unifying feature, the only one that I've seen thus far that avoids the No True Scotsman trap, is the belief that Christ was right. Everything else is optional in practice.

Quote:

I suppose that the ensuring of faithfulness would fall to...a church, say?--which may well be under the influence of the aforementioned Spirit.

I'm sorry, but you have GOT to be kidding. The Church was as corrupt as any other government (yes, OTHER government--it was one) during much of the time when these translations were occurring. And the translaters? You tell me how guys who get their kicks drawing butts can be trusted to translate and copy divine words with 100% accuracy. I've seen a fair number of illuminated manuscripts, and enjoy playing "Find the Porn". It's depressingly easy sometimes, even in the holy books. And remarkably weird at times....

That's just the Church of the Middle Ages. The Church while it was taking over the Roman Empire would be even worse. The Church fighting the Reformation is going to have a lot of other problems.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear RandFan,

But, I'm not sure what you think I'm trying to do. I'm not saying Christianity is true because many people believe in Christ. Nor am I saying Christianity is true because it has a long tradition. Nor am I judging who is a true Christian or not; a job for God, if anyone.

I am saying that the fabric of Christianity is woven of words and the chief words are those organised into the varying versions of the Bible. The more the common tradition were violated by revelations of gross errors in translation, the weaker the fabric becomes. Surely it is not beyond anyone's apprehension in such an estimable place as this to imagine that Christianity has a cohesion to it that goes beyond mere lip service to a figure known as Jesus Christ. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Cpl Ferro

Do you?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Craig B,

It's only a seriously problem if the translators and copyists were, to a man, expected to be influenced by the Holy Spirit unto infallibility. I'm not convinced they were. Without such, we're left with a potentially real message that is prone to mistranslation and typographical errors. I suppose that the ensuring of faithfulness would fall to...a church, say?--which may well be under the influence of the aforementioned Spirit.

Cpl Ferro

If the church is under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit then why do they need a bible?

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by tsig

Dead man walking.

New episodes this sunday on AMC!

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by tsig

If the church is under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit then why do they need a bible?

For most of its history the Roman Church didn't in fact seem to need the Bible, and limited access to it as far as possible.