Joan of Bark

.

The oldest dating manuscripts are copies of copies of copies of orally transmitted stories. This is even more true of the old testament than the new. And according to Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus, we have about 5700 copies of parts of the new testament in Greek, and at least 200,000 discrepencies between them!

Of course, since the invention of printing, errors and discrepencies have decreased greatly. Still, Christians can't seem to agree on which Bible is correct.

Ibelieve

If you really want to look at counter point of view of Bart's writings, I would suggest this blog. review-of-bart-ehrman-misquoting-jesus

I think you misrepresent Christians a little when you say that we can't agree on which Bible is correct. All versions of the Bible have translational or interpretive mistakes in them. What we argue about is which versions are more accurate relative to the original language. That does not disqualify all the other versions.

Let me use the example of the Supreme Court. We have one Constitution of the US. So what's the problem? Just read it and do it! Not so simple is it. Some want to add to those words, and some want to take away from those words. So new laws are created relative to these interpretations.

What you have in Christianity is the same thing. Some Christians are strict constructionists, so only a very few Bible versions qualify. Some are a little looser in their understanding of the Biblical constitution. Therefore, many more Bibles are accepted as "OK". Then you have those who want to very loosley handle the Biblical constitution. They have created some off the wall scripture including the Gnostic gospels. So Christianity and the multiple Bible versions is nothing different than what happens in all the court systems thoughout the world.

We still do have many old manuscripts in the original languages to work with and compare modern day versions. As I stated earlier, I use three versions at all times. If I see any kind of major discrepancy in meaning within those, then I will search further. Most Christians want a version that is easy to read for them. I think that is a good thing. Most Christians do not try to do apologetics. They can get the jist of God's constitution, and start living it. I think they will do just fine with God if that is the case.

-Jay-

Serious questions, Ibelieve:

What is the proper (in your opinion) canon of the Bible? Is the Catholic version, with the attendant apocrypha, legitimate? What about the Ethiopian canon? The Greek Orthodox?

An attendant question:

What is your operational definition of Christian?

regards,

NinJay

Joan of Bark

There's a huge difference between the constitution and the Bible. The Bible is supposed to be the inspired WORD OF GOD. No one makes such a claim for the constitution. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, He would ensure that all copies of his word would be perfect, clear, and consistent. Or does He enjoy creating discord?

Here's an example: Is it permissible to take the life of another human being? The Amish say no, never, under any circumstances. Other Christians are, even as we speak, flying B-1B's along the coastlines of America, carrying nuclear weapons that can randomly kill millions of people. These Christians are quite willing, on the orders of someone they've never met, to unleash these weapons on people they've never seen. Both the aviators and the Amish will claim to be following the Bible. What possible good is a book that cannot even give us clear direction on the subject of killing?

I read the blog, btw, and it seems to come down to an argument of: Ehrman can't prove that the copies we have are not the inspired word of God. Which of course is backwards thinking. It is the job of believers to show that these copies are the inspired word of God.

And, to return to the theme of the OP, how far removed from Moses are our OT manuscripts? Certainly not close enough to be considered historical.

lumax

I'm a little surprised and curious - you did not include the Hebrew Bible. That is where your "versions" of the OT come from. Oh and there is a difference.

Baalazel

I have a KJ 1611 Oxford addition wide margin which I have had for over forty years and which served me well when I was a fundamentalist and during my years in Bible college.

The margins are great for making little notes and some pages are all but full of them. Not a few are meant to clarify the meaning of words and in some cases the meanings of entire passages not to say complete doctrines.

I have found this version useful over the years as I continue to study the Bible in a much wider ranging and broader effort at understanding my own attachment to religion. It serves me well in my efforts at IIDB to expose the more nonsensical efforts of apologists and the occasional preacher who risks exposure here.

That said, why should anyone concerned about their immortal soul accept theological advice from anyone whose understanding of theology is based on the premise that the source he uses is merely more accurate than others? More accurate as opposed to, which? As opposed to this or that version?

And just what standard is used to ascertain the version you use is, in fact, more accurate? And how would you assure me that the one you choose to chart eternity for me is accurate enough to suffice?

As though the Bible is analogous to anything. Is this your attempt to make it appear that the accuracy of a particular version of the Bible can be vouched for by the fact that man is able to create systems of laws and justice? Do you really mean to argue that you are to be trusted to reveal to us the mind of God because you are able to grasp the intentions of the Founding Fathers?

No, what we have in Christianity is not the same thing at all. Should the Supreme Court rule in any particular case it is doubtful that people will suffer for eternity by reason of it. Yet you will have us think that eternal damnation can be avoided or met based on which version of the vehicle of its presentment is most accurate. That is not good enough.


So then all one needs is the jist of Gods mind. Find a version easy to read. One not too supportive of apologetics nor given to major discrepancies. You think it is a good thing. They will be fine with God. Only, if they really want to know the mind of God it will take at least three versions of his word to do it. How kind of you to clear it up for us.

Baal

Ibelieve

My opinion really doesn't matter on this subject. The test of canonization has been well defined over the centuries. I would refer you to this site which does a pretty good explanation of the process, and the historicity of the matter. canon This process was pretty well completed by about 170AD. I accept the wisdom of the early church fathers, who lived close to the apostles. (that's faith) The canon I accept would be the canon chosen and defined at the earliest of stages, and is what is commonly printed in the Bible versions mentioned above.

In Acts 11:26 you will see that the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. A Christian was and is a disciple of Jesus. That's my operational definition of a Christian.

Ibelieve

Thou must not have understoodest my previous post. If thou whilst readeth carefully, I said I used the KJ with Greek and Hebrew interlinked. That is one version that I do think is fairly accurate to the original Greek and Hebrew. I do not wish to have a contest between the versions, I compare those three versions mentioned to the original languages. I am by no means an expert in Greek or Hebrew, so I work with English (my native tongue). However, computers today have made these comparisons quite easy and readily available.

And one question. Where does this KJ 1611 version describe the soul as being immortal? And what is a soul anyway?

Yes you are right in that the Bible is probably not analogous to anything. However, to communicate thoughts, sometimes we make analogies, even though they may be imperfect. I ask no one to trust my thoughts or words. I am merely just a disciple myself. People should only trust God's words and not mine. I should be measured against His words as well as the different versions should.

This is a strawman argument. It is not mine.



Yes, that is what I think. Even retarded people can understand and respond to love. They may never understand anything about scripture, but I do believe they have the capacity to understand love. And my KJ 1611 says God is love.

You have a prideful attitude if you think any of us will fully understand the mind of God. However, Those of us who have a clear mind, and want to follow Jesus (a disciple), can do so by a process called "growing in knowledge." Most of us grow in knowledge of something during our lifetimes. I personally believe we can grow in the knowledge of "good" or "evil". Remember the tree? I have chosen with my life to try to grow in "good".


So does your use of the screename Baalazel refer to yourself or a god/gods outside of yourself?

-Jay-

For purposes of this discussion, your opinion does matter. It's an indication of how well you've thought things through. (I like the late Bruce Metzger's book, The Canon of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), for a fairly balanced treatement of the issue.)

However, your answer gives some clues - to wit: You accept the Western Protestant version of the canon. (I'm not making that statement as a judgement for good or bad, mind you - I'm just stating what I take from your answer.)

I will point out, however, that the formulation of the canon is reasonably well understood, and to discount the sigificant influence of political expedience and orthodoxy in the process does no service to anyone.

That's more of a semantic definition than an operational one. What defines being desciple of Jesus? That's the crux of the matter, isn't it?

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

But when Christians assert that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it should be interpreted this way or that way, they, themselves, are claiming to know the mind of God. Pot, kettle, black.

regards,

NinJay