Chief594

Looking over many many posts, I've noticed that there is no shortage of doubt as the the authority of the Bible. One thing that I've heard a lot lately in talking with different people, is that many people believe the Bible cannot be trusted SOLELY because it has been changed. That is, they have no problems with miracles or prophecies, presuming they KNOW that those events actually happened and were recorded accurately. I'd like to start a discussion thread about whether or not the Bible we have today is different from what was originally written. In other words, a discussion of textual criticism.

Toto

I don't know anyone who fits that category, myself. I would say that we don't know exactly when the books of the Bible were written, but there is no evidence that they were written at the time of the events they describe, and even if they were, the Bible was not necessarily written as a journalistically accurate record of events to start off with, so it doesn't matter if it was changed later or not. Later changes may be evidence of changing theologies or other points.

Feel free to discuss textual criticism.

Wily Coyote

Sheesh! Where to begin? Changed as compared to what? Which translation? Which denomination? The Catholic Bible, which includes Maccabbees 1 and 2, Tobin, etc.? The Hebrew Bible, which excludes the New Testament? The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible? (Whoo-boy, talk about changes!)

For that matter, the Bible as we know it wasn't really set down in writing until C.E. 539 (in Latin, yet), so the issue of accurate recording is really impossible to pin down.

chapka

I'd be very surprised if anyone fit your description. For instance, I know that the Book of Mormon has come down to us in more or less its original form, but I still think Joseph Smith made the whole thing up.

Many people would probably say that discussing whether certain prophecies were fulfilled would be premature if we don't even know when they were written, however. For example, if I were to write down a prophecy that Bill Clinton would be elected President of the United States, it wouldn't be particularly impressive, even if I pretended that I'd written it in 1979 and just not shown it to anyone until now.

As for textual criticism, that's a pretty big subject, especially considering that the "Bible" was not written at all. Many separate texts were combined into the Jewish canon of holy texts. Then certain books from that canon were combined with others into the Christian canon. Then during the Reformation, some were removed. All the time, these texts were being transcribed, translated, and generally messed around with. This is pretty clear from the various versions that exist.

CX

I suspect you would receive a better response and would start a more compelling discussion if you outlined your own position and narrowed the scope somewhat. Asking whether the bible we have today is different than the original is extremely vague. For example one could respond, "Of course! My bible is in English and the originals were in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek." With respect to narrowing the field, a "discussion of text criticism" is likewise too broad to stimulate meaningful conversation.

Chief594

I have looked over your comments and I agree I should probably be more specific. My apologies as this is my first thread. Let's try this again.

I believe the Bible was free from errors at the time of its writing. In other words, it is inerrant. That is, as originally written it possessed no humanly induced deviations from the message God intended to be recorded, and that it is true in every respect. It is free from all non-human induced (i.e. copyist ) errors. I should also point out that I belive that inerrancy is not exact reporting but rather that there are no incorrect details in what is reported. In other words, the copies that we have today are accurate only so far as they were copied accurately. I believe that based on the manuscripts we have available (more than any other ancient book) and the timeframe of which those manuscripts were written (within 20-40 years after the events actually occurred), we can reasonably believe that the books of the Bible we have today are the same as what was written by the authors.

How's that?

Crucifiction

Hah, yeah, right. There have been numerous changes to the BoM:

http://www.fiber.net/users/drshades/changes.htm

gregor2

Which exact books are you referring to? The Codex Bezae, the Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrian texts, or something else. Which of these are the inerrant versions? Have you read 'The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture' by Bart Ehrman? It documents alterations in the texts of various versions.

Sparrow

OK Chief594, given your statement above, can you please interpret Genesis for me? Assuming you believe Genesis to be literally true, it must have been written 5960-5980 years ago (the Earth is only 6000 years old, right?). Thank God He saved a copy from the flood.

Vorkosigan

Let's confine this to documenting the evolution of the manuscripts.

Vorkosigan