Chili

But was it not our use of the "tree of knowledge" that got us banned from Eden to start with? If so, reason should never be able to get us back into Eden, especially not the 'long lost' Eden with a super educated tree of knowledge. As for me? I like the mythmakers and how they put the thing together.

long winded fool

I saw no evidence. I saw possibility. I saw things that made me think. But I didn't see evidence. There is more evidence that we never landed on the moon than there is that the Bible of today has been greatly altered by theological agenda. Just go to one of those conspiracy web sites. The Bible is a book with a theological agenda, no doubt, but it hasn't changed, in the sense that the text is still just as trustworthy as it ever was, ignoring the few peripheral examples of missing pages or misinterpreted passages. The fact remains that there is still a hell of a lot more evidence that we did land on the moon and that the Bible of today is likely more close to the original than any other ancient text. If I have to ignore the boring, unexciting evidence that we've been living with for years in order to accept some fringe evidence that was recently uncovered, and that someone is trying to keep under wraps, I'll just as soon trust the mountain of evidence against extreme, left wing theories, even if there is a tiny bit of evidence supporting them.

If you have a good case already, a too small glove won't be enough to alter scientific opinion. Reasonable doubt is not equivalent to, "He didn't do it."

Amlodhi

Hi lwf,

Luke 3:22 (at the baptism), "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." (KJV)

Virtually all of the earliest witnesses read, "Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten you."

(ibid., Ehrman)

Which of the above readings do you trust?


Amlodhi

Magdlyn

Oddly, you have ingored pp's who said we do not need to recreate other ancient texts from fragments and manuscripts coped 300 yrs from the original writing. You see, the entire ancient texts are still extant. We do not need to piece them together. They are still intact.

Check out this papyrus from 1240 BCE Egypt:

http://www.touregypt.net/bkofdead.htm

:huh:

long winded fool

I trust the original greek which reads in most manuscripts "in thee I am well pleased."

And finding mistranslations or errors does not prove that the Bible is untrustworthy in comparison to other documents from the time period. I do not dispute that there are errors and missing and even added passages. I dispute that there are more errors and mistranslations than other ancient greek and hebrew texts, when in fact there are less. I reiterate, the Bible is not perfect. It is less imperfect than most ancient texts. If you distrust the modern Bible, you must logically distrust every other ancient manuscript from the time even more. Finding differences in mass produced ancient manuscripts is obviously to be expected. That there are so few differences shows that the Bible is and aways has been as accurate as it can possibly be, and that, more importantly, it is in almost completely unaltered form, which is more than any historian can say about any other popular ancient manuscripts.

If you think the Bible has been corrupted, then you should see The Republic and The Oddessy. If we use the errors and contradictions in the Bible to measure corruption and label it abridged and untrustworthy, we logically throw out all other ancient texts as being even worse.

Magdlyn

LWF, it seems you are being purposefully obtuse. You chose later copies with a corrupted translation over older fragments with a different (and probably more accurate, being older) saying? Why? Just b/c there are more of them seems a strange reason. Choosing quantity over quality? Please explain.

I guess you are ignoring the posts (including mine) which point out other more intact and older ancient manuscripts, because you are only looking for Greek and Hebrew (Abrahamic) texts. Keep in mind, Biblical scholars need to get the best oldest fragments for their translations, because they are trying to produce evidence for Truth and God's Word for 21st century believers (who make up the majority of Westerners), not just an epic poem about some Greek heroes few people care about anymore.

Also keep in mind, much Greek lit was purposely destroyed by the Church in the early centuries CE. So it is not surprising there is less of it than there is of ancient Xtian lit. The quantity of evidence does not make it more true or important, IMO.

long winded fool

This is true. Just because a lot of people think something doesn't mean that it must be correct. The evidence of the most substantial quantity tends to be the most trustworthy, however. The world could have been created in seven days less than a million years ago, however the vast majority of evidence suggests otherwise. For an extraordinary claim to be taken seriously, there must be extraordinary evidence that logically outweighs traditional wisdom. I have not seen such evidence. I have seen interesting coincidences and listened to some well presented arguments, but that is true of several extraordinary theories that, while interesting, are still most likely untrue. The presence of a face shaped rock on mars is possible evidence of a past civilization. It's just not sufficient evidence to outweigh conventional wisdom of a lifeless planet, no matter how convinced a few researchers are. Again, when all we look at is the evidence for our theory, we can build up what seems to be an impressive collection, create an impressive case by selecting which evidence to display when and ignoring evidence counter to our theory, and it is easy to become convinced. But when we look at all the evidence, we find that it is wise to be skeptical of a few coincidences and flukes in the face of thousands of years of science and history.

Amlodhi

Now you've got me curious. If the earliest extant textual witnesses and the citations of the early church fathers support the reading:

". . . today I have begotten you."

How did you come to the conclusion that your preferred reading is the "original Greek"?


But we're not talking about "mistranslations or errors". We're talking about specifically targeted changes made to critical terminology in the text. Changes which consistently reflect an effort to make the existing text better conform to the prevailing (orthodox) theology.


That is irrelevant to me. I'm uninterested in "comparative trustworthiness". I'm interested in the extent to which specific targeted changes reflect an evolving theology > from that of the beginning Jerusalem church > to later orthodoxy.


Amlodhi

Kaiser_Soze

I'm sorry - but is this good enough to build your world around? Your whole life, your worldview... "at least as pure as any other modern text translated from the same period".... is it a competition: which is the most accurate, Plato or the Bible? That seems to be what's coming out here...

Vorkosigan

"I saw no evidence."

LWF, Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture is a major work by a major scholar, covering the major tampering with the Gospels. Not only do the differing texts themselves testify to the pattern of alterations, but the scribes themselves often left instructions on how to alter the text. For example, in the Codex Bezae there are instructions on how to alter the manuscript so that the original reading of Mary Magdelene's hometown, Melegada, is changed to the more acceptable but equally non-existent "Magdala." Further, There are numerous complaints of textual corruption found in Eusebius, for example, his cite of the second century Bishop Dionysus' complaint of the forging and faking of letters.

Such changes are common, and create problems for creating the so-called critical text. For example, consider the mundane issue of John 1:34. A few texts read "the chosen one of God" instead of "the Son of God." Based on the fact that the majority of texts read "the Son of God," the patristic fathers generally say the text reads "the Son of God" and the phrase coheres with John's theology, Metzger (Textual Commentary) favors "Son of God." However, this brings up another important criterion of choosing the right reading, and that is difficultly. It is a principle of such judgments that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. In other words, where a text creates problems theologically, it is to be preferred (why would anyone alter the text to make it more difficult, when the usual practice is to alter it to smooth it out?). Thus, given the problem of clashing criteria, it is impossible to know what the original text said, one can only make a reasoned guess based on imperfect but useful criteria.

This brings up the most important issue. The text you read in English is a translation based on a constructed text. In other words, when you read the NT, you are reading a scholarly reconstruction. No manuscript anywhere contains our modern critical New Testament. Therefore, when you say:

in the sense that the text is still just as trustworthy as it ever was

...there is a certain irony in observing that the text you think is trustworthy actually doesn't exist at all -- it is an invention, of scholars, and it is constantly being refined.

I refer you to two indispensable works, both by Bruce Metzger. One is his Textual Commentary on the New Testament and the other is The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption and restoration. Metzger, a religious conservative, is probably the leading scholar of NT textual matters.

Vorkosigan