Celsus

Hi Veronique,

Did you post a reply, or are you no longer interested? It doesn't matter either way for me. I'm just asking in case I missed it.

Joel
(P.S. I PMed you about it but I guess you don't check them)

agapeo

Hi Joel,
I assume you again are speaking in generalities since you don't know me personally and what I "shield" myself from. I've read numerous threads on the issue/subject of "Where was God" both here and on other Boards. In relationship to prayer it always befuddled me why people naturally assume that when a prayer is not answered that that must be proof that God is nowhere to be found. It's easier to believe that then to believe that perhaps there is a possible more valid reason for the unanswered prayer. IOW unanswered prayer is not a basis for determining the non-existence of God. It's a possibility, I grant you, but then you have to explain away all those claims of answered prayer. I'm sure you have some explanations. The question is can those explanations be proved to be true.

Not to be insensitive to the prayers of former Christians (theists) but I don't consider their unanswered prayers a "valid example" of a non-existent God.
Observation #1:
I don't question your observation #1. Heck, I've observed it myself. But the only evidence that I have observed concerning whether they had "faith" is when their prayers are/were answered. Again I ask you to show me where it is God's will for me to pray for the end of starvation in the world. I failed to see where you did as such.

My understanding is that the problems in the world (of which starvation is but one) will continue to get worse. My observation is that that is so. Of course I've only been around for about 50 years, but I think history will verify that. But let's not get side-tracked with too much detail on this aspect. The point is is that I don't think the idea of utopia here on earth in this day and time is possible. It's a nice thought, but that's about all it is.

As far as praying "to allow unsaved to be reached" I don't see where my prayers are required to facilitate that end. In Matthew 5:6 it says: "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." The word "shall" indicates an absolute, not a maybe or perhaps. All that is required is someone willing enough to serve the food. IOW those who will be saved will be saved irregardless of whether I pray for it or not. But what I can pray for is the opportunity to be a waiter at the banquet table. This is a prayer of thankfulness and not one of having one's own need met. If not me then someone else.

Please note that what is being discussed here is experience and experience is not a guarantee for proof. IOW whether one has the experience of receiving an answer to prayer or doesn't is no proof of the existence or non-existence of God. All it says is one got an answer and another didn't. From there you have to come up with an explanation of why one did and the other didn't. The question is how plausible those explanations are.
I don't see in the above where it says anything about praying for the unsaved to be saved.

Observation #2:
Hmm . . . I could say in regards to suffering and death that that applies to the saved as well but your point speaks of those not having the "chance for salvation." Cutting to the chase may I assume you're referring to those who have never heard the gospel? Why do I suspect you've heard the arguments already? Very well then, I do not presume to know who God will save. Salvation was available long before Christ came about. And salvation will be available after his return (in the air). Salvation in-between is available through JC, but I don't think exclusively so. That determination is made at the time of the resurrection of the just and unjust. Who is just and who isn't is not my concern. But the alternative for this is the "gathering together" in which no judgement occurs. In that phrase those that have accepted JC as their substitution have already been judged and the verdict rendered is – they are made righteous through no act of their own. IOW they have already passed "Go" and collected their $200.

So, is there salvation for those who have never heard? IMO – Yes, if they are of the group composed of the just.

Conclusion (yours)
It is my opinion that your conclusion is faulty unless you can establish that your observations are true and/or in the case of observation #1 that it is God's will for me to pray for starvation to end or that it's not God's will for the unsaved to be reached. Unless I missed something I don't see where you have. I've seen assertions, but nothing more.
Says who? According to Paul he did. Since you weren't there at the time the best you can do is claim Paul to be a liar. But it sure is weird that he did a complete flip-flop in his position if he hadn't. Of course I realize that one can make the assertion that he had scrupulous reasons for his change.
Huh? The specific context is prayer and whether there are any qualifiers other than faith. The cited verse indicates there are and therefore relevant. If you want more specific qualifiers I suggest you read Matthew 6:1-15. I don't think there's any question that JC had the necessary faith to get what he asked for. The first principle, illustrated by the verse cited, established that faith is secondary to the will of God. It seems to me that it doesn't matter how much faith you have if what you pray for fails to meet that criteria.
Hmm . . . Speaking of selective observation. Perhaps you missed the point I was making. I wasn't speaking to my God making sense, but rather other's interpretation of God's will making sense. For instance: If someone was to tell me it was God's will for me to murder someone that wouldn't make much sense to me based on what I do know and understand. They would have to convince me where that is true. If that is circular reasoning then atheists are guilty of the same. Why should I be held to a standard of blindly following what someone tells me if it doesn't sound reasonable? It may of escaped you but I've observed many atheists on this Board state the same thing. The only difference is the conclusion made.
Ouch!!! It's too bad you fail to understand what " bridleth not his tongue" means. See James 3 and make a special mental note of verse 9. Here, allow me. "Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God." But of course, I assume by the smiley you were just kidding and surely don't consider cuss words to be what James 1:26 is referring to. Shoot, I'm not even sure they had "cuss" words in that day and time. Perhaps so, but there sure wasn't an exhaustive list.
No your not. I haven't even scratched the surface yet. Tell ya what. If you'd like I could email you my complete set of criteria that I follow. I could post it here, but it most likely would consume about 5 or 6 pages in this venue and that wouldn't be appropriate IMO.
Please note that I stated that the verse cited was both literal and figurative (figurative and not necessarily metaphorical). Perhaps the way I phrased the answer was ambiguous, but the context IMO explained my reply with more detail in that the literal fact is expressed figuratively by the expression of "open you the windows of heaven." This expression is not a metaphor but rather the figure of speech called in Greek Anthropopatheia which is a figure used of the ascriptions of human passions, actions, or attributes given to God or the things of God. In Hebrew the figure is called derech benai adam or the way of the sons of man. In Latin the name for this particular figure is called condescensio from which we derive our English word condescension or IOW God condescending down to the level of man in order for man to perceive/understand His nature. Should I explain what a Metaphor is?

A Metaphor is confined to a distinct affirmation that one thing is another thing, owing to some association or connection in the uses or effects of anything expressed or understood. The figure lies wholly in the verb. For example, "All flesh is grass" is a metaphorical phrase in that flesh is literal and grass representative of it. The figure is seen within the verb "is". This is a brief explanation but I thought I'd mention it because the figure of speech called metaphor is one of the most misunderstood figures. It also happens to the most commonly known and is therefore used haphazardly. Btw – I believe your example is a figure called hyperbole. This figure is one where the expression adds to the sense so much that it exaggerates it, and enlarges or diminishes it more than is really meant in fact.

I probably told you more than you care to know but my point is that when it comes to figure of speeches used in the Bible I'm hardly a novice in understanding.

In regards to my use of Luke 6:38 I'd like to point out that this is another principle of Biblical interpretation which is: Understanding an unclear verse in light of other verses related to the same subject – the subject being – giving (or tithing if you prefer). Please note also that I said "blessings are not always monetary" and not "physical". Whereas cash is a physical item, God's way of blessing you physically is not limited to cold hard cash.

Gee Joel, I said some of my answers might seem vague but I didn't think you would interpret them so completely so.
Where should I send the check? Otoh – Am I really obligated since I've read and studied Malachi more times than I can shake a stick at. (A figure of speech btw). Shoot, most Christians I know don't even know where the Book's located if they've even heard of it.
Out of respect for another member of this Board this is a subject which I don't wish to discuss here and now. There are a myriad of issues involved in this one subject alone. Issues which if I discuss at all will be with that person first. So this is one which I will side-step. But I will briefly state that IMO the entire scenario of Hell and eternal punishment is symbolic and not literally true to fact. Also regarding Matthew 10:28 – Why do you assume it is referring to God?
We agree on that one. I doubt that you/I will ever get one from Christiandom. For me it is no problem as I said before.
Not at all. What I have done is perhaps contradicted what is taught about/from the Bible by others and not in the Bible. There's a difference you know. There are so many views regarding this subject within the Christian community that I wouldn't think mine would bother you that much more. Whether mine is more plausible over the others is a subject for another day.
I have not read Josh McDowell's findings on the BB. I rarely visit that Board since my application to post there was rejected. I feel that the rejection was unwarranted if it was based on what little I revealed about my beliefs and therefore I consider that with such an attitude demonstrated by them it would be a waste of my time. I only visit the Board when a certain individual brings something to my attention. I'm not very impressed with the discussions that take place there anyways.

Now to answer your question. The 6/24 days hypothesis depends on what you are referring to. Do I believe that the heavens and the earth was created in 6 days? No. How 'bout 1 day. The act of creation taking place in 1 day and the end result occurring over millions, perhaps billions of years. But this is only true IMO if you confine the term creation to verse 1. After that you have only 2 acts of creation. Neither of which has anything to do with the heavens or earth. But do I believe that God could have brought to past all that we see in a blink of an eye? I don't see why not, but then I don't know everything. After all I'm not God.

As an aside – I have yet to answer the remainder of your previous post. Would you like for me to review it and do so? Also due to the lateness of the hour I may have made some grammatical/formatting errors to this post and may make some editorial correction, but will have to do so later.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Sabine Grant

Hello Joel.. you are right. I only now checked my profile. I have been babbling my silly mind off on other threads and forgot all about our dialogue.
I will need to reread our initial exchanges to see where I abandonned the thread...I did not even realize when I posted my Happy Thanksgiving that I had been engaged on this very thread.
Sorry sorry....

Celsus

Never mind, I've got my hands full with this other theist here...

Agapeo, I will try to post a reply soon, but I've got a friend visiting from Norway on Tuesday for a week and a half. That, and I'm trying to arrange travelling back to Singapore, shipping all my stuff, selling the rest of it, etc. So perhaps after that reply, I won't be able to post very much. However, I would be interested in your "rules for interpretation" or whatever you call it. I hope we don't take too antagonistic a stance, I'm enjoying this exchange, even if I'm constantly moaning about how long it takes to read and then post a half-intelligent response.

My e-mail is hunturu@hotmail.com

Joel

agapeo

Hi Joel,
What! You're giving more time to another theist on this topic! I'm jealous.
No problemo Joel. Take your time. For that matter go and do what you need to do and come back to this if that is better for ya. I imagine that I'll still be around and will check the thread from time to time.

Enjoy the time with your friend.

Celsus

Hi agapeo,

I'm going to try to condense this down again, and hopefully I'll try to consider all your comments. Firstly, a review of the main points:

You began by illustrating that God is love, and by telling me he answers your prayers. I asked you to consider that he doesn't answer everyone's prayers even qualifying that with 'according to needs, faith, his will' etc. Obviously your objection that not everyone's prayers are answered is familiar with me (actually, all these arguments are familiar). The thing is, my principle objection to failure to answer prayer is the concept of failed answers to prayer resulting in eternal hell - which you don't accept, but do not wish to discuss. That's a bit surprising - just tell your theist friend not to look in this thread. This discussion is going to be a little strange until you detail your concept of hell (or its non-existence), since the extreme view of eternal punishment is both central to Christian theology, and a means of understanding the extreme implications of failed prayer or failed evangelical efforts.

(Aside: who else can Matthew 10:28 be refering to? Who else has power over the soul? Look on to the rest of the passage, including Matthew 10:34 which gets a lot of bandwidth here on this forum...)

The second objection was about James 4:17 - if you know what is right to do, and you don't do it, that's a sin. If this applies to God, the simple cop-out of "We don't understand 'right' the way God does" is easy, but doesn't tell us anything about his love, especially with respect to hell and suffering. In other words, to justify the "we don't understand God" statement, you lose the ability to claim that God is love - since love is an adjective/verb/noun that we must understand according to the earthly form.

Now on to your personal objections: "As far as praying 'to allow unsaved to be reached' I don't see where my prayers are required to facilitate that end." etc. I think I've already addressed this in the Great Commission thread I linked - if what you say is right, then the GC is pointless (perhaps you agree, I don't know). Read it and let me know what you think.

The thing is, for you personally, you began by stating that your personal experience validated God for you. I'm not saying that failed experience invalidates the existence of God, but leads one to question whether the God you know is love personified or not. We should not fall into the trap of arguing from definition, but when you note all the qualifiers ('excuses' as I said earlier), the sceptic is going to start thinking of different adjectives for your God, and asshole may or may not be among those adjectives.

Re: Generalisations, selective observation, circular reasoning, etc.
I agree that atheists often put up piss-poor arguments and often beg questions and such. I hope I haven't done that to such an extent as others might. However what is relevant at this point is what you said in an earlier post:

Notice, that from your post:
You wish to sort out the junk
You wish to find what makes sense
What makes sense must fit what you observe

Remember that this was posted in the context of God answering prayer according to his will. Now in order for this to "make sense", any unanswered prayers obviously don't make sense unless they are outside God's will. Hence, your circular reasoning: If God answered the prayer, it was in God's will. If God didn't answer the prayer, it wasn't in God's will - thus you make statements that the unsaved aren't/needn't be part of your prayers, etc. Again, once we sort out what's in God's "will" (not the money), it's hard to picture the loving God.

As someone once posted, "All of the glory, none of the blame."

Re: Malachi; interpreting what the verses mean
I am quite aware of figures of speech and how they are used. Thanks for the Greek Anthropopatheia - handy word to know so I can look smart. However, you can see how this discussion bogs down quite easily in differing views of translation. You're probably aware that I don't believe a word of Malachi , but was arguing hypothetically - to force one form of interpretation, with which you countered with a different type of interpretation. The point is: different interpretations result in different conclusions. That basically sums up all of Christian theology. The question is, why is yours superior to the one I attempted? No circular reasoning allowed in answering this one.

Great figures of literature often allowed their themes to flow (and be enjoyed) on multiple levels. IMO, the Bible cannot be taken at a superficial/literal level, otherwise we are in for some serious trouble with interpretation. For example, it alienates the literalist who reads the entire book cover-to-cover (me, for example, when I was a fundie). On the other hand, once various rules for interpretation come up, you get 22,000 sects of Christianity (although most of their followers still use the superficial/literal route), and no one can agree whose interpretation is better. (I believe that the Holy Spirit hasn't been particularly helpful in sorting out this mess either)

(By the way, what are your views on the Apocrypha? May I quote some if it becomes relevant?)

Finally, I'm trying really hard not to bait-and-switch which is why I (try to) come back to the original arguments. Obviously, many of these discussions need a lot of serious digressions (but which I doubt you or I have time for) which is why I am constantly pruning this particular tree (and I suppose you are as well). I don't think there's much to say for the remainder of my post, since we're not discussing hell, and I assume I understand what you mean by "the Bible interprets itself" (unless your view is widely divergent from what I think you mean). Your call on whether you'd like to reply.

As for the only outstanding item I care about: my list of Biblical problems (to counter your claim that the Bible is truth). So far, I've been happy to take the Bible on your terms. If you answer them, you're going to have to understand the Bible on my terms, especially this one:

But that will be the story for another day, when I'm in Singapore. This is not meant to be a bait-and-switch, but rather a continuation of the fuller understanding of the Bible. Have you encountered these theories before? If you haven't that might be something fun to do while I'm away. Either that or you'll be bored to tears reading which theory says what and which is more valid than the next.

Joel

P.S. I would like to add that I really respect your views that have come up, even if I think a solipsistic conclusion on differing interpretation is sufficiently strong to disprove the existence of (at least) the Holy Spirit if not the whole Trinity. (By the way - do you realise this is what joejoejoe stands for? )

agapeo

Hi Joel,

You're not from New York by any chance? The reason I ask is when I saw that you posted a response to me so soon I thought of the song "New York Minute" by whats his name. I also thought that I'm glad I'm not your sexual partner.
I'll take a look peek as soon as I can.
Enjoy your time in Singapore!
Thank you kindly. And I likewise respect your views. I'm sure we both can agree that respecting each other's views is not the same as agreeing with them.
Well, the significance of your screen name never crossed my mind since I don't agree with the theology of the Trinity either.

I've taken the liberty of copying your lastest post and will return with a response to it when I have time to give it greater consideration. Until then I bid you a safe trip to Singapore. Any idea when you will return (if I may ask)?

Celsus

Dammit, stop replying so quick. Anyway, I'll be around to (hopefully) finish what's left of this discussion.

Joel

Edited to add: I see you don't accept the Trinity. Is there anything you do believe in the Bible?

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

agapeo

Hi Joel,
And I will try to respond to the main points/comments, as I see them, as briefly as I can without taking them out of context. Hopefully I won't. Bear in mind I may respond to some, which I feel don't accurately reflect my position. For example:
To what do I reject? I certainly reject the concept that failed answers to prayer result in eternal hell. I've don't recall ever hearing this concept. I definitely don't recall reading of it from which the Christian theology is derived. Can you provide a quote or cite your source for such a concept that I may consider it?
:lol Too late! My friend is already aware of this thread.
Hmm . . . I see your point. Hell is a big concern of most of Christiandom. It seems a bigger one for non-Christians. I wish I could be more concerned about it myself but I'm not. Am I not therefore concerned about the lives of others? Most definitely. But we're speaking of eternal life (or eternal punishment) are we not. I wish I could discuss this in more detail but I fear that doing so would be too involved. Let me state this regarding the basis of my views: I see nowhere stated in the Bible that God created hell. I see where it says He created the heavens and the earth and that is observable. But hell – No, I fail to see where it's an actual place created by God and if God didn't create it then how can it exist. Therefore I consider it symbolic. Symbolic of eternal death. Death is a mystery and no one who has died has been able to say what it's like. (Unless you believe near-death experiences or the conjuring of dead "spirits" through séances. I don't believe in those things.) Being unknowable to what do we compare it? Eternal life. In comparison to that death must be hell because it's the extreme opposite. Heaven being the place of eternal existence the opposite of it must be a place (howbeit symbolic) of non-existence.
See John 10:10. Here is another means of Biblical interpretation: What is explained in one Gospel need not be explained in another because they are a complete unit. This is called Scripture build﷓up or Narrative Development. This can also be called "the remote context", and the "remoter context". Several passages of scripture on an identical incident or subject may augment the information given in each other. Each passage of scripture relating to the same incident or subject may not give the same details but the scriptures must compliment and agree with each other. Therefore determine who the thief is and you will have your answer. See Hebrews 2:14 for further development of the subject. Since this is an "aside" I see no point in elucidating on it.
You quoted the verse in relationship to the plight of the hungry and those who pray for them. I've responded that I don't see that directive scripturally. I went on to say that instead of praying for the hungry those that do so should be out there feeding them. If you see someone who is hungry and it is within your power to feed them and you don't that is sin. I don't care how much you pray about it. That is our standard and you object to God not having the same standard. Have you considered that when we live according to that standard as given scripturally then we by proxy are doing what God would have done. We are acting in His stead as I indicated in the citing of Luke 6:38. I fear that are repeating ourselves on this issue. I've asked to be shown where it is my obligation to pray for the starving and that afaik hasn't been done. Perhaps we can lay this to rest with this. Assuming that JC is God you have this passage:
According to you he went on to say: "Let's pray about it." But the according to the remainder of the passage he ended up feeding them because of his compassion for their plight. Now assuming that JC was God I fail to see where your claim is correct. Even assuming that JC was not God you then have this passage:
So, whose will was JC doing when he fed the hungry?
I finally got a chance to look at the thread. Interesting and tempting to join in on but I think I'll pass. I wouldn't want to step on Amos' toes.
I imagine that my children from time to time have had a hard time picturing me to be loving when I refused to bend to their will as well. There have been times when they have asked for things which were contrary to my will to give them. They typically would "throw a fit" when they didn't get what they wanted not realizing that if I were to give in to their demands it would not be in their best interest. Of course this analogy tends to break down when in the context of hunger. To refuse to give them food when hungry wouldn't be very loving of me. But I don't actually see where the claim that God doesn't provide is supported. See my response above.
Good quote. I can understand its point in this discussion but one can easily flip it around and say: "All of the blame, none of the glory." in regards to unanswered prayers. But I think I've already alluded to this.
:lol Good come back. I'll let it go. I do appreciate letting me know of your familiarity with the use of figures. It will save me the time in explaining them. Now I'll just point out when one occurs.
Quite rightly so. I've noticed that for the past 30 yrs. It's an obvious observation one can make evidenced by the vast diversity seen within Christianity alone. Never mind the other two major religions. It's a problem which I can see no easy solution to. Fortunately, for me, I have no need to defend any particular theological viewpoint. IOW – I'm not a Catholic so I don't have to defend their theology. I'm not a Protestant, Baptist, etc., etc., etc., so I don't have to defend theirs either. The only theology I have to defend is my own. But I don't usually do that either. The problem you and I might encounter is that your arguments might be predicated on the theology espoused by any one of the major denominations and I might not agree with any of them. I have debated/discussed theology with a wide variety of theists over the years and to be honest, I'm tired of it. Most are so entrenched with the theology of their particular denomination that it becomes an effort in futility. So I turn to the atheist. Why? For a number of reasons but perhaps the major one being emotional detachment. Yet I see even that among some of them as well. At least with some of the ex-Christians. They, likewise, bring their emotional baggage to a discussion.

I digress, but only because of this:
I'm well aware of that and have no illusions that I will persuade you otherwise. This is merely a discussion. Or. if you will, an exercise in mental acuity. Yours is a challenge for mine. In considering your views or arguments I am forced to examine my own. If you are persuasive enough then I will need to modify mine or consider myself to be rather shallow. No offence but you haven't met that criteria yet.
Another good point. As you might have gathered by now I can't disagree with you on it. I will, however, point out that IMO you are a victim of the same trap. Your arguments are based on the theology of others. Whenever one enters this arena – discussions of God – it's unavoidable, is it not? Whose theology are you using upon which to base your arguments. Certainly not your own. So in discussing these issues I see you as another theist with the distinction of not believing any of it. Without that belief, theoretically, you should have no emotional attachments and therefore should be able to discuss them objectively. I'd like to say I can likewise. You might believe otherwise. I don't consider your views a threat to my emotional well-being or ego. I have weathered the storms of doubt and my viewpoints being wrong far too many times to get rattled. Another storm is just a drop in the bucket. So in answer to this question:
It's never a question of superiority. It's a question of which is correct. If the correct one is given then naturally it will be superior to an incorrect interpretation. Which is correct IMO can be ferreted out by an exhaustive examination of the words used in the verse. The verse in the context. The context in relationship to other verses concerning the same subject. Etc., etc., etc.. Some are easily discerned and others require more effort and therefore time. Time which perhaps neither of us are able or willing to give due to other priorities. So we reach an impasse. We can agree to disagree. Which brings us back to the original question. To paraphrase:
As I previously stated in essence: No. Theology does that all by itself. Pick any one and I'll tell ya if it's distorting my God.
I agree. I think I already stated as much in dealing with Malachi, where I stated that which fails to be true to fact is figurative. What can I say in defence of "fundies"? Not much. J But neither do I wish to be overly critical of them. I think many of them have their hearts in the right place, but their heads seem to be some place else.
All the blame, none of the glory.
By all means go where you wish. At this point I don't think anyone will object. It seems that not many have much of an interest in the topic besides you and I. I'm flexible. Besides, as you said:
I think there are times when digressions are unavoidable. The subject of hell might be a case in point. I considered it to be a digression from your OP but I understand it's inevitable appearance. Perhaps what little I have said, above on the matter, will give you some indication as to my position. But I don't wish to focus on the subject at this time. Then you did bring this to the discussion which may necessitate an elucidation on my part:
It's relevancy may hinge on whether you can provide me a source or basis for this theology. It's a new one to me. I fail to see where unanswered prayers have any relevancy to eternal life or death.
I imagine you are and given our time restraints I appreciate the effort. But just in case you do pull a bait-and-switch it remains my prerogative to nibble at the hook. The same is afforded you.
But I don't think I claimed that. As I recall, I think, I said that the word of God is truth. The Bible (and all its various versions) contains God's word. If you've heard this argument as well (and I suspect you have) we can lay it to the side and I will concede to that perception for the sake of argument. Therefore, I will concede, that the Bible is not free from human influence. IMO it happens to be one of the biggest problems
That's a good illustration of misinterpreting the Bible by those who, for whatever reasons, find it anathema for women to have any authority over the man. I've been down this road with theists who hold this theology and have had very little success in showing that that is not what the verses are advocating. Should we discuss this? It perhaps is an aside topic, but I see your point. What can I say? Oh well.
Interesting reading. Have you read some of the rebuttals to the "Documentary Hypothesis" as well? In any case I'm sure you're aware of the complexity of the subjects covered in the above sources and therefore how impractical it would be to discuss them here and now. However, no current textual theory takes into account a God﷓breathed original, nor the priority of Aramaic. Regarding the source texts, an understanding of the history of the Biblical text is essential for accurate translation. We know the original writers either completely or at times dictated to their amanuenses. Did they also have translators available to them? Babylon's Hammurabi had a corps of translators to convey his royal edicts to his subjects throughout the empire. The Persians did the same. Pilate had the . . . . superscription written over Jesus in three languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. A systematic comparison of these ancient versions in light of the history of the text helps to reconstruct the original message. And regarding the authors of the text themselves I think it's pointless to debate who wrote what. As a reference it's fine, but it's the message and not the messengers that matters. As far as the author/s of the Pentateuch is concerned it is my opinion that anyone who actually believes that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible is mistaken.

Those that claim Jesus authenticated the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch are likewise mistaken. To attribute the books to Moses and claiming he authored them are two distinct things. It's obvious to anyone who reads them that Moses is one of the main subjects in them. Whether anything contained in them originated from him IMO it is more likely that he made use of amanuenses.

Through the centuries of the Bible's transmission, however, variant readings have occurred in different manuscripts for one reason or another. These errors fall under two main categories: (1) unintentional, and (2) intentional. Unintentional errors are due to mistaken eyesight, mistaken hearing, errors of the mind, or errors in judgment. These mistakes were made by scribes in copying. Sometimes they wrote what they thought they saw or heard as opposed to what was actually in the text. The scribes often worked long hours in less than ideal conditions. Furthermore, the mental task of copying manuscripts was fatiguing. Thus, scribes sometimes did not check what they were including in the text as carefully as they should have.

Variants due to mistaken eyesight are evident in the confusion of similar uncial (capital) letters of the Greek alphabet. The confusion between letters is readily seen in the variant readings of I Timothy 3:16. Here, the uncial letters Θ (theta) and Ο (omicron) have been exchanged. Other letters that were sometimes confused with one another are the Γ (gamma), Τ (tau), and Π (pi). [Note: I'm not sure the fonts/symbols will show in this venue as I write this.]

Another circumstance giving rise to variant readings often occurred when similar endings on words or on lines of text stood in close proximity. The scribe had to turn his eyes from the text to write. When he looked back for the next line to copy, these similar endings led his eyes to the wrong place in the text. Confusion of this nature caused him to omit sections or duplicate sections of the manuscript.

Many copies of the Bible were produced in a "scribe﷓pool," where one person read the text and many scribes copied what they heard. This practice introduced variants due to mistaken hearing. Different vowels with similar sounds caused confusion in spellings. Indistinct vowel sounds produced variants in the tense of verbs and sometimes introduced entirely different words into the text. An example of this type of error is found in a manuscript reading of I Corinthians 15:54: . . . Death swallowed up in victory [nikos] . . . Death swallowed up in conflict [neikos] These errors represent a large number of manuscript variants.

Some variants can be explained due to errors of the mind. This type of error is hard to distinguish from an intentional error, but when there is no "theological" issue involved in the variant, the variant may be due to mental wandering. The scribe may have seen one thing but placed in his mind another. Thus, we find: (1) substitutions of synonyms; (2) variations in the sequence of words; (3) reversals of letters in a word; and (4) introductions of wordings more familiar to the scribe (perhaps from a teaching).

Variants can also be explained by errors in judgment. When omissions were made in copying, they were often corrected by adding in the margin what was omitted. Unfortunately, notes not a part of the text were also written in the margin. A confused scribe, seeing writing in the margin, sometimes mistook this reading to be a correction and inserted it into the text. An example of this type of error is in John 5:3b and 4, where the explanation of how the water was moved by an angel (possibly given in a teaching) was noted in a margin and later copied into the text. All manuscripts copied from this copied manuscript would include this reading as part of the text. Texts from a different location that did not have this note in the margin would not include John 5:3b and 4 in their copied manuscripts.

Due to this variant in John 5:3b and 4, a "family" of texts emerges. Any manuscript copied from one of these manuscripts would include the error in the text (unless a scribe who knew better caught it). Thus we can explain how John 5:3b and 4 became a variant reading in several manuscripts.

In any case, perhaps I have said more than you actually cared to hear/read. IMO I think that Glenn Miller does a fairly decent job on rebutting the "Documentary Hypothesis" but I have reservations on even some of his conclusions.

I look forward to your response. When you return that is.

Celsus

Hi agapeo,

Nice to hear from you again. Unfortunately, all my books are on their way to Singapore, including my Bible. I'll dig this up sometime after I reach Singapore (19th Dec) and try and post a meaningful reply. BTW, I'm sure you copied the last bit (copyist errors) out of a textbook or encyclopaedia or something. I've read that explanation before, seemingly word for word. I understand that you do not equate: Word of God = Bible as we know it, so that's my fault. (which means you've just wasted a good half hour or more of your life which you will never ever get back )

Joel