1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

  2. Please check out our two newest forums, the "Buy, Sell or Trade" (link ) forum in the Society Category, and the "Conspiracy Theories" (link) forum in our Discussion and Debate Category.

All scripture God Breathed?

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Dolgoch, Mar 14, 2010.

  1. Dolgoch

    Dolgoch New Member

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Timothy states that all scripture is God breathed etc, what scripture is he talking about, he only had the OT and not the Bible in its present form including the NT scritures.
     
  2. Standing Up

    Standing Up On and on

    Messages:
    23,849
    Likes Received:
    29
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    Not exactly.

    Peter calls Paul's writings scripture.

    2 Peter 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

    And Paul calls Matthew and Luke's works scripture.

    1 Tim. 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer [is] worthy of his reward.

    Deut. 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out [the corn].

    Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

    Mt. 10:10 Nor scrip for [your] journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

    Those are the clearest, simpelist references, but it'd be easy enough to assemble the remainder (that's already 19 of the 27) as God-breathed.

    Okay?

    PS. Jesus renamed James and John the two sons of Zebedee the sons of thunder. Know why? James was the first apostle to die and John the last apostle. All of scripture from eyewitnesses to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was written and passed around and viewed as God-breathed scripture. Zebedee means gift of God. The NT, the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ was a gift. Wouldn't you agree?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2010
  3. uk4jesus

    uk4jesus Pastor

    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    It might be highly possible that Paul was talking about the OT only, although some letters had been already written by then.
    But Jesus, just before ascending into Heaven, said to His disciples to teach (those they baptize) everything that He commanded. We know that the writings of the apostles and others writers of the NT were declaring the Words of Jesus.
    Jesus is the Eternal Word of God, so His Words are Scripture.

    With the close of the canon of the Scripture, we can affirm that the whole of the Scriptures are God breathed.
     
  4. The first response in this thread summed it up pretty well - the New Testament clearly sets itself up as "Scripture". At the very least we can establish that the Old Testament is included as scripture. We can also infer that the teachings of Jesus are also scripture (the "word of God" - since Jesus was God, after all).

    All that is left to ascertain is whether the commentaries on Jesus' life and teachings (the Epistles and other New Testament texts) should also be considered "scripture". And if we consider that 2 Timothy is one of the last books to be written, it can be inferred that Paul was aware that Christians were viewing his letters as scripture, and had no problems including his own works as part of God's word.

    Though to play Devil's Advocate - 2 Peter, from which we get the passage that Paul's writings are "scripture", was also one of the very last New Testament books to be written (likely contemporaneous with 2 Timothy, though with an upper-dating that may be slightly older) - thus it could be argued that 2 Peter was written with the agenda of making Paul's writings equal to scripture. However, this is easily refuted (in my opinion) by simply pointing out that if Paul's works were not being considered as scripture, then no church would accept 2 Peter as a genuine writing of the apostle. And again to play Devil's advocate, some scholars do not believe Peter was the author; but then, these same scholars do not believe Paul was the real author of 2 Timothy - but this goes beyond the scope of the thread-question - suffice it to say that the New Testament is internally consistent and agrees that these texts are part of the scriptures discussed in 2 Timothy.

    Just a thought,

    ~ Regards, PA
     
  5. Nachtjager

    Nachtjager Regular Member

    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    4
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Constitution
    Faith:
    Christian-Seeker
    I was having major problems with holding onto my faith for a number of reasons, one of which was so many Christians clinging to the "inerrancy" of scripture. Sorry, a fair amount of it contradicts itself and IS historically errant. Certain towns didn't exist at times when the Bible says they did, etc. I wrestled with this a lot, then a much wiser man than me came up with something that set me a little more at ease.

    He had had the same problems I had, then came to a conclusion I could live with - the Bible is "God inspired" not "God dictated." In short, it was done by man and has been messed with by fallable mankind for thousands of years, of course it has problems in it. But, the basics there are sound, so if something disagrees with your spirit, study on it.

    Take care and God bless. :)
     
    pgp_protector likes this.
  6. bibleblevr

    bibleblevr Regular Member

    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Catholic
    OK, so who called Peter's writings scripture? :confused:
     
  7. wayseer

    wayseer New Member

    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Read through Samuel and ask yourself if this little lot is 'God breathed" - I hope not.
     
  8. Standing Up

    Standing Up On and on

    Messages:
    23,849
    Likes Received:
    29
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    That was the PS part. Here are some details of the principle of how the writings of the apostlic eyewitnesses are alike to the OT writings by prophets --

    Lk. 11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they shall slay and persecute:

    That's OT prophets and NT apostles.

    Lk. 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

    Of the OT prophets, Abel was the first to die and Zacharias the last. What's between them is scripture given to them (Rom. 3:2). IOW, whatever Plato may have wrote is not scripture as he wasn't a Jewish prophet. Moses and Ezra, however, were.

    And the NT apostles?

    Mk. 3:17 And James the [son] of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

    Acts 12:7 James was the first apostle to die.

    John was the last.

    Between them from eyewitnesses only is written what is scripture. For example, Polycarp's writings are not scripture; he wasn't an eyewitness.

    That's the principle. Hope it helps.
     
  9. elman

    elman elman

    Messages:
    28,974
    Likes Received:
    124
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Methodist
    Was the Nebuchadnezza a Jewish prophet? He appears to have written chapter four of Daniel.
     
  10. dies-l

    dies-l Guest

    I get this argument, and I have no reason to disagree, but you lost me with the following:

    It seems that Paul is quoting Jewish Scripture and tradition and possibly referring to oral accounts of Jesus' teachings. Whether this is reference to any of the written gospels is quite a bit speculative.
     
  11. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    58
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Who Says Only the Originals Are Inspired?

    The issue seems to be inspiration – can a translation be inspired?

    Where in any Bible does it say “only the originals” are inspired? Who invented this doctrine and “made it a fundamental of the faith”? Some folks are really hung up on this “original” issue. There is no verse in any Bible that say “only the originals are inspired” – someone dreamed that one up – sounds really good – just not scriptural.

    1. In Tim. 3:16 it says: All scripture is given by inspiration…” If it is scripture it has to be inspired according to II Tim. 3:16. Don’t call what you have in your hands “scripture” unless you believe it to be inspired. The “Bible” says that if you want to call what you have “the scriptures” then it has to be inspired. If it is not inspired then it is not scripture.

    2. Look at II Tim. 3:15 – Timothy had the scriptures – according to vs. 16 there were inspired. Did Timothy have the originals? Of course not but what he had was inspired for the next verse says that the all scripture is inspired. Timothy had a copy of the scriptures and according to vs. 16 they were inspired and they were not the originals!

    The “scriptures” just told us that something other than the originals could be inspired.
    BTW – the verse says “is” given not “was” given. You folks, in your mind, change “is” to “was”.

    3. Can the AV1611 be inspired? Why not? Who or what says they couldn’t be – II Tim. 3:15, 16 says more than just the originals can be scripture and thus be inspired.
    Were the KJV translators inspired men? No.
    Could what they have put down been inspired? Why not?
    I do not believe they were inspired but what God had them put down was.

    Don’t you believe God runs things? Don’t you believe that God works all things after the counsel of his own will – Eph. 1:11? Don’t you believe God can control have his hands upon a 1611 Bible committee? You mean you don’t take the providential approach to history? Do you mean that God just let’s man run things on his own? Do you mean that you are putting your faith or lack of faith in the KJV translators, which were mere men?

    THE 1611 TRANSLATORS WERE HOLY SCHOLARS AND HOLY MEN BUT MY FAITH IS IN THE GOD WHO CONTROLLED AND DIRECTED THE AFFAIRS OF THOSE MEN! No wonder why you folks keep using the translators as an excuse for faulty translating – your faith is in men and not the Providential hand of an all-powerful, all seeing, all-directing God!

    Again, we don’t care what you read or believe. But when what you read or believe or promote affects the work of the ministry down here then we have a duty to get involved to warn, DIVIDE, make war, instruct, encourage, EXPOSE, for the sake of others, (who desire to know), so that they can know what is going on here.

    Some of you folks don’t like final authority in your lives – you want to be able to pick and choose. You want a way out if all possible.

    The bottom line – We desire true saints to know that hey have the inspired word of God in their hand so they can be equipped to do the work of the ministry.

    Some of us just happen to believe that we have the scriptures in our hands. Many of you don’t have the scriptures and by your own beliefs admit that.

    1 Th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

    If you don’t believe what you have in your hands is the word of God it can’t work effectually in you. And guess what folks – the work today, as a whole, is not very effectual. Part of the reason is most saints today don’t have the scriptures and according to Heb. 4:12 there is where the power comes from today. Yes, the Holy Spirit does the work but the Spirit utilizes the words of God down here.

    God bless :clap:
     
  12. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    Messages:
    9,124
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AVBunyan,
    This is not a logically strong argument. For example, there is not one word in the NT that tells me how to parse a Greek noun or verb, but if I don't do it, I can't translate the NT from Greek to English.

    Just because something is not stated in Scripture, does not mean we must not use it in understanding Scripture. This applies to the absolute requirement of understanding Greek grammar before I can even begin translation. Yet not a word of Greek grammar is explained in the NT. I have to deduce that and give thanks to my Greek teachers.
     
  13. wayseer

    wayseer New Member

    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    And who is it that makes the revelation of God visible other than the various authors?

    How are this 'we' of whom your speak - yourself?

    You have no other duty than that of a servant. Servants do not 'make war.

    Ironically - that is exactly what you are doing - picking and choosing.
     
  14. dies-l

    dies-l Guest

    The same arguments could be made for the translation committees of the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NLT, NKJV, 21CKJV, ASV, NAB, NASB, and any others that I may have forgotten. The problem is that there exist some minor differences between the various translations. Some would say that this means that there are errors in some, if not all of them. Some would say that these represent various legitimate interpretations of the originals. I would suggest that cross referencing multiple different translations and referring to the best manuscripts in the original languages, whenever possible, is the best way to answer these questions. What is certain is that if God allowed error to enter into the modern translations as many KJVOs insist, then it must also be admitted that God likely also allowed error to enter the KJV. To claim the former without admitting the latter is inconsistent at best.
     
  15. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    Messages:
    9,124
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AVBunyan,
    You are correct that there are no specific biblical references regarding the autographa (originals) and copies of the Bible. You ask a reasonable question: Who invented this doctrine?

    The late Greg Bahnsen wrote a provocative and enlightening chapter on "The Inerrancy of the Autographa [the originals]" in Geisler (1979, p. 149 ff). I have used the following illustration on a number of occasions and I hope that it helps us to understand how we can affirm the inerrancy of the original MSS (autographa), even though we don't have the originals.

    Bahnsen wrote:
    Bahnsen says:
    Why not go back to Tertullian at the beginning of the third century?
    There are good reasons for maintaining a doctrine of the inerrancy of the original manuscripts, but there are also good reasons for maintaining the accuracy of modern translations, based on manuscripts that are not the originals.

    References:

    Geisler, N. L. (ed.) 1979. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. [This book is now available online as a Google book. I'd recommend a read of ch. 6 by Greg L. Bahnsen (who is now with the Lord), "The Inerrancy of the Autographa" (begins on p. 151)].

    Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.[FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]
     
  16. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    Messages:
    9,124
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    AVBunyan,

    I have taken up your challenge to investigate why the inerrancy of Scripture is tied to the infallibility of the original documents. Here is my understanding.

    Introduction

    How are the Christian Scriptures divinely authoritative? Evangelicals like myself believe that both Old and New Testaments are inerrant (without error) in the original manuscripts. An example of such a statement, representing many in the evangelical church, is The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), Section VI, which states:
    Why is it necessary to include "down to the very words of the original"? Why include the original manuscripts (called the autographa) in a statement on inerrancy? Why is that important? Is there a chapter and verse in the Bible that states that "the originals" must by in an orthodox doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture? Why aren't the various Bible translations authoritative and inerrant?

    Are these translations inerrant? – The King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), Jerusalem Bible (JB), New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), English Standard Version (ESV), Good News Bible (GNB), New American Bible (NAB), The Message (TM), New International Version (NIV), Today's New International Version (TNIV), New English Bible (NEB), Revised English Bible (REB), J. B. Phillips translation (JBP), Living Bible (LB), New Living Translation (NLT), Douay-Rheims Bible, Contemporary English Version (CEV), the Revised Version (RV), the American Standard Version (ASV), and the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

    These are but examples of some contemporary English Bible translations. Are the translations inerrant or does this status belong only to the originals (autographa).
    You asked and commented:

    These are good questions that deserve biblical answers. Back in 1881, scholar C. A. Briggs, had similar questions about making the autographa inerrant. He wrote:

    In a summary of his chapter addressing the topic of the inerrancy of the original documents, Greg Bahnsen wrote: “While the Bible teaches its own inerrancy, the inscripturation and copying of God’s Word require us to identify the specific and proper object of inerrancy as the text of the original autographa” (1979:150).
    Yet Bahnsen also stated that "there is, as one would expect, no explicit biblical teaching regarding the autographa and copies of them (1979:161). Therefore, how can the doctrine of inerrancy in the autographa have any meaning without the original manuscripts? Is what we have in translations less reliable than the original manuscripts? How can we have an authoritative Bible when we only have copies and these could be centuries after the originals?

    In about the year A.D. 180, church father, Tertullian, wrote that originals of the New Testament manuscripts (NT Scripture) could be inspected in churches of his day. These were his words:

    Do we have any hints or direct statements in the Old and New Testaments of the original texts being authoritative or even inerrant? While the evidence is not extensive, "Scripture has scattered indications of interest in or recognition of copies and translations of God's Word in distinction from the autographical manuscripts" (Bahnsen 1979:159).[2]

    The Old Testament position on the original documents


    There are four OT situations where the importance of the authority of the original documents of Scripture has some significance (based on Bahnsen 1979:165-166):

    1. Exodus 32 and 34

    We know from Exodus 32:15-16[3] that God himself wrote the first "two tablets of the testimony" (the law). These tablets were the work of God, but in his anger, Moses destroyed these tablets (32:19). So what did God do? God arranged for the rewriting of the original tablets (Ex. 34:1, 27-28) by whom? "And the Lord said to Moses, 'Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel" (34:27). In Deut. 10:2, 4, the Scriptures emphasise that the copy of the law contained "the words that were on the first tablets that you broke" (10:2) and were "in the same writing as before" (10:4).
    This is a pertinent example of how copies were made of the original.

    2. Deuteronomy 17:18

    "And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests" (Deut. 17:18). The original manuscript written by Moses was placed beside the Ark of the Covenant by the Levites (Deut. 31:24-26). But the copy of the original received the approval of the Levitical priests.

    3. Jeremiah 36:1-32

    Here the prophet dictated the word of God to Baruch who wrote it on a scroll. However, because the message was not beneficial to King Jehoiakim, the king cut it up and burned it. God moved upon Jeremiah: "Take another scroll and write on it all the former words that were in the first scroll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah has burned" (36:28). The standard was the original and this was a copy, but its words were "all the former words".

    4. 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 34

    Here the Jews showed particular respect for the original text. The story relates to the temple copy of the Book of the Law during the reign of Josiah. The Book of the Law was already known as it had been placed beside the Ark of the Covenant for public reading (see Deut. 31:12, 24-26; 2 Chron. 35:3). It is possible that copies of the Law were with some priests and prophets (Keil 1970:478).[4]

    5. Warnings

    The biblical writers knew how to distinguish between the original manuscripts and copies. Deut. 4:2 states: "You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it". In Deut. 12:32 is clear: "Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it". From Proverbs 30:6 we have this command: "Do not add to his [God's] word, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar".

    For the Jews, the honest approach to the Word of God was to remain faithful to the originals.

    So from the OT we can see some indications of the value of original documents for an authoritative Scripture. This led Bahnsen to state, "The sufficiency of a copy is proportionate to its accurate reflection of the original. Deviation from the autograph jeopardizes the profit of a copy for doctrinal instruction and for direction in righteous living" (1979:167).

    The New Testament position on the original documents


    The NT also coveted the value of the original manuscripts of an authoritative document. Perhaps one of the best known examples is:

    1. Revelation 22:18-19

    These verses counsel, "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book".

    While these verses particularly apply to the Book of Revelation, the originals as the standard are assumed.

    2. Various NT emphases

    The normative standard of the originals is assumed with these emphases:
    a. In passages such as Matt. 15:6 and Col. 2:8, the originals were the principal standard when there was a conflict between tradition and the doctrines taught by Christ and his apostles.
    b. In passages such as Matt. 5:21ff, the tradition of the OT text was not allowed to hide the genuine word of God (see mark 7:1-13).
    c. What did Jesus do when the Pharisees altered the OT text? They were condemned in their teaching on hatred (Matt. 5:43) and divorce (Matt. 19:7).
    d. Paul told the believers not to tamper with the God's word (2 Cor. 4:2);
    e. Only accept teachings that do not contradict the original apostolic message (see Rom. 16:17; Gal. 1:8; 1 John 4:1-6);
    f. 2 Thess. 3:14 gives a warning to "anyone who does not obey what we say in this letter" (the apostolic message).
    g. Believers are warned not to be troubled ("quickly shaken") by "a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter" that was purported to be from the apostles but was not (2 Thess. 2:2);
    h. Paul usually wrote his letters with the help of an amanuensis (see Rom. 16:2) which could provide an opportunity for forgery. To guard against this, he would sign with his own hand (see I Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18).
    These emphases cause Bahnsen to

    While the evidence is scattered throughout both OT and NT, we can conclude that in Scripture there is a distinction between the original documents and copies. However, the authority relates to the original. This kind of emphasis is found in an oft-repeated statement in the Bible, "It stands written" or "it is written" (e.g. Isa. 65:6; Rom. 3:10).

    Bahnsen notes that "Jerome maintained in his dispute with Augustine over this matter, [that] only the Hebrew text [of the OT] was strictly inspired" (Bahnsen 1979:170).

    References
    Bahnsen, G. L. 1979, "The inerrancy of the autographa" in N. L. Geisler (ed.) 1979. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 150-193.

    Briggs, C. A. 1881. "Critical theories of the sacred Scriptures in relation to their inspiration". The Presbyterian Review, vol. 2, 573-74.

    Geisler, N. L. (ed.) 1979. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

    Harris, R. L. 1957, 1969. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

    Keil, C.F. 1970. Commentary on the Old Testament, vol 3, 1 & II Kings, I & II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

    Tertullian n.d. De Praescriptione Haereticorum (The prescription against heretics), in P. Schaff n.d. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ch. 36, "The apostolic churches the voice of the apostles", Christian Classics Ethereal Library, available at: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian | Christian Classics Ethereal Library ).

    [1] Latin, "authenticæ". At this point Schaff notes, "This much disputed phrase may refer to the autographs or the Greek originals (rather than the Latin translations), or full unmutilated copies as opposed to the garbled ones of the heretics. The second sense is probably the correct one."

    [2] For many suggestions and some content in this article on "the biblical attitude toward autographa and copies" (Bahnsen 1979:159), I am indebted to the insightful article by the late Greg Bahnsen (1979). "Greg L. Bahnsen (September 17, 1948 – December 11, 1995) was an influential Christian philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies" (This biographical information is from the Preterist (Study) Archive, available at: Greg Bahnsen Study Archive @ PreteristArchive.com - The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism [Accessed 21 March 2010].

    [3] Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations are from The Holy Bible: English Standard Version 2001. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Bibles.

    [4] Keil's words were, "But it by no means follows from this that before its discovery there were no copies in the hands of the priests and prophets" (1970:478).
     
  17. wayseer

    wayseer New Member

    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Hi Oz - How's the study going?

    Thank you for an interesting read.

    But a couple of points....

    In all probability, you will never find the original texts, which means your thesis is a non-event - you are arguing with the support of an 'unknown' as if it were 'known'. A fallacy.

    The other point worth noting is that the archaeological evidence now seriously questions the existence of a united Israel lead by a royal dynasty. Such evidence seriously challenges 'history' as recorded by the Biblical text. If the text can be proved questionable where stands your theory of inerrancy?

    The only alternative you have is to dismiss the evidence.

    You mention the NRSV in your list recognised translations. I wondering how your feel about the changes to 1 Sam 27? The changes to the NRSV were made in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In other words, the DSS indicated that 'another' version was available hitherto and unknown to the compilers of the LXX. Yet, many 'translations' have not followed the NRSV in the inclusion of this text.

    My argument is - if the various 'authorities' who determine the translations are divided over this piece of information, how would they react if they actually did find the 'originals'? Who would declare they are any more 'original', and therefore 'accurate', than the copies we have now?

    All of which I find interesting when you drawn attention ( in another post) to the need for some final authority with respect to measurement. Wither comes this 'need'?

    In other words, what I am drawing your attention to is the human yearning for 'certainty'. And I suggest that is what you arguing here - a need for certainty - if we only had the originals everything would be just fine all our problems would be solved.

    In effect, your thesis is not based on scholarship but on a need for certainty. The Bible calls us to faith - not certainty. We walk by faith and not by sight. We put our trust in God, not man. In this respect, the Bible is the finger pointing at the moon - it is not the moon.
     
  18. AVBunyan

    AVBunyan Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    58
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Minor!?!?!?:doh::doh::doh:
    Here is one link of many - Bible Doctrines Affected by Modern Versions (1/2)

    Just don't have time to list them all.

    While I'm here -

    Forget for a moment all you’ve used as evidence and that all you have are the MVs and the AV in English. Let’s set aside all the conflicting TRs and NA27s, the P66s and the P45s, lexicons, Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek-Hebrew professors, Peshittas, Tyndale, Luther’s, all that “stuff” and all you have are – the AV and MVs before you:.

    Which out of the 4 verses listed are the most clear and complete at presenting the doctrine? The first verse is the AV (one should be able to tell) and the other three are from different MVs which of course all come from the same “family”.


    Matthew 9:13
    For I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
    For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.
    For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.
    I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.

    Call sinners to what?

    Matthew 18:11
    For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
    Verse is omitted
    Verse is in (footnote says most ancient manuscripts omit verse)
    Verse is omitted

    Why would someone omit this type of truth?

    Matthew 19:17
    Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.
    Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.
    Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
    Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good.

    There are two completely different thoughts here.

    Matthew 25:13
    Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
    You know neither the day nor the hour.
    You do not know the day nor the hour.
    You know neither the day nor the hour

    Is somebody try to obscure the 2nd advent here?

    Luke 4:4
    Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
    Man shall not live by bread alone.
    Man shall not live on bread alone.
    Man must not live by bread alone.

    Mercy – does somebody here not like the word of God or what?

    Luke 24:51
    He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
    Included but footnote says: many ancient authorities omit.
    Omitted
    Included but footnote says omit.

    Again – why would one omit such a truth?

    John 6:47
    He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
    He who believes has eternal life.
    He who believes has eternal life.
    He that believes has everlasting life.

    Believes what?

    Acts 2:30
    According to the flesh, he would raise up Christ.
    Omitted
    Omitted
    Omitted

    It appears somebody is not wild about the resurrection!

    I Corinthians 15:47
    The second man is the Lord from heaven.
    The second man is from heaven.
    The second man is from heaven.
    The second man is out of heaven.

    Who is this second man? Oh we know from other verses but here – give me a break!

    Ephesians 3:9
    Who created all things by Jesus Christ.
    Who created all things.
    Who created all things.
    Who created all things.

    So, Jesus isn’t equal to God as the creator?!?!

    Colossians 1:14
    We have redemption through his blood.
    In whom we have redemption.
    In whom we have redemption.
    By means of whom we have our release.

    Redemption is dependent upon the blood – redemption and forgiveness re not the same.

    I Peter 4:1
    Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh.
    Christ suffered in the flesh.
    Christ has suffered in the flesh.
    Christ suffered in the flesh.

    Who did Christ suffer for? Why would some one want “us” out?

    I Peter 5:11
    To him be glory and dominion for ever and ever.
    To him be the dominion for ever and ever.
    To him be dominion for ever and ever.
    To him be the might for ever.

    Why would the word glory have to come out? Oh, I see, the AV translators added it?!?!?

    I John 4:3
    And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.
    And every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God.
    And every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.
    But every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.

    Somebody doesn’t like the fact that “God was manifest in the flesh? I guess they don’t because they also changed God to Him I Tim. 3:16 based upon a supposedly missing Theta!?!?!

    Revelation 5:14
    Four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever an ever.
    And the elders fell down and worshipped.
    And the elders fell down and worshipped.
    And the persons of advanced age fell down and worshipped.

    Mercy – I thought Christ was eternal! Why leave it out?

    There you have it – just few of hundreds more examples available. Be honest – which one would you really rather have in your hands based upon the above and remember we could supply a ton more of examples. I bet you take the MV readings over the AV in the above. Ever noticed why all the MVs read the same and pick at the same verses and doctrines?

    Yes I know – “Just different translation methods…really doesn’t make much of a difference because the truths are elsewhere…it is ok, the message is still there…you cannot prove the AV is right here in these, all valid anyway – can’t prove otherwise, blah, blah, blah, etc.”
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2010
  19. wayseer

    wayseer New Member

    Messages:
    8,211
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    I'm assuming by AV you mean 'ancient version' and by MV, 'modern version".

    It is not a matter of taking the MV over the AV at all. It is a matter of scholarly research. You will find a detailed explanation by the scholars who finalize some translation as to the methodology and the process of the decision making when arriving at their final text. Unless you can demonstrate the same calibre of academic research, which most of us cannot, then we have to settle for what is on offer. Besides, you seem to ignore the single most important aspect - Jesus did not write anything. So your huffing and puffing is largely futile in the extreme.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 26, 2010
  20. OzSpen

    OzSpen Regular Member

    Messages:
    9,124
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Baptist
    wayseer,

    My study is going well.
    You have missed my point. I was providing biblical evidence to show that there were copies of originals according to both OT and NT.
    I have not mentioned certainty. That's an imposition on my post. My point was copies of the originals in the OT and NT.

    Sincerely, Spencer
     
Loading...