Divinity of the scriptures?

[Ajflyguy7]

Christians, are you familiar with the process that created the Bible? We don't have any original manuscripts or even know who the authors were. Men chose which manuscripts would be included and which would be left out. We have many copies of the same manuscripts with completely different wording and additions or subtractions to help influence the scribe's agenda. Why do you take the Bible to be true and divinely inspired?

 

[Ken Rank]

Christians, are you familiar with the process that created the Bible? We don't have any original manuscripts or even know who the authors were. Men chose which manuscripts would be included and which would be left out. We have many copies of the same manuscripts with completely different wording and additions or subtractions to help influence the scribe's agenda. Why do you take the Bible to be true and divinely inspired?

Yep, it is that simple and we all need to follow you into atheism? Sorry, nothing is that simple. As one example... because I don't want to spend much time on this topic.... the Christians (still mainly Jewish but integrating more and more by this time) had compiled an OT... a "Tanach" (Torah, Prophets, Writings) if you will and they compiled it prayerfully and independently of what we would now call Orthodox Jews. Once done, the Christians (for lack of a better word) took their compilation to Yahvney (this in 90AD) where there was a meeting of Jewish scholars and to compare what they had to what the Orthodox had and found that it aligned perfectly. So we have two different people who don't like each other at all... who compile the books independent of one another and who end up with the exact the same books... out of thousands to choose from, mind you.

So the point I think you are trying to make will bewitch those who are weaker and unlearned... but anyone who has spent any time really studying this will see this line of reasoning for what it is.

Be well.
Ken

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON


Moved to Christian Apologetics from The Kitchen Sink as its a better fit here.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[StTruth]

Christians, are you familiar with the process that created the Bible? We don't have any original manuscripts or even know who the authors were. Men chose which manuscripts would be included and which would be left out. We have many copies of the same manuscripts with completely different wording and additions or subtractions to help influence the scribe's agenda. Why do you take the Bible to be true and divinely inspired?

I apologise for the rude answer. It's quite uncalled-for.

Yes, I am familiar with the Canon of scriptures and the transmission thereof. The Bible contains truth but it's not entirely true. You have to be careful here. Some Christians believe in inerrancy and some don't. I don't. My church doesn't.

I'm happy to take on any questions that you have.

I don't take the whole Bible to be true. Some parts are true and some parts contain obvious human errors. Divine inspiration is subject to interpretation. Many scholars believe it simply means 'edifying'. That which is inspiring is expressed in the early church as God-breathed.

If you have any further questions, I'll be happy to answer them as truthfully as I can for I am none other than....

St Truth

 

[Radagast]

Christians, are you familiar with the process that created the Bible?

Hi there! Welcome to CF.

And yes, we are.

We don't have any original manuscripts or even know who the authors were.

We certainly have very old manuscripts, going back to the early 2nd century. And in most cases the author was the person named as such. The letters signed by Paul were actually written by him, for example. We have comments from early Christians confirming that the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John were written by Mark, Luke, and John, and that the Gospel of Matthew is derived from something written by Matthew.

We have many copies of the same manuscripts with completely different wording and additions or subtractions to help influence the scribe's agenda.

Well, no, that's not actually true. Copies of the manuscripts made in different parts of the Roman Empire agree almost exactly, generally differing only in minor details. If you're interested, you can check out, for example, the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete Bible, which is online.

 

[StTruth]

Hi there! Welcome to CF.

And yes, we are.



We certainly have very old manuscripts, going back to the early 2nd century. And in most cases the author was the person named as such. The letters signed by Paul were actually written by him, for example. We have comments from early Christians confirming that the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John were written by Mark, Luke, and John, and that the Gospel of Matthew is derived from something written by Matthew.



Well, no, that's not actually true. Copies of the manuscripts made in different parts of the Roman Empire agree almost exactly, generally differing only in minor details. If you're interested, you can check out, for example, the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete Bible, which is online.

Codec Sinaiticus was compiled 400 years after they were written? And it includes the Shepherd of Hermas as the word of God.

 

[Radagast]

Codec Sinaiticus was compiled 400 years after they were written? And it includes the Shepherd of Hermas as the word of God.

About 300 years after they were written, actually. The Codex Sinaitucus isn't the oldest manuscript, but it has the advantage of being online. You can easily check it against a modern Bible.

And yes, it includes The Shepherd. That does not necessarily imply an assertion of canonicity. At about that time, Athanasius described The Shepherd as "not indeed ... put in the canon, but ... appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety."

Having said that, though, the SoP does not actually permit Christians to debate each other in this subforum.

 

[StTruth]

About 300 years after they were written, actually. The Codex Sinaitucus isn't the oldest manuscript, but it has the advantage of being online. You can easily check it against a modern Bible.

And yes, it includes The Shepherd. That does not necessarily imply an assertion of canonicity. At about that time, Athanasius described The Shepherd as "not indeed ... put in the canon, but ... appointed by the Fathers as reading-matter for those who have just come forward and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety."

Having said that, though, the SoP does not actually permit Christians to debate each other in this subforum.

Don't be so troubled. I'm not debating with you. I was merely pointing out what I know about the Codex Sinaiticus. And I also want to point out that there are some errors we all tend to make when we talk about the Bible. Go to any thread. Christians do discuss on the forum. Debating is quite different.

You wrote this:

We certainly have very old manuscripts, going back to the early 2nd century. And in most cases the author was the person named as such. The letters signed by Paul were actually written by him, for example. We have comments from early Christians confirming that the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John were written by Mark, Luke, and John, and that the Gospel of Matthew is derived from something written by Matthew.

That is unfortunately a common error we all make. I have seen the exhibits in the British Library. We don't have old manuscripts dating back to the early 2nd century. That is totally incorrect. We do have some very old FRAGMENTS. These fragments are so small that they usually contain no more than half a verse. Our mistake is we tend to confuse fragments for the actual manuscripts.

The authorship of the books of the Bible is very much in dispute. It has been in dispute from the earliest times. I used to be ignorant of all this until I read books on the canon of scriptures and I was shocked to see how disputed they all are and have been from the earliest times. Even Hebrews was thought at one time to have been written by Paul and hence it was accepted by the Western church as canonical. But later, when it was realised that Hebrews is really anonymous and nobody knew who wrote it, they decided to accept it into the canon anyway because half the church had been using it for a long time. Even FF Bruce, the great evangelical scholar, discussed this in his book The Canon of Scripture.

It's very simplistic to make it seem that there is no problem with the Bible. I used to think that way until I read the books of scholars including the great evangelical scholars such as FF Bruce. Even the most fundamentalist Christians respect FF Bruce as a great evangelical man of God.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Radagast]

I'm not going to engage in any forbidden debating here. Let me make just two points, though, for the benefit of the OP:

On New Testament manuscripts, the manuscript p46 (from about 200 AD) contains much of the Pauline epistles, while p45 (from about 250 AD) contains much of the Gospels and Acts. The smaller manuscript fragments, which go back to about 150 AD, demonstrate (in a statistical sense) the accuracy of transmission, in that they agree with the more complete later manuscripts (essentially, they represent a substantial random sample of verses).

On authorship, the authorship of some books (Hebrews and Revelation) has been debated from early times. There is, however, virtually unanimous consensus among modern scholars that Paul wrote at least some of the epistles bearing his name. Early Christians (such as Irenaeus of Lyons) were agreed that Paul wrote all of them, that the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John were written by Mark, Luke, and John, and that the Gospel of Matthew is derived from something written by Matthew.

Update: I have added some Wikipedia links to the above, should anyone be interested in learning more about these topics. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation gets passed around.

 

[StTruth]

I'm not going to engage in any forbidden debating here. Let me make just two points, though, for the benefit of the OP:

On New Testament manuscripts, the manuscript p46 (from about 200 AD) contains much of the Pauline epistles, while p45 (from about 250 AD) contains much of the Gospels and Acts. The smaller manuscript fragments, which go back to about 150 AD, demonstrate (in a statistical sense) the accuracy of transmission, in that they agree with the more complete later manuscripts.

On authorship, the authorship of some books (Hebrews and Revelation) has been debated from early times. There is, however, virtually unanimous consensus among modern scholars that Paul wrote at least some of the epistles bearing his name. Early Christians were agreed that Paul wrote all of them, that the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John were written by Mark, Luke, and John, and that the Gospel of Matthew is derived from something written by Matthew.

Where did you get your statistics from? What you have posted is simply contrary to all established biblical scholarship. You are speaking about a most disputed area and to say the authorship is unanimously accepted is totally wrong. Even the authorship of the gospels is very much in dispute. You should read another evangelical scholar, Leon Morris, who has written about authorship of the gospels. He acknowledges how disputed it is and he goes into great details why it's contentious. You must not paint such a simplistic picture because it is simply incorrect.

There are many pseudepigraphical works in the New Testament. Some have been recognised to be so since the early church. Even Martin Luther recognises this. You should look at the kind of canon and secondary canon that Martin Luther drew up.

This is really a very complex topic and it's by no means accepted unanimously.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[Hawkins]

Christians, are you familiar with the process that created the Bible? We don't have any original manuscripts or even know who the authors were. Men chose which manuscripts would be included and which would be left out. We have many copies of the same manuscripts with completely different wording and additions or subtractions to help influence the scribe's agenda. Why do you take the Bible to be true and divinely inspired?

We don't have the manuscripts now by no means says that those who defined the Canon in the first 3 centuries did't!

 

[JackRT]

I approach the bible much like a prospector would approach his claim. I am prepared to search for the shining nuggets of wisdom and insight but I am also prepared to have to shift a lot of rubble in order to find them.