Do you affirm the fundamentals?

[Philip_B]

No I do not.

I think if Paul thought he was writing the infallible word of God, his Greek would have been better parsed, and he would have taken a great deal of care to ensure that it was 100% schmic. What we have is excited outbursts and a scribe flat out keeping up, and in Romans this amazing expose of internal discourse where everything that Paul was brought up to be is in dialogue with everything he has done, and in the fertile ground of this internal dialogue we are confronted with many things that God wants us to know.

 

[Blade]

Based on what you posted and asked? yes. Now.. man will come along and add many things to it.. but its quite simple

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,

They are not the autographa (original texts). Since we don't have the original text (to my knowledge),

True we don't have the autographs.

But the Dead Sea Scroll experiment shows we are not really losing much

 

[Open Heart]

Regardless of your denominational affiliation, do you affirm and believe the five so-called fundamentals?

Here they are:

1. That the Bible is inspired and without error.

2. That Jesus Christ is God.

3. That Jesus was born to a virgin.

4. That Jesus died as a substitutionary atonement for our sins.

5. That Jesus literally died, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will return to earth.

Who are you to decided that those are the fundamentals?

The Creeds are the statements of faith designed by the Church as a whole, not by individuals or denominations. You can consider them the "fundamentals of the faith." Here is the Nicene Creed:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

 

[OzSpen]

True we don't have the autographs.

But the Dead Sea Scroll experiment shows we are not really losing much

It's not only the scrolls of Qumran that affirm the accuracy of the contemporary Hebrew and koine Greek NT & OT. We can examine all of the quotes in the early church fathers that can be compared, along with approx 5,000 NT MSS or partial MSS.

Oz

 

[Philip_B]

It's not only the scrolls of Qumran that affirm the accuracy of the contemporary Hebrew and koine Greek NT & OT. We can examine all of the quotes in the early church fathers that can be compared, along with approx 5,000 NT MSS or partial MSS.

There is no doubt that the documents of the Old and New Testament are well attested. We accept many other ancient documents without nearly as much support. The issue comes with the claims that are made for the documents, and the claims that the documents ask of us.

It is also true that whilst there is enormous general agreement about most of the translations there are still many outstandings in terms of how we receive the text in our own language. One of the things that can be difficult to translate is some of the nuances, like Onesimus in Paul's letter to Philemon whose name means useful, or Peter's name that means rock, or in John 1:14 where we translate it something like 'dwelt among us' where perhaps it should be 'tabernacled in our midst' taking us back to the Exodus and the long road to freedom. There are just lots of things in context and language that we simply do not get from a simple translation, nor probably from learning the language of the original alone without context.

The compelling claim of the New Testament is that Jesus Christ has died and is risen and calls us to follow him in this life. The issue ultimately is not what we claim for scripture, but what we allow scripture to claim from us.

 

[BobRyan]

I think if Paul thought he was writing the infallible word of God, his Greek would have been better parsed, .

Paul said -
1 Thess 2 -
13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

Paul and Peter - had it right.

 

[BobRyan]

You'll appreciate that the more times a MSS is copied, the higher the chance of making variants (like typos). So the closer a MSS is to the original text, the better the chance of obtaining a text with fewer variants. Even Sinaiticus (link above), generally dated to 4th century, has variants.

In my understanding, the problem with the Textus Receptus is that it is based on seven manuscripts that were used by Erasmus in Basel to compile the Greek text [Textus Receptus] which was printed alongside his Latin translation. The MSS were dated from 12th to 15th centuries and only one contained the Book of Revelation, which did not include the last 6 verses of that Book.

The problem with Westcott-Hort is much larger than 6 verses. All Bibles used by protestants until about 1919 were Textus Receptus based. the Sinaiticus was dug out of a waste basket. This means that the it was considered trash by those who had access to other manuscripts at the time closer to its origin. By contrast there were many Greek texts accepted and in use at that time from which Erasmus took his sample. Better to rely on manuscripts accepted and in use... than an older one that was considered "trash" by those who were closer to its origin and were not using it because they preferred one of the others. What is more - when early ECFs are found quoting Greek text it is never Sinaticus distinctive but rather it includes the text specific to Textus Receptus anticedents.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Is it "Wooden" to accept what the Bible says when it refutes your doctrine and "best" to accept what the Bible says when it does not?

You tell me.
-CryptoLutheran

I would tell you there is such a thing as exegesis.

 

[BobRyan]

Which is fine, as far as it goes. But even a quick glance in the Creation & Evolution subforum here will tell you that's not how many people take the idea of inerrant Scripture.

Every atheist I know sides with evolutionism against the Bible.

so?

So... the atheist option is not the "best" nor should it be the standard by which the Bible is to be judged. It is not even remotely exegesis of the text.

I prefer accepting the Bible as it reads for example the 7 churches in Rev 1 and 2 were literal but the sword coming from the mouth in Rev 1 was symbolic.

You know... "the obvious".

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see Scripture as lying or imperfect on its own terms. I just object to allegories being read as a science textbook, for example.

Do you consider the virgin birth to be an unscientific allegory that should not be taken as it reads because no scientist can do it? (Nor is it ever observed to occur in nature?)

Or do you use the term "allegory" to describe any event recorded in sacred history that an atheist would not accept as it reads?

No, I accept the virgin birth as a fact of Jesus' life.

No. Determining the genre of a piece of Scripture doesn't depend on what an atheist thinks, it depends on the text and its features, and its reception by communities of faith over the millennia.

So then you admit that while atheists would not regard the virgin birth to be literal, or real historic event, or science... yet it did happen in history ... in real life and the Bible does not have to be a "Science text book" to accurately relate the real historic event of the virgin birth.

Good. That is a good starting point.

As for the "text" itself determining the genre notice what James Barr says

When even atheist professors of Hebrew and OT studies admit to Bible details that "some" like Walton prefer to ignore - then you know that some compromise is going on with Walton.

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

===========================

So while the atheist would not accept the Bible account in Genesis - he/she at least is free to admit the genre - the "kind of writing that it is".

 

[Paidiske]

James Barr is welcome to his opinion. I disagree with him, and my acquaintance with the world of academic Biblical studies leads me to conclude that many others do as well.

 

[dcalling]

Regardless of your denominational affiliation, do you affirm and believe the five so-called fundamentals?

Here they are:

1. That the Bible is inspired and without error.

2. That Jesus Christ is God.

3. That Jesus was born to a virgin.

4. That Jesus died as a substitutionary atonement for our sins.

5. That Jesus literally died, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will return to earth.

The only part I don't totally agree is #1, I remember the nice decree says something like:
The Bible is inspired and IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM without error.

My Bible is translated and definitely could have some translation error, but the message will never be corrupted because God guard against that. Our understanding of it... will be full of errors since none of us are perfect.

 

[Philip_B]

Paul said -
1 Thess 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

I would assume that this refers to the message (the Good News of Jesus Christ) delivered to the the Thessalonians, as the canon of scripture was clearly not established at that time.

So... the atheist option is not the "best" nor should it be the standard by which the Bible is to be judged. It is not even remotely exegesis of the text.
I prefer accepting the Bible as it reads for example the 7 churches in Rev 1 and 2 were literal but the sword coming from the mouth in Rev 1 was symbolic.
You know... "the obvious".

This seems a very subjective measure based on who you perceive accepts the best scientific theory. I certainly am not arguing against you right to reject the evidence of the scientific community and the conclusions that they have drawn from that. In my view the theory is morally neutral, incapable of offering salvation, though in fairness it does suggest an energy within the universe beyond itself which is suggestive of the divine initiative. I walk with Anselm (sometime Abbot and Bec and ArchBishop of Canterbury) who argued that both faith and science would come to the same conclusion when followed with integrity. You may enjoy reading some of his work Cur Deus Homo to understand that we are not the first to wrestle with this challenge.

Peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[OzSpen]

The compelling claim of the New Testament is that Jesus Christ has died and is risen and calls us to follow him in this life. The issue ultimately is not what we claim for scripture, but what we allow scripture to claim from us.

A strong claim is the self-attesting statement of what the Scripture says for itself (2 Tim 3:16-17).

 

[OzSpen]

The problem with Westcott-Hort is much larger than 6 verses.

It was not Westcott-Hort that translated the last 6 verses at the end of the Book of Revelation from Latin to Greek, but Erasmus for his compilation of the Textus Receptus.

All Bibles used by protestants until about 1919 were Textus Receptus based. the Sinaiticus was dug out of a waste basket. This means that the it was considered trash by those who had access to other manuscripts at the time closer to its origin.

Yes, Protestants used Bibles based on the TR because that was the only Greek NT freely available.

What evidence do you have for that kind of statement against Sinaiticus? I think you've committed a genetic fallacy by blaming the status of Sinaiticus on its being found in a waste basket. All that does is indicate that some person(s) considered it trash. When I dig a Parker pen that I've lost out of my garbage that contains mango and banana skins and other bits of rubbish, it doesn't devalue the Parker pen that I lost and found in my kitchen garbage bin.

By contrast there were many Greek texts accepted and in use at that time from which Erasmus took his sample. Better to rely on manuscripts accepted and in use... than an older one that was considered "trash" by those who were closer to its origin and were not using it because they preferred one of the others. What is more - when early ECFs are found quoting Greek text it is never Sinaticus distinctive but rather it includes the text specific to Textus Receptus anticedents.

I cannot agree with this conclusion here. See:

• The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? (Daniel Wallace), and
• What text type or types do the most early church fathers use? If the Byz. type goes no further than the 4th cent. why then do kjv. only people say that church fathers from the 2nd cent used this type?(John Oakes)

There were other Greek MSS at the time of Erasmus but he could NOT find one that had the last 6 verses of the Book of Revelation. How did he know about these verses? He read the Latin Vulgate that included those verses. He translated from Latin to Greek for these 6 verses and not one MSS has been found that agrees word-for-word with Erasmus's Greek translation.

Oz

 

[BobRyan]

It was not Westcott-Hort that translated the last 6 verses at the end of the Book of Revelation from Latin to Greek, but Erasmus for his compilation of the Textus Receptus.

True - my point was that fixing the problem of those 6 verses was not enough basis to reject TR since even Erasmus was able to solve the problem.

Yes, Protestants used Bibles based on the TR because that was the only Greek NT freely available.

Erasmus had numerous Greek texts to choose from - the problem was that coming up with one version that was the best-of had not been done. It was immediately recognized that Erasmus' "best of" compilation was superior to what they had at the time in Greek. Hence Erasmus' 2nd and 3rd published editions were used as the basis for Tyndale's translation and Luther's translation. Stephanus comes along about 20 years later and his 1550 version received wide acceptance.

What evidence do you have for that kind of statement against Sinaiticus? I think you've committed a genetic fallacy by blaming the status of Sinaiticus on its being found in a waste basket. All that does is indicate that some person(s) considered it trash.

It indicates that PRIOR to anyone at the time of 1881 or later digging it out of the trash - it had already been deemed trash by EARLIER reviewers/editors. What is more the trashed documents had numerous errors/scratched-out text bungled and missing verses etc it ended up in the waste basket.

====================================


The codex is probably the work of three scribes, who are frequently called as A, B and D. A wrote the entire New Testament with the exception of six whole leaves and a small part of another leaf, which were copied by D apparently. It appears that nine correctors, ranging in date from the fourth century to the twelfth century, have made corrections in the manuscripts.


Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8 (Mark 16:9-20 mentions the resurrection and ascension of Jesus), Luke 22:43 f. was marked as fake by the first corrector, but these signs were canceled by the third corrector. John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23, verse 24 being omitted, and Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians.


The text of Sinaiticus is often defective, omitting a large number of texts. However, it may be possible to use a manuscript with discernment, making allowances for its characteristic errors. Most of the omissions in Codex Sinaiticus have occurred by reason of a common mistake of copyists because of a similar ending, which the scribe of Sinaiticus was especially prone to make. These omissions are readily recognized. The following passages are examples where the italicized words are omitted in Sinaiticus.


1 Cor. 13:1-2. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

Here the scribe had copied the verse up to the end of the first "and have not charity," but when he looked up to his example again to continue copying, his eye fell upon the second occurrence of the phrase, from which he continued, omitting all of those words between the two occurrences of the phrase.

1 Cor. 15:25-27. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet.

This is a more complicated example. Here it is not immediately clear what has happened. But when it is known that in some early manuscripts the order of clauses is as shown below, once again we see that the scribe's eye has jumped from the first occurrence of a phrase to the second occurrence:

For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. For he hath put all things under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.


Other omissions are taken more seriously, however, especially when they are confirmed by Codex Vaticanus and other manuscripts of better quality. Sinaiticus is also regarded more highly as a good example in the case of substitutions and additions. The scribe of Sinaiticus was not suggested to making erratic substitutions and additions, but deliberate additions or omissions to reinforce their doctrine.

Other "inspired" modification of the Church to Codex Sinaiticus and our modern Bibles are:

• In Matthew 5:22, the words "without cause" are missing in both the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
• The words of Matthew 6:13 "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever." Do not exist in these two most ancient manuscripts as well as many others. The parallel passages in Luke are also defective.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Main article: The Fundamentals...FROM....

Christian fundamentalism - Wikipedia

Here are my $.02 on "essentials" / Christ-following fundamental truths

1. The inerrancy of the Bible...in its original MSS as to major doctrinal truths. The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's life and ministry of miracles and the Creation account in Genesis...where POSSIBLE.

2. The Virgin Birth of and Deity of Jesus the Christ, the Divine Messiah...as FACT

3. His bodily resurrection, appearances, and ascension...as FACT... and THE PROMISED physical return (Second Coming) ...of Jesus the God-Man

4. The "substitutionary atonement" of Christ on the Cross...Jesus the God-Man died FOR sins FOR men FOR all time

These BELIEFS / FAITHS are NOT necessary for salvation.
The Apostles Creed is similar....the "We Believes...".
It is a short recitation of doctrinal truths which improve spiritual wisdom and prevent doctrinal UN-truths.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
So... the atheist option is not the "best" nor should it be the standard by which the Bible is to be judged. It is not even remotely exegesis of the text.
I prefer accepting the Bible as it reads for example the 7 churches in Rev 1 and 2 were literal but the sword coming from the mouth in Rev 1 was symbolic.
You know... "the obvious".

This seems a very subjective measure based on who you perceive accepts the best scientific theory. I certainly am not arguing against you right to reject the evidence of the scientific community and the conclusions that they have drawn from that. In my view the theory is morally neutral, incapable of offering salvation,

The fact that one regards a Bible recording of history as "morally neutral" has nothing to do with whether the genre is to be labeled "apocalyptic" or allegorical.

In John 10 Jesus says "I am the DOOR" -- but going with 'the obvious' the readers fully expect Jesus to be a real person and that door is symbolism. Not a lot of 'science' there just the obvious in terms of intent of the writer. Clearly John did not meet "talking doors" so the reader gets the point - it was symbolic.

And when Jesus cast out demons, raised the dead, was ascended into heaven, was incarnate -- ALL of which John ALSO did not see "naturally occurring in nature" - yet it is written in such a way to tell the reader that it is literal and not symbolic.

As the atheist James Barr points out this is also true of Genesis 1-11 the writer clearly intends it as a historic account of fact. Even though Barr and all other atheists would reject the facts that the writer presents... still they can admit it is fact that the text is written as historic account and offered to the reader as such rather than given to the reader as allegory and symbolism.

. I walk with Anselm (sometime Abbot and Bec and ArchBishop of Canterbury) who argued that both faith and science would come to the same conclusion when followed with integrity.

As do I. The non-science that is evolutionism argues that a prokaryote would eventually turn into a rabbit or horse given enough time, talent, chance and unlikely events all the way up what Dawkins admits is "mount improbable". Not a lot of "science" in such stories even by atheist standards. Certainly not "observed to occur" the lab.

(Interestingly they do have a prokaryote population that has been observed for over 50,000 generations of bacteria since the 1980's and not ONE example of a prokayrote turning into rabbit or horse OR even eukaryote single celled animal)

Darwin himself admits that the story telling he is doing is so antithetical to the actual Bible that the Bible must be rejected. Call it "morally neutral" if you will... but in my view it is significant.

 

[Catherineanne]

Regarding number 1 St. Paul says:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

1 Timothy 3:16-17 NIV

'Useful for teaching'? Not exactly the Nobel Prize for Literature from Paul there, is it?

Meanwhile I don't see the words 'perfect' or 'inerrant' anywhere in that quotation, nor in the Nicene Creed for that matter.

Are you suggesting we have to add to Scripture that which is not written, and then believe it? Because that is exactly what Biblical inerrancy is; a man made gospel, different from the one we are given in Scripture.