Earth Tilt Question

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Juve wrote:
Translation problem should not be a reason which renders the Bible into a "flawed book".

Remember your goal posts - "perfect and infallible" is a pretty high goal. "flawed book" sounds like a flaw that would make a human embarrassed. That's not what I mean. I mean that any work by a human, unless controlled by God, is a human work - by definition. Is not even a "perfect" human book miles below the most trivial utterance of God?

That is why Bible scholars need to study Hebrew and Greek.

These Bible scholars, they are human, right? And God obviously is not controlling all the Bible Scholars, because they come to different conclusions. See above.


For lay people in language, the lexicon is the next best alternative.

Is the lexicon God?

If you are not comfortable with translations, you should study language (and culture), instead of doubting the content of the book.

What I'm doing, is refusing to engage in Bibolatry - the act of elevating the Bible above the other revelations of God, those directly seen and present today, in the natural world.

Basically, I see your reason is not that much different from one usually given by atheists: the Bible is written (and collected) by man, and we can, as a consequence, question and argue on every verse of it.

Let's save that for later, under the tag name "verse".

You read the Bible as a source of idea, then mixed it with your own. This is not new. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, even Islam, are successful few who are doing this. It is called Cults.

Let's save that for later, under the tag name "mix".

Very rarely that two faithful Christians will have a 100% agreement on any issue described in the Bible.

Hey, didn't you just accuse atheists of disagreeing on verses? On one hand you accuse me of doing what the Atheists do, and in the next breath you say this same thing is what good Christians do? See the tag name "verse", above. While your statement is certainly true, it undercuts what you just said.


This is 100% normal and is a result of the wonderful design of human by God. The fact that we do not agree on the interpretations does not mean one of us must be wrong, or only one among all can be right. We could all be right, because we are different person.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Everyone has their own truth, because their is no absolute truth. Truth is relative, and so all the different theologies that Bible believers (like the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses you mentioned earlier, who are Christians who base their beliefs on the Bible), are correct. Sounds like relativism to me.

The critical thing is do not add any word to the Bible when we interpret it.

And how do you know what it says? Oh yeah, you just said that Christians disagree on what it says, and that everyone's truth is correct. Are the 3,000 added words of the KJV compared to the NIV "adding something"? If not, then why not? If so, then why don't you care about "translations"?

Tell me, how would various Christians interpret Acts 8:37 from the NIV?

Stick with what It says.

Didn't you just finish explaining to me that Christians don't agree on what it says?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Tell me, how would various Christians interpret Acts 8:37 from the NIV?

I only speak for myself: I don't really care if this verse was in the original Greek Scripture. I don't think it changed anything on the message.

Do you see any problem with either having or having not this verse in the chapter?
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It's amazing how often I hear other Christians say on one hand that they do think their Bible is the sole source of, and the direct word of God, then consistently act as if they already know, deep down, that their Bible is the work of man.

If I thought the Bible was the direct and correct word of God, I'd certainly be greatly disturbed if a human added to it or took out some of it - much less an entire verse. I mean, this is the actual word from God - how could a human be allowed to just change it?!? There are many other ways I'd act differently compared to how most other Christians act today.

If, on the other hand, I thought, deep down, that my (and others' Bibles) were just the work of humans, then I wouldn't mind if a verse was missing or added, as long as I could still claim what I wanted to based on the rest of it. After all, if only "the core concepts" were important, I'd just toss the Bible and just use a summary statement, like the Nicene creed.


Juve wrote:
I only speak for myself: I don't really care if this verse was in the original Greek Scripture. I don't think it changed anything on the message.

P.S. - the rest of the points in my previous post were unanswered. I guess we're OK on those?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It's amazing how often I hear other Christians say on one hand that they do think their Bible is the sole source of, and the direct word of God, then consistently act as if they already know, deep down, that their Bible is the work of man.

If I thought the Bible was the direct and correct word of God, I'd certainly be greatly disturbed if a human added to it or took out some of it - much less an entire verse. I mean, this is the actual word from God - how could a human be allowed to just change it?!? There are many other ways I'd act differently compared to how most other Christians act today.

If, on the other hand, I thought, deep down, that my (and others' Bibles) were just the work of humans, then I wouldn't mind if a verse was missing or added, as long as I could still claim what I wanted to based on the rest of it. After all, if only "the core concepts" were important, I'd just toss the Bible and just use a summary statement, like the Nicene creed.


Juve wrote:


P.S. - the rest of the points in my previous post were unanswered. I guess we're OK on those?


I do not know the story behind Acts 8:37. If you think it is very inappropriate, why don't you tell me why was it added/accepted to the Greek Scripture? Do you think Christians 1000 years ago are so stupid so they did not know the concerns you are thinking?

Does any other verse/word in the Bible have a similar nature to Acts 8:37. If not, why is this verse an exception?

If you do not know the answer, either dig into it, or stop criticizing it. In particular, do not generalize this unique case to the whole Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't know why it was added. Why would that matter to me? After all, I'm not the one claiming that their Bible is more important than all the rest of God's revelation. Since you are the one ignoring other evidence because you think it contradicts your Bible, I would have expected that you would have solved issues like Acts 8:37 first before doing so.

I don't know or care what Christians 1000 years ago were thinking. Why is that important? The vast majority of them didn't read the Bible, and certainly didn't compare manuscripts or modern translations.

Juve wrote:

Does any other verse/word in the Bible have a similar nature to Acts 8:37. If not, why is this verse an exception?

Do you mean "are other verses removed/added"? Yes, there are plenty of others. In total, there are nearly 3,000 words added to the KJV compared to the NIV, for instance. Many of these are whole verses, phrases, or such. That of course is just in the New Testament. There are bigger differences between bibles in the Old Testament, especially between whole books between the Catholilc, Protestant, Ethiopian, and Syriac Bibles. But I'm not the one elevating one of these Bibles above other revelation, so I may not know that as well as some.

Papias.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't know why it was added. Why would that matter to me? After all, I'm not the one claiming that their Bible is more important than all the rest of God's revelation. Since you are the one ignoring other evidence because you think it contradicts your Bible, I would have expected that you would have solved issues like Acts 8:37 first before doing so.

I don't know or care what Christians 1000 years ago were thinking. Why is that important? The vast majority of them didn't read the Bible, and certainly didn't compare manuscripts or modern translations.

Juve wrote:



Do you mean "are other verses removed/added"? Yes, there are plenty of others. In total, there are nearly 3,000 words added to the KJV compared to the NIV, for instance. Many of these are whole verses, phrases, or such. That of course is just in the New Testament. There are bigger differences between bibles in the Old Testament, especially between whole books between the Catholilc, Protestant, Ethiopian, and Syriac Bibles. But I'm not the one elevating one of these Bibles above other revelation, so I may not know that as well as some.

Papias.

NIV is translated as a dynamic equivalence. KJV is more literal. They also used different manuscripts. So of course there'd be differences, but none as to doctrine (kind of, but not to digress).

What about the earth tilt?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
NIV is translated as a dynamic equivalence. KJV is more literal. They also used different manuscripts. So of course there'd be differences, but none as to doctrine (kind of, but not to digress).

What about the earth tilt?

Ha ha ha ... Is it still a problem?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don't know why it was added. Why would that matter to me? After all, I'm not the one claiming that their Bible is more important than all the rest of God's revelation. Since you are the one ignoring other evidence because you think it contradicts your Bible, I would have expected that you would have solved issues like Acts 8:37 first before doing so.

I don't know or care what Christians 1000 years ago were thinking. Why is that important? The vast majority of them didn't read the Bible, and certainly didn't compare manuscripts or modern translations.

Juve wrote:



Do you mean "are other verses removed/added"? Yes, there are plenty of others. In total, there are nearly 3,000 words added to the KJV compared to the NIV, for instance. Many of these are whole verses, phrases, or such. That of course is just in the New Testament. There are bigger differences between bibles in the Old Testament, especially between whole books between the Catholilc, Protestant, Ethiopian, and Syriac Bibles. But I'm not the one elevating one of these Bibles above other revelation, so I may not know that as well as some.

Papias.

I said that I don't care if Acts 8:37 was added or not, as long as there is not another case like that in the Bible. Other differences you mentioned are caused by translation, which is of different nature than that of Acts. 8:37.
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Juve wrote:

I said that I don't care if Acts 8:37 was added or not, as long as there is not another case like that in the Bible. Other differences you mentioned are caused by translation, which is of different nature than that of Acts. 8:37.

There are plenty of other cases. Some are Mt 17:21, 23:14, Mk 9:46, 11:26, 16:9, Jn 5:4, Rom 16:24, etc. In all these cases it is not just a "translation error", but because different manuscripts were used - manscripts which don't agree with each other. In fact, of our over 5,000 manuscripts, no two of them completely agree, except for the ones that are tiny fragments. So in all these cases, they are of the same nature as the Acts one (differing manuscripts, not differing translations of the same greek).

But why would other examples be needed? If one is treating one of the Bibles (you still haven't said which one and why it is special) as infallible, then isn't even one case enough? How could you "not care" if acts 8:37 was added by humans? Again, this shows that deep down, you are acting as if you know it is a work of humans.

What do you think about the ending of Mark? That ending does not appear to have been in the original, but was added later on by some human. Is that later addition "from the holy spirit"?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Juve wrote:



There are plenty of other cases. Some are Mt 17:21, 23:14, Mk 9:46, 11:26, 16:9, Jn 5:4, Rom 16:24, etc. In all these cases it is not just a "translation error", but because different manuscripts were used - manscripts which don't agree with each other. In fact, of our over 5,000 manuscripts, no two of them completely agree, except for the ones that are tiny fragments. So in all these cases, they are of the same nature as the Acts one (differing manuscripts, not differing translations of the same greek).

But why would other examples be needed? If one is treating one of the Bibles (you still haven't said which one and why it is special) as infallible, then isn't even one case enough? How could you "not care" if acts 8:37 was added by humans? Again, this shows that deep down, you are acting as if you know it is a work of humans.

What do you think about the ending of Mark? That ending does not appear to have been in the original, but was added later on by some human. Is that later addition "from the holy spirit"?

Papias

What is wrong with the ending of Mark? Are you referring to Mk 16:15? Or something else?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm referring to Mark 16:9-20. The earliest manuscripts we have do not have these verses, and scholars agree that they were added later on, and spread out by copying from when that person added them, long after the original of Mark was written.

It's an interesting question. For example, Ezra apparently inserted the info about Moses' death, adding not found the tomb to this day.

Mark's ending confirms the other 3 gospel. So, not a problem, if the comma is placed correctly.

Paraphrase----After Jesus rose, He appeared to the women early.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It's an interesting question. For example, Ezra apparently inserted the info about Moses' death, adding not found the tomb to this day.

Mark's ending confirms the other 3 gospel. So, not a problem, if the comma is placed correctly.

Paraphrase----After Jesus rose, He appeared to the women early.

To me (may be to most Christians too), as long as the Bible is not changed after the canon of Scripture was done, it would be fine. I don't think we can ever be sure on how were those Books be written.

As a creationist, I would be interested to know what else about God's creation was described in other books (like the book of Enoch?) and whether they suggest any new understanding. Unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to study it on myself, unless somebody helps me to start it.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
To me (may be to most Christians too), as long as the Bible is not changed after the canon of Scripture was done, it would be fine. I don't think we can ever be sure on how were those Books be written.

As a creationist, I would be interested to know what else about God's creation was described in other books (like the book of Enoch?) and whether they suggest any new understanding. Unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to study it on myself, unless somebody helps me to start it.

Evidently the book of Enoch goes into some of the stuff we've discussed. It's on my to do list.

Spring equinox--start of creation
goes from there, if I recall correctly.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Evidently the book of Enoch goes into some of the stuff we've discussed. It's on my to do list.

Spring equinox--start of creation
goes from there, if I recall correctly.

Did Enoch say this? Could you tell me where?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Standing up wrote:

Mark's ending confirms the other 3 gospel. So, not a problem

??? does the risen Jesus in any of the other gospels say that Christians will safely handle poisonous snakes and drink poison?

So are you are saying it is OK to add things to one's Bible, as long as you also confirm some part of other scripture?

Juve wrote:

As a creationist, I would be interested to know what else about God's creation was described in other books

Wisdom 19:19 seems to describe evolution:

"For land creatures changed into sea creatures, and those that swam moved up onto the land."

Juve wrote:
To me (may be to most Christians too), as long as the Bible is not changed after the canon of Scripture was done, it would be fine. I don't think we can ever be sure on how were those Books be written.

Yeah. Probably right. When exactly are you saying that the canon was done?

Papias
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Standing up wrote:



??? does the risen Jesus in any of the other gospels say that Christians will safely handle poisonous snakes and drink poison?

So are you are saying it is OK to add things to one's Bible, as long as you also confirm some part of other scripture?

Juve wrote:



Wisdom 19:19 seems to describe evolution:

"For land creatures changed into sea creatures, and those that swam moved up onto the land."


Juve wrote:


Yeah. Probably right. When exactly are you saying that the canon was done?

Papias

It seems that I also read this somewhere in the Old Testament, but can't remember where. It is certainly very interesting. I would like to change into a sea creature. I think the sea is a much better living environment.

I have no idea when was the canon done. How about A.D. 350? Or A.D. 352?
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, "in an octopus's garden, in the shade....."


The book of Wisdom is in the Old Testament, except in Protestant Bibles, where it is moved to the Apocrypha.

The history of the canonization of the Bibles is not simple.

The Jews canonized their scriptures over time. The first books to be considered scripture by the Jews were the 5 books of the Pentateuch, which were canonized sometime around 400 BCE. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT, which included most of the Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim, was put together around 200 BCE, though different versions were not identical – the Septuagint was to become the first version of the Christian OT. Around the same time, the Jews canonized the Nevi’im. The Jews appear to have canonized the Ketuvim around 100 CE, though that date isn’t clear, and the Ketuvim they canonized did not include some of the books in the Septuagint.

On the Christian side, the Septuagint OT appears to have been used by the Apostles in the 1st century, and various NT canons (such as the muratorian canon and others) were proposed and used from the 2nd century on. The first time we have a record of anyone proposing an NT canon that matches the 27 books in the NT of most Bibles today was in 367 CE (that’s probably the date you were thinking of). However, this certainly didn’t settle things, and different Christian groups continued to use different NT canons for hundreds of years, sometimes adding books (like the Shepard, Gospel of Peter, Barnabas, Rev. of Peter, or 3rd Corinthians), and sometimes having fewer books (Jude, 3 John, James, Hebrews and Revelation were often not included). The Christians around Syria maintained a shorter canon of the NT well into modern times.

Around 400 CE, Jerome put together the Vulgate, which included the OT of the Septuagint (though he expressed doubt about some, including many not in the Tanakh). The Vulgate was the standard Christian Bible for around 1000 years, though different versions differed somewhat, due to the lack of the invention of printing.

In the 1500’s as you know, the Protestant reformation occurred. Luther and others did not see the Vulgate as closed from question, and so they reviewed the canon. Going back to some of Jerome’s doubts, the current Jewish Tanakh (solidified in the interim, probably at least by 300 CE), and finding Catholic doctrine they objected to in some books, they came up with an OT canon of around a half dozen fewer books than the Septuagint/Jeromic OT. Martin Luther also argued against including Rev (calling it the “ravings of a madman”), and the book of James from the NT. He had them moved to an appendix, but later protestants restored them to the NT.

In the centuries that followed, other Christian groups also made the canon lists more clear, though often different (for instance, the Ethiopian Christian Canon still contains another dozen or so books over the Catholic Bible). In the 1800’s, the Christian LDS church in the US started, adding the Book of Mormon to its canon, along with others. The most recent change came in 1979, when Pope John Paul II removed 3 and 4 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manassas from the Clementine Vulgate.

This is actually a greatly simplified version of the history. There are many other changes and other paths (for instance, I never even mentioned the Eastern Orthodox Christians) that aren’t mentioned. As churches continue to spring up or change, I think it would be naïve to think that the canon won’t continue to be changed in the future.

Looking at that history, I have to wonder – what basis would one use to pick a time when the canon was “established” – and which canon would be chosen? I guess the canon that existed for the longest time, with the most adherents would have to be Jerome’s Vulgate from around 400 to 1500 CE. However, that canon is not used today, and certainly not by Protestants. The next best guess for a “majority canon” could perhaps be the Nova Vulgate, accepted by the majority of Christians today, but that still excludes hundreds of millions of Christians. Or should we just decide that changes to the canon of one or more of the Bibles is OK even today, since the changes appear to have occurred up to at least the 1500’s (1800’s if you count the LDS, or 1979 if you count Esdras)?

Papias

 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Athanasius 367--earliest extant record:

" I also, having been urged by true brethren and having investigated the matter from the beginning, have decided to set forth in order the writings that have been put in the canon, that have been handed down and confirmed as divine, in order that every one who has been led astray may condemn his seducers, and that every one who has remained stainless may rejoice, being again reminded of that. "

The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Athanasius

He then lists the NT books as we know them today.

Various churches claim they put together the bible. Rubbish.

Handed down, in the canon, confirmed as divine. Before 367.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Standing up, you did read my post, right? I mentioned 367, specifically because of its significance for the NT canon. You are aware that Athanasius, being in the Catholic church, would be affirming the Catholic OT canon if he is referring to that also. Do you accept the entire Catholic canon of Athanasius, or today's Catholic canon? Or are you saying that Athanasius is only talking about part of the canon, since he only goes on to list NT books? Either way, I can't see how you can use Athanasius and still maintain that books like Tobit aren't in the canon.

Are you saying that if someone says something is from God, then it uncritically is so?

Lastly, are you saying that the Catholic church is the one true church, and Luther is "rubbish"?

Papias
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0