The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[now faith]

Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy
We have known for over 150 years that Genesis 1-11 is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Jesus and some of the writers of the New Testament used the very popular stories from Genesis 1-11 to teach their message, but there is no evidence of any kind that any of them believed that the stories were an accurate account of historic events.


Interesting,I had a commentary from the World Council of Churches that in the introduction stated the same thing about the Old Testament.

It's been a while since I tossed it out,but I do remember the accusation of it being a book of fables.

Considering the foreshadow of Christ is contained in the Old Testament,I wonder what is their idea of the Gospel?


One thought on the 2 accounts in Genesis and the Questions that arise :

I wonder if some how Genesis 1 and 2 are some how reversed,other wise out of chronological order.

Keep in mind I have not studied this to any degree, but it is my belief that our methods of comprehension
Have nothing to do with God's wisdom.

 

[now faith]

Genesis: 2. 15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 18. And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 21. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.



Genesis: 3. 16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 20. And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. 21. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22. And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23. Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


Genesis: 2. 4. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,


Genesis: 1. 27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.


This would make Genisis 2 -4 the summary of events, and the narrative would continue with Eve birthing Cain.

 

[now faith]

It has been the opinions of theologians that the book of Job was written pre flood, it is clearly placed out
of Chronological order.

None of these circumstances would put God's word in error,only the men who compiled the text.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Continuing the comments:

The Ben Asher text in not the Ben Chayyim text. Watch out for the Kittel family

The following excerpts come from the above site:

It is clear by the address of the site, that this is a site belong those that are “Messianic”; (I say this not against them, each person has the right to believe as they wish), I simply state that the people of this site seem to have come to some of the same understanding as I have, through much study (which is stated directly on their “Home Page”. This first excerpt comes from quite a ways down on the page, but I found it rather interesting.

“Again, my heart hurts as I convey the truth. Below, there might be some duplicate material, stay with me...
The Greek text that is used in most Bible seminaries and colleges is produced by the United Bible Societies, an organization composed of more than 100 national Bible societies.
We used the third edition when I was in school. Since then a fourth edition has appeared. In Bible school I was not told that the editors of that volume are apostates, but they are. We will consider four of the editors:
Carlo Martini, Eugene Nida, Kurt Aland, and Bruce Metzger.”

At this point the producer of this work, presents some interesting facts about these 'leaders' in the field of textual criticism. As a quick note, all of the above mentioned have passed on, as shown:
Carlo Maria Martini, S.J., (15 February 1927 – 31 August 2012)
Eugene A. Nida (November 11, 1914 – August 25, 2011)
Kurt Aland (28 March 1915 – 13 April 1994)
Bruce Manning Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007)

Observe:

“CARLO MARTINI
Jesuit cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (1927- ) is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan.
Since 1967, he has been one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek
New Testament.
His diocese in Europe is the largest in the world, with two thousand priests and five million "laity." He is Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome.
He is also President of the Council of European Bishop's Conferences. Time magazine, December 26, 1994, listed him as a possible candidate in line for the papacy.
Another Time magazine article reported that Martini brought together a syncretistic convocation of over 100 religious leaders from around the world to promote a new age, one-world religion.
In addressing this meeting, Mikhail Gorbachev said, "We need to synthesize a new religion for thinking men that will universalize that religion for the world and lead us into a new age."”

Over the years, I have heard much said pertaining to the so-called 'Catholic' connection to the King James Bible, because Erasmus was a Catholic. A Catholic, I might add, that has had ALL of his written works placed on the Index of Forbidden Books to read by Catholics in 1559 by Pope Paul IV! His name was not removed until 1930. (Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds by Margaret Bald, Pg. 270) It certainly sounds as though Erasmus was a devout Catholic! Interestingly, (as seen in the above excerpt), Martine was a Jesuit cardinal who has been one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, since 1967; the underlying Greek text of nearly every modern Bible version, including the NIV, and the NASB. Do we really want to talk about a Catholic connection?

Let's look at another excerpt from the site above:

Regarding Bruce Metzger, the site states:

“BRUCE METZGER
Another of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament is Bruce Manning Metzger (1914- ). Metzger is George L. CollordProfessor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, and he serves on the board of the American Bible Society.
Metzger is the head of the continuing RSV translation committee of the apostate National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. The Revised Standard Version was soundly condemned for its modernism when it first appeared in 1952.”

It further states:

“NOTES ON GENESIS: "[Genesis] 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6).
Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."

NOTES ON JOB: "The ancient folktale of a patient Job (1.1-2.13; 42.7-17; Jas. 5.11) circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."

NOTES ON PSALM 22: "22:12-13: ... the meaning of the third line [they have pierced my hands and feet] is obscure." [Editor: No, it is not obscure; it is a prophecy of Christs crucifixion!]

NOTES ON ISAIAH: "Only chs. 1-39 can be assigned to Isaiahs time; it is generally accepted that chs. 40-66 come from the time of Cyrus of Persia (539 B.C.) and later, as shown by the differences in historical background, literary style, and theological emphases. ... The contents of this section [chs. 56-66] (sometimes called Third Isaiah) suggest a date between 530 and 510 B.C., perhaps contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah (520-518); chapters 60-62 may be later."

NOTES ON JONAH: "The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to a new, more consequential use."

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT: "Jesus himself left no literary remains; information regarding his words and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples.
At first this information was circulated orally.
As far as we know today, the first attempt to produce a written Gospel was made by John Mark, who according to tradition was a disciple of the Apostle Peter.

This Gospel, along with a collection of sayings of Jesus and several other special sources, formed the basis of the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke." [Editor: The Gospels, like every part of the New Testament, were written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This nonsense of trying to find the original source for the Gospels is unbelieving heresy.]”

These are just a few of the many things stated by Bruce Metager, the leading textual critic of the 20th century. It really sounds as though textual critics sincerely believe in what the Bible says, doesn't it?

Jack

Absolutely false and malicious lies about Christians who have devoted their lives to serving our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus are NOT evidence for the preservation of the Bible, but they are proof that the toilet from which these lies come has nothing at all to do with conservative, evangelical Christianity. I do not have the time to address all of the maliciousness in Jack’s post, but I will address a typical example.

The late Carlo Maria Martini (he died on Sept. 3, 2012) served as an editor of both the Nestle-Aland text and the USB text, but it is an incontrovertible fact that no one can cite even a single instance in any Protestant translation of the Bible in which the underlying Greek text reflects a Roman Catholic rather than Protestant preference. Moreover, Carlo Martini was an advocate for Christian unity; he most certainly was not an advocate for “a new age, one-world religion.”

 

[PrincetonGuy]

A quick note: The reason for providing the above information is quite simple: there is a direct connection from Johann Semler, all the way to the late Dr. Bruce Metzger. The problem began when Semler publicly denied the Divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Since that time, textual critics like him, have been hacking away at the Scriptures.

That is my opinion; based upon the above information, and much, much more.

Jack

No malicious lies about the late Bruce Metzger (he died on February 13, 2007) are relevant to the quality of the work that he did. Even if a he had been an active member of the Church of Satan or a radicalized Sunni Muslim, his work stands on it own merits—and not upon anything else! The same applies to Erasmus, Westcott and Hort, Allen Wikgren, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Eugene Nida, Carlo Maria Martini, Kurt and Barbara Aland, …..

 

[classicalhero]

We have known for over 150 years that Genesis 1-11 is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Jesus and some of the writers of the New Testament used the very popular stories from Genesis 1-11 to teach their message, but there is no evidence of any kind that any of them believed that the stories were an accurate account of historic events. Indeed, the concept of history as an accurate account of historic events did not even exist in the ancient Hebrew world in which Genesis 1-11 was composed!

So it took an unbeliever to show the truth which God had hidden from us until then? The Bible clearly states we shouldn't be given to "fables" or in the Greek "Mythos", the same word we get myth from. So the inclusion of the creation and flood myth in the Bible wrong, so how did it get there and why was in the Bible for so long, if it is a myth?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

If you want to say they are allegorical I guess that is your call. And certainly you are not alone in that position.

However, I am not sure why you hold the position that the later biblical authors did not treat them as an historical account.


Rom_5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


1Co_15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Why state such a thing if one does not hold that historically Adam initiated the pattern of sin, which Jesus is the solution to? If you only hold that the Adam story was a legend, and that evolution resulted in man, then why regard specifics of the fall in the account? Why compare the two?


Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Why use the phrase "as the days of Noe (Noah) were" if He thought it was a legend? Why not say as in the story of Noah? Yet He draws a lesson from the particulars of the story and the people of the time. And He says "as the days of Noe were".



Heb_11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Why speak of Noah as an example of faith and one who went before if one does not believe a literal Noah existed, or the account which is referenced?

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;


2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


Why would Peter reference the flood to give the surety of the coming destruction by fire if he did not believe that there was a flood? If it was regarded as only a legend or story, then what would be the value of using it as an example of God's willingness to pour out judgment?

It appears to me that two very different interpretations of Genesis 1-11 are being confused in this post. The allegorical interpretation is one of the ancient views that has been proven to be incorrect through studies of ancient oriental literature and by the earth and life sciences. The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is in harmony with the current studies of ancient oriental literature and the current studies in the earth and life sciences is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Some scholars make a clear distinction between myths and legends, but others do not. I prefer the term “epic tales” because I believe that it is the most accurately descriptive.

The story of a great and devastating flood is very common in epic literature, as well as folk literature. The story as it appears in Genesis 6-8 describes an absolutely impossible event that, if it had occurred about 4365 years ago, would have destroyed nearly every ecosystem on the earth, including the oceans, and the evidence of that destruction would be apparent nearly everywhere on the earth today. A literal interpretation leaves no room for miracles that would necessarily have taken place for the ecosystems to survive or recover from total destruction.

Was Jesus aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question, but Jesus Himself taught that He was not omniscient. If He was aware of these facts, it would appear that He was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach some important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Was Peter aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question either, but Peter was certainly not omniscient. If he was aware of these facts, it would appear that he, like Jesus, was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Since the story of the flood is an epic tale, it seems very likely that the rest of Genesis 1-11 is no more historical, and that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Some ultraconservative Christians have objected that Adam must have been an historical person because Paul, in Romans 5:12-21, teaches the doctrine of original sin based upon the accounts in Genesis regarding Adam. Answers to this objection have, of course, been presented by many scholars, and these answers raise some very interesting and challenging questions regarding the inspiration of Paul’s writings—and, of course, the inspiration of the entire Bible. We must remember, however, that God was free to give us the Bible through whatever means He chose to, and that His objective was clearly not to teach us historical facts but spiritual truths. We have all sinned, and the blood atoning death of Christ on the cross is the ONLY remedy for those sins and for man’s disposition to sin.

It appears to me that two very different interpretations of Genesis 1-11 are being confused in this post. The allegorical interpretation is one of the ancient views that has been proven to be incorrect through studies of ancient oriental literature and by the earth and life sciences. The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is in harmony with the current studies of ancient oriental literature and the current studies in the earth and life sciences is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Some scholars make a clear distinction between myths and legends, but others do not. I prefer the term “epic tales” because I believe that it is the most accurately descriptive.

The story of a great and devastating flood is very common in epic literature, as well as folk literature. The story as it appears in Genesis 6-8 describes an absolutely impossible event that, if it had occurred about 4365 years ago, would have destroyed nearly every ecosystem on the earth, including the oceans, and the evidence of that destruction would be apparent nearly everywhere on the earth today. A literal interpretation leaves no room for miracles that would necessarily have taken place for the ecosystems to survive or recover from total destruction.

Was Jesus aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question, but Jesus Himself taught that He was not omniscient. If He was aware of these facts, it would appear that He was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach some important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Was Peter aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question either, but Peter was certainly not omniscient. If he was aware of these facts, it would appear that he, like Jesus, was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Since the story of the flood is an epic tale, it seems very likely that the rest of Genesis 1-11 is no more historical, and that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Some ultraconservative Christians have objected that Adam must have been an historical person because Paul, in Romans 5:12-21, teaches the doctrine of original sin based upon the accounts in Genesis regarding Adam. Answers to this objection have, of course, been presented by many scholars, and these answers raise some very interesting and challenging questions regarding the inspiration of Paul’s writings—and, of course, the inspiration of the entire Bible. We must remember, however, that God was free to give us the Bible through whatever means He chose to, and that His objective was clearly not to teach us historical facts but spiritual truths. We have all sinned, and the blood atoning death of Christ on the cross is the ONLY remedy for those sins and for man’s disposition to sin.

My point here is that it can be proven from the Book of Genesis that God has NOT preserved His word from the start to the finish, and that what we have today is very different in some places from what was originally written.

 

[Jack Koons]

Tall,

Do you agree with the following statement?

Generally speaking, there are presently two main Greek NT texts which underly what is commonly known as the Christian NT. The first of these two main Greek texts is commonly known as the Textus Receptus, (which underlies all Reformation Bibles up to, and including the KJV). The exception to this, of course, would be the Wycliffe Bible, which was a translation of Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The second of these two main Greek texts is commonly known as the N/A Greek text, (currently in its 28th Edition), also known as the Critical Text. While these two main Greek texts come from two different 'families' of 'text types', (Byzantine and Alexandrian, respectively); they do have the commonality of both being 'eclectic' texts. Eclectic meaning that both of these Greek texts are a collation of several individual Greek MSS: MSS having several variants of portions of the texts; therefore, in the eclectic process, a single variant is chosen from among the existing variants, which is believed to be the proper representation of the original.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

No malicious lies about the late Bruce Metzger (he died on February 13, 2007) are relevant to the quality of the work that he did. Even if a he had been an active member of the Church of Satan or a radicalized Sunni Muslim, his work stands on it own merits—and not upon anything else! The same applies to Erasmus, Westcott and Hort, Allen Wikgren, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Eugene Nida, Carlo Maria Martini, Kurt and Barbara Aland, …..

I am REALLY curious; did you think about what you typed before you clicked "Post"?

Jack

 

[classicalhero]

It appears to me that two very different interpretations of Genesis 1-11 are being confused in this post. The allegorical interpretation is one of the ancient views that has been proven to be incorrect through studies of ancient oriental literature and by the earth and life sciences. The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is in harmony with the current studies of ancient oriental literature and the current studies in the earth and life sciences is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Some scholars make a clear distinction between myths and legends, but others do not. I prefer the term “epic tales” because I believe that it is the most accurately descriptive.

The story of a great and devastating flood is very common in epic literature, as well as folk literature. The story as it appears in Genesis 6-8 describes an absolutely impossible event that, if it had occurred about 4365 years ago, would have destroyed nearly every ecosystem on the earth, including the oceans, and the evidence of that destruction would be apparent nearly everywhere on the earth today. A literal interpretation leaves no room for miracles that would necessarily have taken place for the ecosystems to survive or recover from total destruction.

Was Jesus aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question, but Jesus Himself taught that He was not omniscient. If He was aware of these facts, it would appear that He was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach some important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Was Peter aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question either, but Peter was certainly not omniscient. If he was aware of these facts, it would appear that he, like Jesus, was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Since the story of the flood is an epic tale, it seems very likely that the rest of Genesis 1-11 is no more historical, and that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Some ultraconservative Christians have objected that Adam must have been an historical person because Paul, in Romans 5:12-21, teaches the doctrine of original sin based upon the accounts in Genesis regarding Adam. Answers to this objection have, of course, been presented by many scholars, and these answers raise some very interesting and challenging questions regarding the inspiration of Paul’s writings—and, of course, the inspiration of the entire Bible. We must remember, however, that God was free to give us the Bible through whatever means He chose to, and that His objective was clearly not to teach us historical facts but spiritual truths. We have all sinned, and the blood atoning death of Christ on the cross is the ONLY remedy for those sins and for man’s disposition to sin.

It appears to me that two very different interpretations of Genesis 1-11 are being confused in this post. The allegorical interpretation is one of the ancient views that has been proven to be incorrect through studies of ancient oriental literature and by the earth and life sciences. The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is in harmony with the current studies of ancient oriental literature and the current studies in the earth and life sciences is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Some scholars make a clear distinction between myths and legends, but others do not. I prefer the term “epic tales” because I believe that it is the most accurately descriptive.

The story of a great and devastating flood is very common in epic literature, as well as folk literature. The story as it appears in Genesis 6-8 describes an absolutely impossible event that, if it had occurred about 4365 years ago, would have destroyed nearly every ecosystem on the earth, including the oceans, and the evidence of that destruction would be apparent nearly everywhere on the earth today. A literal interpretation leaves no room for miracles that would necessarily have taken place for the ecosystems to survive or recover from total destruction.

Was Jesus aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question, but Jesus Himself taught that He was not omniscient. If He was aware of these facts, it would appear that He was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach some important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Was Peter aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question either, but Peter was certainly not omniscient. If he was aware of these facts, it would appear that he, like Jesus, was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Since the story of the flood is an epic tale, it seems very likely that the rest of Genesis 1-11 is no more historical, and that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Some ultraconservative Christians have objected that Adam must have been an historical person because Paul, in Romans 5:12-21, teaches the doctrine of original sin based upon the accounts in Genesis regarding Adam. Answers to this objection have, of course, been presented by many scholars, and these answers raise some very interesting and challenging questions regarding the inspiration of Paul’s writings—and, of course, the inspiration of the entire Bible. We must remember, however, that God was free to give us the Bible through whatever means He chose to, and that His objective was clearly not to teach us historical facts but spiritual truths. We have all sinned, and the blood atoning death of Christ on the cross is the ONLY remedy for those sins and for man’s disposition to sin.

My point here is that it can be proven from the Book of Genesis that God has NOT preserved His word from the start to the finish, and that what we have today is very different in some places from what was originally written.

This is a quote from Richard Dawkins. It seems he understand the Bible far better than you do.

‘Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!’

If Genesis isn't historical then Jesus' death is an absolute joke by God.

 

[tall73]

It appears to me that two very different interpretations of Genesis 1-11 are being confused in this post. The allegorical interpretation is one of the ancient views that has been proven to be incorrect through studies of ancient oriental literature and by the earth and life sciences. The interpretation of Genesis 1-11 that is in harmony with the current studies of ancient oriental literature and the current studies in the earth and life sciences is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Some scholars make a clear distinction between myths and legends, but others do not. I prefer the term “epic tales” because I believe that it is the most accurately descriptive.

I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt that you thought they had some value as an allegory. I guess instead you think they are just basically legends. Or to put it more bluntly, you think they are just stories that are not true.

The story of a great and devastating flood is very common in epic literature, as well as folk literature.

Across the whole world. Which might make one wonder why if in fact it didn't happen.

Was Peter aware of these facts? The Bible does not answer that question either, but Peter was certainly not omniscient. If he was aware of these facts, it would appear that he, like Jesus, was using a very popular story in the Old Testament to teach important lessons—lessons which are NOT dependent upon the historical accuracy of the story.

Of course the lesson Peter was making WAS dependent on the historical accuracy of the account. He was saying God could and would destroy the whole world, despite the scoffers, and used as an example the fact that God had done so before--which he saw as factual. Peter's argument makes no sense if the story was just made up.

How much sense would Peter's argument make? "You scoffers, you think you won't be judged? What about that made up story of the flood that never happened. They were judged! "

No, that would not fly obviously. Peter did think it happened, and used it as an example of the coming judgment. The only reason to try to argue around that is that you don't believe it happened.

Since the story of the flood is an epic tale, it seems very likely that the rest of Genesis 1-11 is no more historical, and that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Some ultraconservative Christians have objected that Adam must have been an historical person because Paul, in Romans 5:12-21, teaches the doctrine of original sin based upon the accounts in Genesis regarding Adam.

It is hardly just the "ultra-convervative" who think that Paul would be making a silly argument if he really thought there was no Adam to compare Christ to but did it anyway.

His argument makes no sense if he thought it all an "epic tale".

Answers to this objection have, of course, been presented by many scholars, and these answers raise some very interesting and challenging questions regarding the inspiration of Paul’s writings—and, of course, the inspiration of the entire Bible. We must remember, however, that God was free to give us the Bible through whatever means He chose to, and that His objective was clearly not to teach us historical facts but spiritual truths. We have all sinned, and the blood atoning death of Christ on the cross is the ONLY remedy for those sins and for man’s disposition to sin.

The remedy was for the problem that came about through the story referenced by Paul. He didn't consider it just an epic tale.

 

[tall73]

Tall,

Do you agree with the following statement?



Jack

I largely agree, though the critical text does not completely disregard the Byzantine either, but to my thought does so more often than it should.

And of course other things than just Greek texts go into versions, including the KJV.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

My comments are in red.


Joe, if you know anything about translations, you would know that there is frequently no word for word parallel between languages. To express a greek word in several different ways is not necessarily wrong. some translations attempt to get close to a word of word parallel, others are more flowing and loose. I enjoy the ASV for its word for word parallels to the greek. I see places where only one word could be used instead of 2 or 3 as in other translations. Nevertheless, I think your problem with the issue is one because you do not understand the process of translation.

I doubt I should be here. I do not want to wrangle here it just does not seem worth it.

If you think the ASV is the word of God, conveys the word of God, or contains the word of God, you are missing the boat. God's word cannot be changed in different versions in the same language. Either none of them is the word of God and all of them together can only get you close, at best, to knowing exactly what God said to you in your own language, or one version is exactly what God said in your own language.

Do not assume that I know little about translations or textual criticism. I simply prefer to take the common sense simple logic child-like faith approach. Either you believe you have God's word in your own language given to you from God or you believe you are the tool of the Holy Ghost who brings you as close to the originals as you can possibly get and your own intellect is the standard rather than the word of God being the standard.

My problem with this issue is that men set themselves up as intellectually superior to God, pretending God needs them to decipher his word into English. It's done, God did it, and He does not need you, the NASB, the NIV, Wescott and Hort, or any modern scholar to fix it for him. Sorry.

People like you will not listen to reason, you will not examine the unholy changes in modern versions, you will not examine the motives of their translators and editors, you will not acknowledge the hand of God in the history of the King James Bible. For this reason I will not dignify your pretense of intellectual superiority by engaging in a long argument which will go down rabbit trails that never end and always change because there is no end and no stability preventing change in all the modern versions which come out one after an other.

If you are a godly man like my mentor who was not a KJV only person, you will not pursue arguments against the King James Bible. If you are a godly man unlike my mentor, I don't know why you find it so important to insult me simply because I stand firm in simple common sense logical faith which is easily understood by any child.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Every once in a while someone makes a comment or two in a debating type of discussion, that absolutely brings things to a halt. Post #273 by PrincetonGuy is one of those times. Please allow me to elaborate. My format will be as follows: 1) I will present what I said; 2) I will present the reply by PrinctonGuy; 3) I will then comment. (This may require more than a single post)

Presentation begins:



Please allow me to address the latter, first. I do not know, and quite frankly, I don’t care. Moving on to the former: “What evidence does anyone have that God had anything at all to do with the “preservation” of these manuscripts?” Well Princeton, think about it. I can quickly think of four possible responses to your question: 1) The preservation of the Scriptures has been purely ‘chance’. This would probably be what you believe. (Or possibly the next one.) I highly doubt this would be the case. When we consider other writings of the same period such as: Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Herodian, Eusebius (of Caesarea), or Socrates of Constantinople, do we have multiplicity of witness of these writers as we do the Scriptures? I think not. Or maybe, 2) Have the Scriptures been preserved by the power and wisdom of men? I’m sure there are many scholars who believe just that! We’re running out of options. 3) Maybe the Scriptures were preserved by Satan. After all, He sure likes to misquote God! But then, maybe, just maybe … 4) The Scriptures were preserved by God Himself. Wouldn’t that just be something? For God to actually preserve His word, so that all generations could read and study it; why then He could actually hold us accountable for obeying what He tells us to do in it!!! Wouldn’t that just be something? Just a thought.



I’m sure glad you said, “Nearly all”, I thought maybe about 1,000 faithful Bible believing scholar’s I thought still to be living had suddenly died. You had me worried there for a second! By the way, did I catch a bit of actual disbelief there, when you said, “God failed”? I didn’t know God could fail at anything He purposed to do. Just a thought.


Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you want me, an Independent, Fundamental, KJV Bible believing Baptist, to read a “moderately liberal Protestant perspective”, along with a “moderately liberal Roman Catholic perspective”, along with a “conservative Roman Catholic perspective”, in order to have what? Your perspective!!!??? I don’t see that happening any time soon.




PrincetonGuy, I understand that because you have the ‘perspective’ you have, all the actual ‘facts’ of history I present will be irrelevant to you. However, since I’m pretty sure others will be reading this, I will tell you, and them. The relevance of knowing that the London Baptists believed in the preservation of Scripture “by His singular care”; means that there were still some scholars remaining in the 1600’s (and beyond), that held this doctrine. In other words, they disagreed with ‘your perspective’. That again, is the relevance. Keep in mind, they knew it was NOT in a monolithic text, but they still believed it was “kept pure in all ages”.

Jack

It's hard for me to read all those slanders against the Lord and His word. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. There are very few godly Christians who are strong in Biblical doctrine while they accept modern versions as containers or conveyers of God's word. Most people who accept modern versions on the same level as the King James Version, which actually is putting all versions on a level lower than the word of God, hold to many various strange doctrines which are not supported by Biblical consistency. Evolutionary beliefs are the most common and perhaps the basic heresy among people who degrade the word of God into variable versions. The worst deviations from doctrine based on modern versions belongs to groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Catholics are a whole different category as they opposed the word of God being translated into English from the beginning and do all they can to degrade it into obscurity by endorsing modern versions.


You did a good job by pointing out the anti-bible beliefs that are common among people who reject the King James Bible as being God's unalterable word in English.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I am REALLY curious; did you think about what you typed before you clicked "Post"?

Jack

wow.....the cat's out of the bag now

good job Mr. Koons.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

This is a quote from Richard Dawkins. It seems he understand the Bible far better than you do.

‘Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!’
If Genesis isn't historical then Jesus' death is an absolute joke by God.



My comment on the quote from Classical Hero's post above:
Wow, Richard Dawkins understood the importance of the Bible story more than most people who call themselves Christian in America today.

Excellent post. Good job Classical Hero

 

[SaintJoeNow]

How in the world did this thread change from the preservation of scripture to the preservation of doctrine? I guess you can't have one without the other.

 

[Cody2]

God preserve His pure words in the King James Bible. God's word was found in the texts that the King James translators used before 1611, if that becomes a question.

Psalms 12:6-7

 

[tall73]

God preserve His pure words in the King James Bible. God's word was found in the texts that the King James translators used before 1611, if that becomes a question.

Psalms 12:6-7

Was it found before 1611 by anyone, or only after?

 

[Jack Koons]

I largely agree, though the critical text does not completely disregard the Byzantine either, but to my thought does so more often than it should.

And of course other things than just Greek texts go into versions, including the KJV.

I understand your points, I spoke of the NT because it is far more diverse than the old. I am trying to do this in a concise manner.

The simplest statement would be that it is generally understood that no Christian Bible has an underlying monolithic manuscript. Hence, they are all eclectic.

Jack