The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[PrincetonGuy]

Saying that the things in Genesis 1-11 didn't happen historically does not necessary prove redaction. So it seems you are talking past your point here. You state there is redaction. That fact was not accepted by all in the thread. In indicating there was redaction you have tried to argue from the implausibility of the accounts.

My point was and still is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a collection of severely redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. The evidence for this interpretation is so overwhelming that virtually every Old Testament scholar specializing in the study of Genesis and currently publishing research on Genesis in major, peer-reviewed biblical journals agrees with this interpretation. However, some people in this thread opposed the “epic tales” part of my point but not the “redaction” part. Therefore, I defended at length of the “epic tales” part of my point

Even if you think it is not historically possible for this to happen biblical authors such as Peter wrote from the basis of it being an historical fact. Otherwise there is no meaning to his warning to the scoffers based on God's earlier judgment in the flood. So there is no reason to think they approached it as simply a story, an epic tale, or any of the above. You may approach it that way. They didn't.

Here we go again—opposition to the “epic tales” part of my point!

Either way, trying to show that various things were legends/epic tales, etc. does not show redaction either. It simply raises the question of what genre it was, which you later mentioned. Even if you think that 1-11 are epic tales, you still have to show separately that they were the result of a redaction from multiple authors. Those are not the same argument.

You would be better simply focusing on the claim that there are two creation accounts to illustrate possible sources and let the debate be on those merits. If you want to argue redaction from the use of terminology, such as identifying an Elohim source, and a priestly source, etc. that may at least make more sense, though I doubt all would accept that either.

Another poster made that attempt in this thread and was not successful in persuading anyone; therefore I did not attempt it myself.

That the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a collection of severely redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends is NOT dependent upon the stories having been written by more than one author. They may have all been written by the same author (although that is extremely unlikely); therefore I did not argue for that position.

If you want to spell out how the latter portion of II Corinthians is seen as another letter by some, you could spell out why. Those would be discussions on redaction. Describing why you think the flood did not happen does not prove redaction.

I presented very solid evidence that the “exception clause” in Matt. 19:9 is a redaction, but that evidence was apparently ignored. I referred to three prominent scholars of the Gospel According to John who have, in their very lengthy and detailed commentaries on that gospel, presented extensive evidence for redactions in that gospel, but that extensive evidence was also ignored.

The fact that the flood did not occur proves that we have here an epic tale. The fact that the tower of Babble is a fictional story proves that we have here another epic tale (as I posted earlier in this thread). The fact that we have in Gen. 1-11 two differing creation stories proves that we have here two differing epic tales. What did the Book of Genesis read like before these stories were edited into it? We have no copies of Genesis that are early enough to answer that question—further proving the KJO claim that God preserved the Scriptures from start to finish is a false claim.

But keep in mind, this does have to do with inspiration if you start saying that Peter didn't know that it wasn't true, etc. because then you have God inspiring falsehoods.

You already spoke to this briefly in the case of Paul's use of Adam in Romans,

God does not inspire falsehoods. However, the flood did not occur, and proof that it did not occur is many times more substantial than the proof that the law of gravity is true. Therefore, we ask ourselves, “What actually occurred while Peter penned his epistle through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit?”

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Here is a you tube of value.

Walter Vieth is a ex atheist,what has a zoological and scientific back ground.

https://youtu.be/_3R0bh9LtSc

Walter Veith (not Vieth) is a former zoologist who was converted to the Seventh-day Adventist faith. Upon his conversion, he threw into a garbage can his knowledge of zoology and lost his teaching job at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. How are these facts evidence for the preservation of the Scriptures?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

He is a long study,you feel as if your sitting in a collage classroom.

His work on young earth is amazing.

The nonsense that Veith preaches will never be heard in a college classroom!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Let’s get back to the evidence for the preservation of the Scriptures. We are already at post #344 and no one has yet posted any evidence for the preservation of the Scriptures (the fact that some 17th century Baptists believed in the preservation of the Scriptures is not evidence for their preservation).

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Thank God He gave us His word (unless you believe He only gave His word to the original writers and it got lost or changed in copies after that) Let God be true and every man a liar, amen?

We all agree to let God be true and every man a liar, right? So we can all agree that God's word is true, right? Of course God cannot lie, so we know His word cannot be changed...or can it?

Do you have a changed version of God's Word? How do you know it really is God's word if it's different from other books which claim to be God's word?

 

[tall73]

The nonsense that Veith preaches will never be heard in a college classroom!

Actually it was, he became head of his department AFTER his conversion, and stayed on for sometime, having agreement with another of his faculty colleagues as well. Since their position was too controversial for some they chose to move on at some point from teaching zoology in that setting, though still teaching for some time in a scientific field. He still continued to discuss his views in his presentations outside of the classroom.

Now I don't agree with Veith on many doctrinal positions, being a former Seventh-day Adventist who left over doctrine. However, I find his information in his field to be rather interesting.

Have you watched the four videos?

 

[tall73]

When I interpret the Bible, I begin with the facts and interpret the Bible accordingly. The facts regarding the genre of literature in which Genesis 1-11 is written, the dependence of Genesis 1-11 upon a radically incorrect cosmology, and the impossibility of the flood having occurred require that I interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with these facts.

Yet insisting that these must be a certain genre to the authors of the time because of how you view the facts doesn't work. They didn't see the facts that way, and would therefore not have agreed with your categorization. Therefore it does not help with your assertion of redaction of "epic tales" because they didn't view them as "epic tales".

 

[tall73]

Another poster made that attempt in this thread and was not successful in persuading anyone; therefore I did not attempt it myself.

So although the real question of redaction in Genesis is the presence of claimed internal evidence of multiple sources you did not pursue that because someone else failed to convince folks.

Instead you went down what appears to be a more enjoyable topic for you: your view of cosmology. YOUR view of cosmology had no impact on sources in the text, because you didn't exist back then, and neither did the scientists who now second-guess their cosmology. So it adds nothing to your argument about sources, redaction, and the preservation of the text.

So if you want to argue sources then argue sources.

It seems what you really want to argue is that inspiration is limited to certain spiritual aspects, not including historicity of accounts. It seems that you see Peter stuck in wrong thinking, but his overall message still to be true through the Holy Spirit. It seems you want to have some of what Peter said inspired by the Spirit, and some of it just being Peter thinking what Peter thought.

For this to work you have to modify the view of inspiration that many Baptists hold to. You would have to reject any sort of verbal inspiration out of hand (or limit it to times when it is expressly stated by God). You would have to have the Holy Spirit working with them where they were at, but leaving room for plausible deniability for later Christians in a more "enlightened age".

Now that is all fascinating stuff, and I went through a number of such discussion when I was still in the Seventh-day Adventist church, as they have a different view of inspiration on the whole than most Baptists. It would probably make for a controversial but interesting topic in the Baptist forum. But it doesn't prove redaction, or sources etc.

Let’s get back to the evidence for the preservation of the Scriptures.

Yes, that would be better.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

great posts

 

[now faith]

Walter Veith (not Vieth) is a former zoologist who was converted to the Seventh-day Adventist faith. Upon his conversion, he threw into a garbage can his knowledge of zoology and lost his teaching job at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. How are these facts evidence for the preservation of the Scriptures?

Nice ad hominem,his denomination and job status as well.

My spelling ,I could care less.

Your denial of God's Word ,and any contrary remarks that are worth a plug nickel,that would be edifying.

Your erroneous idea that he threw his knowledge in the garbage, is simply a fake target.

Why not provide evidence that is contrary to his teaching?

Or is it just as well to couch the discussion?

 

[now faith]

Actually it was, he became head of his department AFTER his conversion, and stayed on for sometime, having agreement with another of his faculty colleagues as well. Since their position was too controversial for some they chose to move on at some point from teaching zoology in that setting, though still teaching for some time in a scientific field. He still continued to discuss his views in his presentations outside of the classroom.

Now I don't agree with Veith on many doctrinal positions, being a former Seventh-day Adventist who left over doctrine. However, I find his information in his field to be rather interesting.

Have you watched the four videos?

We do not all always agree, but that does not discount good teaching.

Personally I believe ego holds back enlightenment.

Can you imagine not being able to listen to a teaching over denomination?

I read and watch people I wholeheartedly disagree with, simply to try to find merit in there teaching.

How could you disagree on presumption?

Lol he has a great teaching on the King James

 

[now faith]

^^^Found in the Geneva Bible. That predates the KJV.

On the count of three, everyone switch.

A very heroic and precious work indeed, the first major work of ecclesiastical Reformation.

Before Calvin and Luther,Wycliffes transcripts were used to kindle the fire that burned John Hus at the stake.

It angered Rome so much they exhumed Wycliffe from the grave,43 years after his death.

They burned his bones and tossed them in the river.

Too bad they didn't try to dig up Elishas bones.

 

[Jack Koons]

A very heroic and precious work indeed, the first major work of ecclesiastical Reformation.

Before Calvin and Luther,Wycliffes transcripts were used to kindle the fire that burned John Hus at the stake.

It angered Rome so much they exhumed Wycliffe from the grave,43 years after his death.

They burned his bones and tossed them in the river.

Too bad they didn't try to dig up Elishas bones.

Is it possible that you meant Elijah?

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Tall,

Do you agree with the following statement?

Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction. This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study.

Jack

 

[tall73]

Tall,

Do you agree with the following statement?

Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction. This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study.

Jack

Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction.

If we take Paul seriously then yes, even in his days the scholarly scoffed at it. See I Cor. 2 and Acts 17.

If you mean by Christians themselves, only later did this develop.

This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors.

The majority of the NT writings are epistles which state their author directly. So that would be incorrect.

Many of the prophets identify their authors as well. In other cases it is tradition, etc. that ascribes a name of an author.

It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study.

2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Pe 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
2Pe 1:19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

[tall73]

Jack, if you have a lot more of these theological, methodological and lexical questions, can you just put them all at once? Frankly this is getting ridiculous waiting a day for you to post each question.

 

[classicalhero]

@ PrincetonGuy, why did Jesus die? For whose sin did he pay for and how did sin enter the world? Also show me elsewhere in the Bible God uses mythology in the Bible.

Here is what the New Testament says about Genesis and the first 11 verses. http://creation.com/genesis-new-testament
It is clear that every single New Testament writer spoke about Genesis and the first 11 chapters are used more in the New Testament than the rest of the chapters, with 62 quotations, references or allusion to the first 11 chapters compared with only 41 for the rest of the book. If the first 11 chapters aren't accurate, then neither is the New Testament. I mean Luke's genealogy goes from Christ all the way back to Adam. Luke was an historian and had access to the records that got destroyed when the Romans destroyed the temple, which is why Paul said to not bother with needless genealogies, since your family history was extremely important to the people of that day.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Here is what the New Testament says about Genesis and the first 11 verses. Genesis New Testament - creation.com
It is clear that every single New Testament writer spoke about Genesis and the first 11 chapters are used more in the New Testament than the rest of the chapters, with 62 quotations, references or allusion to the first 11 chapters compared with only 41 for the rest of the book. If the first 11 chapters aren't accurate, then neither is the New Testament. I mean Luke's genealogy goes from Christ all the way back to Adam. Luke was an historian and had access to the records that got destroyed when the Romans destroyed the temple, which is why Paul said to not bother with needless genealogies, since your family history was extremely important to the people of that day.

When I interpret the Bible, I begin with the facts and interpret the Bible accordingly. The facts regarding the genre of literature in which Genesis 1-11 is written, the dependence of Genesis 1-11 upon a radically incorrect cosmology, and the impossibility of the flood having occurred require that I interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with these facts. Should we instead start with a hand-me-down interpretation of the Bible and ignore all the facts that prove that the hand-me-down interpretation is severely incorrect? Should we ignore the facts simply because they require that we rethink the places in the rest of the Bible that refer to people and events found in Genesis 1-11?

The first eleven chapters of Genesis is a collection of severely redacted epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. The evidence for this interpretation is so overwhelming that virtually every Old Testament scholar specializing in the study of Genesis and currently publishing research on Genesis in major, peer-reviewed biblical journals agrees with this interpretation.

Indeed, the Bible describes in Genesis 1-11 (and in several places) the earth as being a round, flat disk covered by a dome. This, of course, was the ancient Hebrew cosmology at the time that Genesis was composed. In dependence upon this cosmology, the Bible further describes a world-wide flood through which eight humans and hundreds of thousands of land animals were kept alive by a big boat while pretending that hundreds of thousands of kinds of marine life survived without so much as a lifejacket! Moreover, the Bible describes a world-wide flood through which eight humans and hundreds of thousands of land animals were kept alive by a big boat while pretending that the ecosystems necessary for the survival of the humans and animals after the flood remained in tact without so much as a single miracle. The Bible describes Nimrod and his people building a tower out of bricks held together by bitumen in the land of Shinar—a tower to be so tall that it would reach beyond the dome into heaven. God becomes so alarmed by this that He and unspecified other persons go down to the earth from heaven and make Nimrod’s people forget how to speak Hebrew but know how to speak languages that had hitherto not existed. The trouble was, of course, that each individual could now understand only one of these newly created languages. This was supposed to make building tall towers and doing grand things impossible when in fact it was not a significant hindrance. Why didn’t one of the persons that went down to the earth with God tell Him that the plan would not work and that in the future the tallest buildings would be built by men and women speaking a wide spectrum of languages but still finding ways to communicate with each other?

Personally, I find it more than a little unsettling that some people believe that God was not allowed to communicate with us using epic tales, sagas, myths and/or legends. If God was not allowed to communicate in the manner that He chose to, was He really God?

In Peter’s day, the Christians still believed in the Ancient Hebrew cosmology in which the earth is flat and covered with a dome.* In all likelihood, Peter himself believed in the Ancient Hebrew cosmology in which the earth is flat and covered with a dome that separated the earth and the seas from a massive amount of water above the dome, and that below all of this was Sheol and the Great Deep.

Genesis 1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. (NRSV)

Therefore, the concept of God opening windows in the dome and all the fountains of the great deep bursting forth did not trouble him.

Genesis 7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. (NRSV)

Do you believe, as Peter apparently did, that God opened windows in the dome and that all the fountains of the great deep burst forth causing a flood that covered even the highest mountains of the earth? Do you believe that God wants 21st century Christians to believe and teach this today and make us appear to the unbelievers as intellectually challenged baboons suffering from the late stages of dementia? I believe that God wants 21st century Christians to believe and teach the truth so that the Holy Spirit can convict sinners of the truth so that they might repent and believe in the gospel (Mark1:15).


*The NRSV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya&#8219 as “dome.” The evidence for the correctness of this translation is found in the use of this word in ancient Hebrew literature. Based upon this usage, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of it in Gen. 1:7, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956). For a diagram of this cosmology, and much more information from Christian scholars, please see here, A COMMON COSMOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD

How can anyone read Gen. 1:6-7 in an accurate translation of the Old Testament or in the original Hebrew and not immediately see that they are reading a fictional account based upon the radically incorrect ancient Hebrew cosmology?

The bottom line: The redactions in Genesis 1-11, 2 Corinthians, the Gospel According to John, Matthew 19:9, and many other places in the Bible prove that the KJO crowed is mistaken in their claim that the Bible has been preserved by God from the beginning and up to the present in the form of the KJV. These redactions prove that the KJO crowed is mistaken in their claim because none of the pre-redaction copies have been preserved.

One gentleman contributing to this thread has objected that I have not adequately proven that the first eleven chapters of Genesis is a redacted work. My quick answer to that objection is that we have in Genesis 1-11 two self-contradicting creation stories, a story about the first sin and its consequences, a murder, the miraculous appearing of a woman in the land of Nod so that Cain could get married and raise a family, a genealogy story, a flood story, a rainbow, a naked man, another genealogy story, a story about a tower and babbling, and two more genealogy stories—all put together in what are now the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

 

[Jack Koons]

If we take Paul seriously then yes, even in his days the scholarly scoffed at it. See I Cor. 2 and Acts 17.
If you mean by Christians themselves, only later did this develop.

You are correct.

The majority of the NT writings are epistles which state their author directly. So that would be incorrect.
Many of the prophets identify their authors as well. In other cases it is tradition, etc. that ascribes a name of an author.
2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Pe 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
2Pe 1:19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Actually Tall, the Author of ALL Scripture is God.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Pet 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
We often ‘refer’ to the writers of the Bible as its ‘authors’; but that is not a correct assertion.

Jack, if you have a lot more of these theological, methodological and lexical questions, can you just put them all at once? Frankly this is getting ridiculous waiting a day for you to post each question.

Actually, we will now change things up a bit. I will now give you some information, upon which I will ask you a question.
Keeping all that we have both agreed upon, and stated up to this point: I now present the following:
“In his essay Prodromus Novi Testamenti recte cauteque ordinandi [Forerunner of a New Testament to be settled rightly and carefully], (Denkendorf, 1725), Johann Albrecht Bengel, a Lutheran schoolmaster, published a prospectus for an edition of the Greek Testament which he had already begun to prepare (published in 1734).”
Rules of Textual Criticism
“In the Introduction to his second edition of the Greek New Testament (Halle, 1796) Griesbach set forth the following list of critical rules, by which the intrinsic probabilities may be weighed for various readings of the manuscripts. Rules for the prior evaluation of documentary evidence, such as the ones formulated by Bengel, are implicit in Griesbach's theory of the manuscript tradition, and so they are not taken up here. What follows is a translation of Griesbach's Latin as it was reprinted by Alford in the Introduction of his Greek Testament (London, 1849. Moody reprint, page 81).”
Rules of Textual Criticism
“In 1881 two English scholars, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, published a very influential edition of the Greek Testament: The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1881). The Introduction and Appendix of Notes on Select Readings volume of the original edition was written by Dr. Hort, and in it he set forth the arguments and general theories upon which the text was reconstructed, and provided explanations for many specific textual decisions.”
Rules of Textual Criticism
“The application of critical methods in the editing of classical texts was developed principally by three German scholars, Friedrich Wolf (1759-1824), one of the founders of classical philology, Immanuel Bekker (1785-1871), and Karl Lachmann (1793-1851).”
Textual Criticism
We know that all the ‘critical’ MSS since 1881 were developed by the rules already given. All of the above excerpts were taken directly from sources that support textual criticism. As you can see, the earliest date above is 1725, relating to Bengel. This means that the rules for what we now refer to as modern “textual criticism” did not come into existence until the early 1700’s. Since these rules were not ‘in play’ during the days of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevirs, or the King James translators; we are now faced with the question: What was the ‘methodology’ used by these men during the ‘eclectic’ process?
So that is the question I pose to you now: What was the ‘methodology’ used by these men during the ‘eclectic’ process?

Jack

 

[tall73]

duplicate