Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[GeezerSue 7]

If y'all can handle any more...here's a Mithra-Christianity discussion. You have GOT to hear the comment she makes about what she's never heard a bloke say...

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/12/jesus-as-reincarnation-of-mithra.html

[gadgetlady 4]

That article about recontructing Aunt Sally's recipe was laughable. That example is supposed to prove that the bible could be accurately reconstructed/constructed over 2,000 years? Absurd. I bet if you did a study on the Aunt Sally recipe, you would find that it would not be accurately reconstructed, especially after 2,000 years of tinkering, different authors, and political agendas. Absolutley rediculous and it's comparing apples and oranges, don't you think?

I don't think it was ridiculous at all. It was a simplified example to explain the detailed process of Biblical authentication. Remember that the Bible wasn't written, rewritten, or tinkered with 5, 10, 20, or even 100 years ago. We have reliable text that we can refer to. If you do any research on the Dead Sea Scrolls you will find that they demonstrate the accuracy of the years of copying and recopying the Bible. I heard a speaker once say that there are numerous errors in Plato's text, yet no one claims that Plato isn't the author of his writings.

It's also interesting to research how the Old Testament was copied by Jewish scribes. The process of hand-copying a scroll was basically a full-time job for one year (about 2000 hours). The scroll would be tossed if even a single letter was added or deleted. The scribe couldn't do even one letter by heart and he had to pronounce every word out loud before copying it. If one letter even touched another letter, it would invalidate the entire scroll; there was an exact precise measurement for spaces between words so that two words wouldn't be mistaken for one or vice-versa. Marred lettering or marred paper would be cause for the scroll to be tossed.

With these strict guidelines, the scribes ensured that the copies of the manuscripts were indeed accurately reproduced.

Most scholars agree that the accuracy of the reproductions is 99.5% or greater. Whether you believe the specific claims of the Bible is another matter, but the accuracy of the document is not in question.

[green 6]

I don't think it was ridiculous at all. It was a simplified example to explain the detailed process of Biblical authentication. Remember that the Bible wasn't written, rewritten, or tinkered with 5, 10, 20, or even 100 years ago. We have reliable text that we can refer to. If you do any research on the Dead Sea Scrolls you will find that they demonstrate the accuracy of the years of copying and recopying the Bible. I heard a speaker once say that there are numerous errors in Plato's text, yet no one claims that Plato isn't the author of his writings.

It's also interesting to research how the Old Testament was copied by Jewish scribes. The process of hand-copying a scroll was basically a full-time job for one year (about 2000 hours). The scroll would be tossed if even a single letter was added or deleted. The scribe couldn't do even one letter by heart and he had to pronounce every word out loud before copying it. If one letter even touched another letter, it would invalidate the entire scroll; there was an exact precise measurement for spaces between words so that two words wouldn't be mistaken for one or vice-versa. Marred lettering or marred paper would be cause for the scroll to be tossed.

With these strict guidelines, the scribes ensured that the copies of the manuscripts were indeed accurately reproduced.

Most scholars agree that the accuracy of the reproductions is 99.5% or greater. Whether you believe the specific claims of the Bible is another matter, but the accuracy of the document is not in question.

Gadget Lady has raised a number of issues, issues which are critical to this discussion, in her response.

The first issue is the question of the accuracy of that collection of documents which collectively go under the name of The Bible.

It was Carlene, I believe, who has pointed out that it was at the Council of Nicaea - which took place over 300 hundred years after Christ's death - where the material which now forms the New Testament was chosen. Think of these religious cats as editors; they chose the shape of what we now have come to know as God's word. It seems that there was other material; they chucked it out.

Lost documents aside, there is the issue of translation. It is interesting that the Qu'ran remains untranslated; as a holy book it is always kept alive in its original language. It remains untouched and pure in its original Arabic (although it is possible to buy a translation).

When I lived in France I took a course at the local university in translation. It was there where I learned that this business of translating from one language to another was not only exceedingly difficult - our professeur was a rigorous bastard! - but that something, either meaning or nuance, would inevitably get lost.

A change, a loss, or a shift in meaning or nuance is no big deal when you are reading Tolstoy, Gogol or Cyrano de Bergerac. If, however, you are citing this material as the inerrant word of God then it does become kinda important.

This business of the damage done to Plato's text falls under this same category. Injuries done to Platon's text do not matter for the inerrancy of this is not at issue.

There is this point about the accuracy of the Old Testament or Torah. Gadget Lady mentions that the scribes were held to exigeant standards. I have heard this, too.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I cannot comment with any degree of intelligence other than to say that I have heard that these were the writings of the Essenes, a sect that espoused Christ-like teachings. I believe that I have heard that Jesus might have been a member of this sect. This is where my desire to know more of archeology and social anthropology becomes tickled.

The other bit of Bible business is altogether different and would merit a separate post, if not thread, and this is the question of the internal inconsistencies in the teachings in the Bible. I have often mentioned my opinion that this is a very difficult book. There is little that is cosy about this document. It certainly ain't Coutts-Hallmark Care-Bears friendly.

[Carlene 12]

Remember that the Bible wasn't written, rewritten, or tinkered with 5, 10, 20, or even 100 years ago.

You're joking, right? How many "versions" of the Bible do you suppose there are, just in print today? The "New English Version", the "King James Version", the "American Bible", etc. ALL of these were "tinkered with", hon.

I have seen/read (sort of) a Bible printed in the 1500's. Truth to tell, the language, though English, might just as well have been Greek. If no one had "tinkered with" the Bible in the intervening 500 years, neither of us would be able to read it!

[GeezerSue 7]

Paraphrasing Penn...defending the "accuracy" of the bible is necessary for people who can't say, "Well, it DOES seem to defy logic, but it's what I believe because of faith." The "accuracy defenders" KNOW that the bible defies logic but insist on trying to distort history and science and archeology and geology and all that good stuff so that they don't have to accept the bible on faith, because...apparently, they, too, really WANT logic and reason and facts and such.

Too bad. Like Penn said, "...But if faith isn't enough...if you want history or fact in your bible, you are so screwed."

Because, after all, if believing in FACT were all that was being asked of true believers, how tough is THAT? The entire test of faith is to believe what is NOT real. Once someone "succeeds" (were that possible) in proving that everything in the bible is real, that person simultaneously eliminates the need for the oft repeated biblical lessons on the importance of faith. I don't see how a true believer would even want to try.

[gadgetlady 4]

You're joking, right? How many "versions" of the Bible do you suppose there are, just in print today? The "New English Version", the "King James Version", the "American Bible", etc. ALL of these were "tinkered with", hon.

I have seen/read (sort of) a Bible printed in the 1500's. Truth to tell, the language, though English, might just as well have been Greek. If no one had "tinkered with" the Bible in the intervening 500 years, neither of us would be able to read it!

There's a difference between translating into a different language and tinkering. If a book is translated from the original language to another language, and then from the 2nd language to the 3rd, and then from the 3rd to a 4th, there is certainly room for significant error. But if each new translation goes back to the original language and the original texts that have been determined to be accurate, then that's a different story. I do believe that there are some "versions" or "translation" that are not 100% true to the original text. We could certainly get into a discussion of that, but I have a feeling it'd bore some of the folks here. I agree that translations that use "Old English" are, at least to me, very difficult to understand. I don't personally read KJV and NKJV because of language issues and translation inaccuracies.

[Carlene 12]

There's a difference between translating into a different language and tinkering.

I think there was definitely some tinkering going on here...

1,400 BC: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments delivered to Moses.

500 BC: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The 39 books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament books AND 14 Apocrypha Books.

1st Century AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up The 27 Books of the New Testament.

315 AD: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books of the New Testament which are today recognized as the canon of scripture.

382 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test).

500 AD: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.

600 AD: LATIN was the Only Language Allowed for Scripture.

995 AD: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of The New Testament Produced.

1384 AD: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written) manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.

1455 AD: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.

1516 AD: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament.

1522 AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.

1526 AD: William Tyndale's New Testament; The First New Testament printed in the English Language.

1535 AD: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).

1537 AD: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).

1539 AD: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).

1560 AD: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).

1568 AD: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James was a Revision (80 Books).

1609 AD: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament (of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).

1611 AD: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.

1782 AD: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV) Printed in America.

1791 AD: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were King James Versions, with All 80 Books.

1808 AD: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First Bible to be Printed by a Woman.

1833 AD: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary, Webster Printed his Own Revision of the King James Bible.

1841 AD: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.

1846 AD: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.

1885 AD: The "English Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English Revision of the KJV.

1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The First Major American Revision of the KJV.

1971 AD: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.

1973 AD: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a "Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the Bible.

1982 AD: The "New King James Version" (NKJV) is Published as a "Modern English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."

[gadgetlady 4]

Why is translating "tinkering"? Incidentally, the version I read, the NIV, went back to the original text and translated it anew from those, rather than translating from a translation.

[Carlene 12]

Why is translating "tinkering"? Incidentally, the version I read, the NIV, went back to the original text and translated it anew from those, rather than translating from a translation.

I think this constitutes "tinkering"...

The "original" Bible contained 80 books.

Today's Catholic Bible contains 73 books, and the KJV contains only 66.

[gadgetlady 4]

What I understood you and others to mean by tinkering, writing, and re-writing was the improper/inconsistent copying of the original text. My defense above was the description of the meticulous transmission of the text from generation to generation. The Apocrypha is a whole 'nother discussion which, again, I'm sure would bore most of the folks here. In a nutshell, the Apocrypha were rejected because they lacked Divine authority and, in fact, none of the authors of these books even laid claim to inspiration.

[Carlene 12]

What I understood you and others to mean by tinkering, writing, and re-writing was the improper/inconsistent copying of the original text. My defense above was the description of the meticulous transmission of the text from generation to generation. The Apocrypha is a whole 'nother discussion which, again, I'm sure would bore most of the folks here. In a nutshell, the Apocrypha were rejected because they lacked Divine authority and, in fact, none of the authors of these books even laid claim to inspiration.

The King James Bible is the classic Protestant Bible, which was first printed in 1611 under the authority of King James I of England, the official head of the Church of England. The King James Bible follows the canon (or contents) established by Martin Luther in 1534 when he translated the Bible into German. He grouped what Catholics call "the seven deuterocanonical books" (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and I & II Maccabees) of the Old Testament under the title "Apocrypha" declaring, "These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading." (Luther on his own initiative tampered with the canon of Sacred Scripture.) For some time, these books were printed between the Old and the New Testaments under the title "Apocrypha" but by the early 1800s they were dropped all together from the King James Version of the Bible. At present, some versions of the King James Bible will state, "with apocrypha" indicating that these seven books are included somewhere in the contents.

So....it's your opinion that a Catholic priest (Martin Luther) was acting under "divine authority" when he threw out those 7 books?

[Carlene 12]

That's not divine interpretation; that's one man's point of view.

Hank Hanegraaff is an author and radio talk show host who advocates evangelical Christianity to the exclusion of all other denominations. He preaches that Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, among others, are non-Christians practicing cultist religions. In keeping with the subject of this thread, he has nine children.

It is historical FACT that the Protestant Reformation in part began as a protest against the sale of Indulgences, and by extension the Protestants, in rejecting the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, were inclined to abandon all prayers for the dead and it was Martin Luther, not "divine intervention", who was responsible for removing the 7 books in question.

In the Communion Service of 1549, after praise and thanks were offered for all the saints, chiefly the Blessed Virgin, came the following: We commend into thy mercy all other thy servants, which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith and now do rest in the sleep of peace: grant unto them, we beseech thee, thy mercy and everlasting peace. In 1552, under the influence of Bucer, all mention of the dead, whether commemorative or intercessory, was cut out of the Eucharist; the prayers in the Burial Service were brought into their present form; and the provision for Holy Communion at a Burial was omitted. The thankful commemoration of the dead in the Eucharist was restored in 1661, but prayers for them remained, if they remained at all, veiled in ambiguous phrases.

The Church of England (Episcopal Church in the USA), by the way, has never forbidden prayers for the dead, and these intercessions have been used in private by a long list of English divines, among whom Andrewes, Cosin, Thomas Ken, Charles Wesley, and John Keble form an almost complete chain down to the present day. On the tomb of Bishop Barrow (1680) stands a request to passers-by to pray for their fellow-servant.

Within Judaism, prayers for the dead form part of the Jewish services. The English form contains the following passage: Have mercy upon him; pardon all his transgressions . . . Shelter his soul in the shadow of Thy wings. Make known to him the path of life.

As for the argument regarding good works and salvation, I give you the Apostle James...

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?

So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

Edited to add...

I have no quarrel with anyone's belief system and it is not my intention herein to argue theology. I am simply attempting to point out that a person CAN have faith without resorting to some high-handed, know-it-all attitude that their version of Christianity is the "true" one, that their Bible is the "pure" text, or that recorded history is just plain wrong. When people go on the offensive and suggest that fundamentalist Christians are "anti-intellectual", "blind", etc it is often because they have good reason to do so.

Neither my church nor yours (meaning everyone who reads this) is free of inaccuracy, scandal, or the stain of worldly sin. Get over the idea that you can't be a good Christian unless you insist otherwise, because you certainly CAN. Just stop arguing with history and making idiotic statements like "the Bible approved by God" and people will take you a whole lot more seriously. They will respect your devotion and your faith. They will seek you out for serious give-and-take discussions that do not degenerate into ugliness. But you must do your part. Stop being a poster child for radical, no-brain, my-way-or-the-highway religion.

[GeezerSue 7]

אמן

Not positive, but I THINK that's "amen" in Hebrew.

[lisah25 3]

Why is translating "tinkering"? Incidentally, the version I read, the NIV, went back to the original text and translated it anew from those, rather than translating from a translation.

I think it's hard sometimes to capture the meaning of a word from one language to another. It's not always a 1-1 match. And there are often multiple words that might fit, and the translator may change a meaning, even slightly, making that choice.

[gadgetlady 4]

I think it's hard sometimes to capture the meaning of a word from one language to another. It's not always a 1-1 match. And there are often multiple words that might fit, and the translator may change a meaning, even slightly, making that choice.

You are absolutely right. It's not even always a 1-1 match in the original language! We have tons of resources at our disposal, like the Amplified Bible, which lists many of the possible translations of a word all in one place. Unless we all go back and learn the original language and the subtle nuances therein, our only option is to accept a translation. We can certainly reference several translations or the Amplified Bible to better understand the context under which something was written (or the nuances of a particular word and how it is used). Personally, never having liked Shakespeare, I find the KJV and the NKJV unintelligible and actually a deterrent to my study. I would never even consider attending a church that used one of these Bibles, primarily because for me it is like having someone reference things from another language. I prefer the NIV because it brought clarity to the Bible for me, but I also reference other translations if there's something that makes me crinkle my forehead because I don't understand it. And certainly commentaries from various scholars about the historical background of a particular verse or passage will always help clarify things. I don't believe we can know everything there is to know about any culture -- even our own! -- so we do the best we can with the resources we have available.