NO WAY IN THE WORLD DO THE ORIGINALS EXIST. The closest thing you call to as an original is what Leolaia was talking about -- a fragment from Gospel John.
(I would love to have a time machine and take a look at the originals though!) :)
Do the Original books of the Bible still exist?
by Gill 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
inquirer
-
-
greendawn
If by originals he means those written by the original authors Moses, Paul, John etc, they certainly do not exist and they were very unlikely to survive for thousands of years since they were written on perishable materials.
-
gold_morning
There is more than a thousand ancient original language (untranslated) manuscripts of the books of the Bible still in existence, some dating to within a hundred years of the original writings, there isn’t a better-documented ancient book than the Bible. Furthermore, no significant factual error has ever been definitely found, and no correction has ever been needed in the Bible. Jesus quoted extensively from the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) without ever expressing any concern for accuracy of the document, yet the Pentateuch was nearly as old then as the New Testament is today.
-
blondie
All copies. I asked one of the elders if the Bible was inspired when it was written, is what we have still inspired...or just copies, not the original. Did God through holy spirit make sure no errors were made? Were the translators inspired?
My answer.........................................................................................................still waiting.
Blondie
-
greendawn
Some interpolations were no doubt made in some parts of the Bible and infact what we have is many copies removed from the original. Eg there are substantial differences between the Septuagint and the masoretic versions of the old testament. The JWs accept the masoretic version which gives an age of around 6000 years for mankind, the septuagint gives around 7000 years.
-
Leolaia
Furthermore, no significant factual error has ever been definitely found
What is your burden of proof?
-
Gill
Surely the fact that there are these two versions, the Septuagint and the Masorectic, must prove that the Bible did not survive unaltered?
-
peacefulpete
For that matter the date assigned back in 1934 to the P52 scrap of (John?) is hardly established. Since the date was arrived at through paleography alone other scholar less interested in pushing the date back suggest the mid to late 2nd century. For one thing it is a codex not scroll fragment, this suggests a later date. There are so few words on the postage stamp sized scrap that it has no value to texual researchers. It has been notted that the piece might not even be G.John but some early form or source. The tantalizingly small bit of content is fuel for specualtion, little more. The 2nd century Egerton Gospel demonstrates that Gospels were in circulation that resemble yet differ from John.
-
Shining One
The original manuscripts are not in existence. We can only make comparisons between what we have today and the oldest copies extant, the Qumran manuscripts greatly added to our knowledge. BTW, Christianity is defined by those who began it and the sacred texts are either the Protestant or the Catholic canon. Anything left out is not part of the inspired texts.
1) If the canon was guided by divine inspiration it is complete.
2) If it was not, it is still complete as the church itself determines what it believes.
It doesn't matter that this sounds like circular reasoning. Think about the two points apart from one another then together.
Rex