The MOST IMPORTANT Topic you will ever read!

by Terry 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    Being on-topic [hopefully...] this time...

    One of the most telling indications on the origins of the "New Testament" is the number of books considered "holy" that were not allowed into the FINAL version of the bible... Either the History channel or Discovery Cchannel have had several programs on that situation

    Suppsedly this happened at the Roman council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.... I suspect that council strongly resembled the Guv.Bod meetings as described by Ray Franz... No real references to the divinity they were supposed to serve - more of a self-serving focus that caused books written by prominent WOMEN bible writers to be EXCLUDED...!! Among other significant books...

    Many Gnostic books were excluded from the biblical canon... Since Gnostic beliefs were probably the ORIGINAL forms of Christianity, that also makes the current [Roman] version of the New Testament suspect...

    Zid

  • Terry
    Terry

    Exerpt from:

    Presidential Lecture, Society of Biblical Literature, SE Region
    March 1997

    "A surprising number of PhD's in NT--we may as well admit it--are barely competent in Greek. Even more are unable to make sense of the critical

    apparatus that stands at the foot of every page of the Nestle- Aland Greek New Testament that everyone uses. And even those who can construe the

    apparatus are rarely equipped to understand why one reading, the one found in the text, has been printed, while others are found only in the

    apparatus--let alone to come to independent judgments about the adequacy of the decision of the United Bible Society's committee, comprised of Kurt

    and Barbara Aland, Bruce Metzger, and others. Commentators typically ignore textual problems, not simply because they have other things to do but

    also because in many instances they don't have the wherewithal to deal with the problems..."

  • Terry
    Terry

    Interpreters of the NT are faced with a discomforting reality that many of them would like to ignore.

    In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote.

    It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we

    don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem.

    I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough.

    In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it,

    pretending that the textual basis of the Christian Scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not.

    When the individual authors of the NT released their works to the public, each book found a niche in one or another of the burgeoning Christian

    communities that were scattered, principally in large Greek-speaking urban areas, around the Mediterranean.

    Anyone within these communities who wanted a copy of these books, whether for private use, as community property,

    or for general distribution, was compelled to produce a copy by hand, or to acquire the services of someone else to do so.

    During the course of their transmission, the original copies of these books came to be lost, worn out, or destroyed;

    the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons.

    Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however,

    especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals.

    As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive.

    What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals,

    thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card,

    uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them

    enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe.

    It is difficult to know what the authors of the Greek New Testament wrote, in many instances,

    because all of these surviving copies differ from one another, sometimes significantly.

    The severity of the problem was not recognized throughout the Middle Ages or even, for the most part, during the Renaissance. Indeed, biblical

    scholars were not forcefully confronted with the uncertainty of their texts until the early eighteenth century.

  • dgp
    dgp

    At the time the gospels (or even Paul’s epistles) were being written NOBODY CONSIDERED THEM INSPIRED!

    Common sense here. How would I claim that the letters I penned with my own thoughts were inspired to me by the Lord? I may have been scratching my head, half-naked, while I wrote it.

    Nobody corrupted the bible on purpose. It is the result of pious fraud.

    Actually, some people did corrupt the Bible on purpose. Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example, added the "Comma Johanneum" to support the idea of a trinity. And Misquoting Jesus has examples of other cases where things were changed as to prevent "heretics" from having a point.

    However, this doesn't detract from your general point. And I'm sure that most changes made to the Bible were not purposeful, but simple mistakes. Try copying such a large book by hand, with no spaces between the letters, no capitals, no punctuation marks. It's even difficult to think any text can be written like that. Ehrman uses the example of "godisnowhere". You can read it as "God is NOW here", or "God is nowhere".

    I think Bart Erhman is kind of too much of a good guy at points. He thinks that no one would change the Bible on purpose, being the source of power it was. We do believe that men might bend laws to suit their own needs, yet we're afraid of saying the same thing about similar men who had control of the Bible.

    I agree with the post though I may disagree with some particular points of it.

    The Catholic Church adjusted their teaching because they were the first to understand this important fact. They substitute their Majesterium (traditions of men) as compensating for the lack of purity in scripture

    Well, its now two thousand years since they have been trying to make the Bible fit and be relevant for the current times. They have had to say the words of Jesus were meant for the jews listening to them, but also for every other group of men and nation that received the Bible after that. Supposedly God inspired the Bible having us in mind, too. So I think the Catholic Church was the first one to realize that they needed to be "flexible".

    If I'm not mistaken, the Catholic Church also has something like "new light". It's called "God's plan being revealed along the times", unless I'm mistaken.

  • Terry
    Terry

    (address continued...)

    Indeed, biblical scholars were not forcefully confronted with the uncertainty of their texts until the early eighteenth century.

    The floodgates opened in 1707, when an Oxford scholar named John Mill published an edition of the Greek New Testament that contained a critical apparatus systematically and graphically detailing the differences among the surviving witnesses of the NT.

    Mill had devoted some thirty years of his life to examining a hundred or so Greek MSS, the early versions of the NT, and the citations of the NT in the writings of the church fathers.

    His apparatus did not include all of the differences that he had uncovered in his investigation, but only the ones that he considered significant for the purposes of exegesis or textual reconstruction.

    These, however, were enough. To the shock and dismay of many of his contemporaries, Mill's apparatus indicated some 30,000 places of variation, 30,000 places where the available witnesses to the NT text differed from one another.

  • Terry
    Terry

    (continuation..)

    Numerous representatives of traditional piety were immediately outraged, and promptly denounced Mill's publication as a demonic attempt to render

    the text of the NT uncertain. Mill's supporters, on the other hand, pointed out that he had not invented these 30,000 places of variation, but had

    simply noticed them.

  • Terry
    Terry

    dgp says:

    Nobody corrupted the bible on purpose. It is the result of pious fraud.

    Actually, some people did corrupt the Bible on purpose. Erasmus of Rotterdam, for example, added the "Comma Johanneum" to support the idea of a trinity.

    Concerning Erasmus:

    "...the reason for the inclusion of the Greek text when defending his work:

    "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator’s clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep."

  • Terry
    Terry

    dgp says:

    At the time the gospels (or even Paul’s epistles) were being written NOBODY CONSIDERED THEM INSPIRED!

    Common sense here. How would I claim that the letters I penned with my own thoughts were inspired to me by the Lord? I may have been scratching my head, half-naked, while I wrote it.

    Exactly. Clearly, the writings now considered divinely inspired were just like any other writings by any other people UNTIL enough time had passed to create the need for an unimpeachable reference which must needs be channeled by God.

    The Catholic Church, by the very act of isolating some books and rejecting others MADE THEM HOLY.

    The doctrine of the Faithful and Discreet Slave is a similar creation of the imagination. Why would people listen to Pastor Russell UNLESS he was a specially selected mouthpiece of God?

  • Terry
    Terry

    PSSacramento wrote: I think that, HISTORICALLY speaking, the NT holds up as well, if not batter as many other historical pieces.

    How would you go about demonstrating that to be the case? Is a sacred history to be treated as commensurable to a profane history?

  • dgp
    dgp

    I think there's another reason why we should doubt revealed words.

    For the sake of brevity, let's just say that the Jews claim their Torah is inspired, but the New Testament / Greek Scriptures aren't.

    Christians say their New Testament / Greek Scriptures are indeed inspired, but they disagree on the number of books God inspired and even the paragraphs of one book, like Daniel. We could say that the Jews are right in claiming their Torah is inspired, and perhaps the Christians are right, too.

    Then comes Muhammad and, from Gabriel himself, he receives another revelation that supposedly invalidates the previous two. How are we to really know which one is right in claiming divine inspiration, if any?

    Along comes Joseph Smith and claims his Book of Mormon was inspired, too. So Muhammad wasn't inspired.

    In what way would a previously unbiased observer determine which of the scriptures was indeed inspired by God? I don't know. I think, however, that he wouldn't be able to use the revealed words themselves, because that would be circular reasoning.

    And then you have the fact that all four of the revealed words of God has been found to have inconsistencies.

    I think it's best if we don't stick dogmatically to any of them.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit