Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2018 3:06 PM
216 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, edge, Meddle, PaulK, Tanypteryx (7 members, 209 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,153 Year: 16,976/29,783 Month: 964/1,956 Week: 467/331 Day: 50/76 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?
Force
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 67 (257120)
11-05-2005 6:08 PM


Greetings,

In my research I have found that the Bibles of today could have come from many sources of either manuscripts or translations. Some of the translations the Bibles of today could have come from are the Latin Vulgate translated around the end of the 4th century AD(NT and OT) and the Septuagint Greek translations dating from early 3rd century BC(OT). There is a large list of manuscripts and translations that exist today and If you wish to find out the many different sources other then the ones I have reported please go to the following URLS.

1)http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
2)http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
3)http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

The most reliable manuscripts that exist today are the Masoretic manuscripts 900AD(OT manuscripts), Dead Sea Scrolls 150BC-70AD(OT manuscripts), Codex Vaticanus 325-450AD(greek NT manuscripts), Codex Sinaiticus 325-450AD(greek NT manuscripts), and added => Majority Text(NT)

So, if a person or group were to translate a Bible today using the manuscripts and not the translations what we would have is a reliable reading in comparison to the Bibles autographs.

*Clarification

Please keep in mind that I am not debating the fact that there are many manuscripts and translations that exist today. *text removed* *text added*==> I am claiming that in order to have a reliable Bible it would have to be translated from said manuscripts and not other translations.

*Key

Autograph: Orignal Writings in whatever language written.
Manuscript: Copies of the autograph in the Original language.
Translation: Copies of either copies or autographs in a different language.

*Request

I only have one request for those who wish to participate in this debate. Please respect the nature and organization of this thread; which means do not respond to anyone unless it pertains to this original post.

This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Monday, November 07, 2005 11:16 PM


Thanks
FitzgeraldR
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 11-06-2005 8:14 AM Force has responded
 Message 43 by munkeyhead, posted 05-09-2008 4:14 AM Force has not yet responded
 Message 59 by IamJoseph, posted 06-20-2008 8:54 AM Force has responded

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 67 (257148)
11-05-2005 7:42 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Nighttrain, posted 11-06-2005 6:36 AM AdminNWR has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 3 of 67 (257237)
11-06-2005 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNWR
11-05-2005 7:42 PM


Aleph/B
Hi, Fitzy and welcome

The most reliable manuscripts that exist today are the Massoretic manuscripts 900AD(OT manuscripts), Dead Sea Scrolls 150BC-70AD(OT manuscripts), Codex Vaticanus 325-450AD(greek NT manuscripts), and Codex Siniaticus 325-450AD(greek NT manuscripts).

Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B(Vaticanus) were exploded as accurate manuscripts as long ago as 1883(The Revision Revised--John Burgon)and have had a demolition job up to the present. WH`s axioms of older,shorter,harder and their Genealogical methods have been exposed as nonsense.

If you have an inerrant manuscript, trot it out and let`s see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNWR, posted 11-05-2005 7:42 PM AdminNWR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Force, posted 11-06-2005 9:39 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Force, posted 11-07-2005 8:58 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 42 by 1071, posted 04-23-2008 7:26 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 2911 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 67 (257256)
11-06-2005 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Force
11-05-2005 6:08 PM


Biblical Texts
Hi,

The most reliable manuscripts that exist today

Do you mean “most reliable” as in most likely to be faithful to the originals, or something else?

are the Massoretic manuscripts 900AD(OT manuscripts),

The Masoretic texts are not written in the Hebrew that the Bible was written in and certainly not even in the Hebrew that the DSS were written in, so I have difficulty in accepting the MT as being faithful (‘reliable’) to the originals.

Dead Sea Scrolls 150BC-70AD(OT manuscripts)

Which Bible’s are based on the DSS texts?

Codex Vaticanus 325-450AD(greek NT manuscripts)

Are the Old Testament texts in the Vaticanus unreliable?

and Codex Siniaticus 325-450AD(greek NT manuscripts).

Similarly, are the Old Testament texts of the Sinaiticus unreliable?

So, if a person or group were to translate a Bible today using the manuscripts and not the translations what we would have is a reliable reading in comparison to the Bibles autographs.

This is a non-sequitur. You offer no evidence to support this claim, which is forgivable as there are no original texts of any Biblical texts, Old or New Testaments, I am afraid that your claim is rather empty.

I think it would be a good idea to recognise that all biblical texts were the products that reflected the socio-political background of the time in which they were written. This is one reason why we have two creation myths, two Flood accounts, Two Exoduses, Two Conquests etc. it also explains why the Bible is rife with contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

So, I think you need to provide a lot more evidence if you are going to support the claim that a Bible based on MSS is going to be more accurate than one that is based on a translated text.

What I am claiming is that if we ignore the translations and stick to the manuscripts we should have no error in our current Bibles translated from said manuscripts in comparison to the autographs written during the time of the Apostles.

This really needs one or two examples if we are going to discuss it.
For example, what do you mean by ‘error’?

I also find this confusing “ we should have no error in our current Bibles translated from said manuscripts in comparison to the autographs written during the time of the Apostles.

How do you know this without comparing these manuscripts to the autographs written by the Apostles? We do not have any autographs, so how can you suggest that the autographs are less reliable than the extant MSS?

Autograph: Orignal Writings in whatever language written.

It is a shame that we do not have any extant autographs, it would certainly be very exciting for biblical studies if even one was found, we can hope that in the future this happens.

Manuscript: Copies of the autograph in the Original language.

Do you have any evidence that any of the extant MSS that we have today were “copies of the autograph"?

Translation: Copies of either copies or autographs in a different language.

How do we know which ones were copies of autographs?

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Force, posted 11-05-2005 6:08 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Force, posted 11-06-2005 10:45 AM Brian has responded

    
Force
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 67 (257264)
11-06-2005 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Nighttrain
11-06-2005 6:36 AM


Re: Aleph/B
Greetings,

FitzgeraldR writes:


Nighttrain writes:

Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B(Vaticanus) were exploded as accurate manuscripts as long ago as 1883(The Revision Revised--John Burgon)and have had a demolition job up to the present. WH`s axioms of older,shorter,harder and their Genealogical methods have been exposed as nonsense.

I thank you for your response but I will ask you to provide evidence for your claim along with a response that is a bit more lucid. *added ==>* However, what does this mean?: WH`s.

This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:04 AM


Thanks
FitzgeraldR
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Nighttrain, posted 11-06-2005 6:36 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 67 (257279)
11-06-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Brian
11-06-2005 8:14 AM


Re: Biblical Texts
Greetings,
FitzgeraldR writes:


Brian writes:

Do you mean “most reliable” as in most likely to be faithful to the originals, or something else?

The manuscripts we have today are congruent to the autographs.

Brian writes:

The Masoretic texts are not written in the Hebrew that the Bible was written in and certainly not even in the Hebrew that the DSS were written in, so I have difficulty in accepting the MT as being faithful (‘reliable’) to the originals.

All languages develope over time and I am sure you are well aware of this fact. However, the manuscripts developed with the culture so in my mind we should have no problems.

Brian writes:

Which Bible’s are based on the DSS texts?

No Bibles are based on the DSS to my knowledge. The DSS are used for comparing manuscripts. For example the book of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Greek manuscripts and the Hebrew manuscripts are all in congruence. Yet all three manuscripts above date different era'.

Brian writes:

Are the Old Testament texts in the Vaticanus unreliable?

I am under the impression that the Vaticanus is only NT manuscripts.

Brian writes:

Similarly, are the Old Testament texts of the Sinaiticus unreliable?

I am under the impression that the Sinaiticus is only NT manuscripts.

Brian writes:

(a)This is a non-sequitur. You offer no evidence to support this claim, which is forgivable as there are no original texts of any Biblical texts, Old or New Testaments, I am afraid that your claim is rather empty.

(b)I think it would be a good idea to recognise that all biblical texts were the products that reflected the socio-political background of the time in which they were written. This is one reason why we have two creation myths, two Flood accounts, Two Exoduses, Two Conquests etc. it also explains why the Bible is rife with contradictions and historical inaccuracies.

(c)So, I think you need to provide a lot more evidence if you are going to support the claim that a Bible based on MSS is going to be more accurate than one that is based on a translated text.

(a) I am simply claiming that no original is required. Can you show me otherwise?

(b) This is a different debate.

(c) I can only disagree with your comments here. Refer to my response on dead sea scrolls above to understand where I am coming from.

This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:05 AM


Thanks
FitzgeraldR
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 11-06-2005 8:14 AM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Brian, posted 11-06-2005 11:03 AM Force has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-06-2005 8:00 PM Force has responded
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 11-07-2005 2:48 PM Force has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 2911 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 7 of 67 (257282)
11-06-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Force
11-06-2005 10:45 AM


Both contain both Testaments
Hi,

Thanks for the response, I only have a few minutes before leaving,so I will reply to the rest of your post in detail tomorrow.

I am under the impression that the Vaticanus is only NT manuscripts.

However, the Vaticanus contains both the Old and the New Testaments.

Here

The Old Testament (Septuagint Version, except Daniel, which is taken from the version of Theodotion) takes up 617 folios. On account of the aforementioned lacunae, the Old Testament text lacks the following passages: Gen., i-xlvi,28; II Kings, ii,5-7,10-13; Pss. cv,27-cxxxvii, 6. The order of the books of the Old Testament is as follows: Genesis to Second Paralipomenon, First and second Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Minor Prophets from Osee to Malachi, Isaias, Jeremias, Baruch, Lamentations and Epistle of Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel; the Vatican Codex does not contain the Prayer of Manasses or the Books of Machabees.

And, this is incorrect:

I am under the impression that the Sinaiticus is only NT manuscripts.

From Here

Scholars have identified three scribes as having produced the manuscript. The one who was involved with the NT is labeled Scribe A. It can be shown that the scribe of the OT copied the manuscript from dictation in part of that portion.Likewise, it is held that the NT portion was copied down from a written exemplar. Taken altogether, perhaps as many as nine correctors worked on the manuscript from the fourth to the twelfth century.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Force, posted 11-06-2005 10:45 AM Force has not yet responded

    
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 67 (257357)
11-06-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Force
11-06-2005 10:45 AM


Re: Biblical Texts
FitzgeraldR writes:

I am simply claiming that no original is required

Maybe I missed something in your argument, but I don't see how you can prove that a copy is true to its original without access to the original.

FitzgeraldR writes:

Brian writes:

...all biblical texts were the products that reflected the socio-political background of the time in which they were written.


This is a different debate.

I think that it's very relevant when talking of copies and translations. Many Bibles today, particularly those composed for children, omit or minimize some of the gorier verses through various means. So it's important to consider that there can be motive for making a copy or translation which is significantly different to the original.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Force, posted 11-06-2005 10:45 AM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Force, posted 11-06-2005 10:03 PM Funkaloyd has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Force, posted 11-06-2005 10:11 PM Funkaloyd has not yet responded

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 67 (257376)
11-06-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Funkaloyd
11-06-2005 8:00 PM


..Bump

This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Sunday, November 06, 2005 07:11 PM


Thanks
FitzgeraldR
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-06-2005 8:00 PM Funkaloyd has not yet responded

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 67 (257378)
11-06-2005 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Funkaloyd
11-06-2005 8:00 PM


Re: Biblical Texts
Greetings,

FitzgeraldR writes:


Funkyaloyd writes:

Maybe I missed something in your argument, but I don't see how you can prove that a copy is true to its original without access to the original.

Since the manuscripts dating different era' congrue I would expect the same scenario when we compare the autographs to the manuscripts.

Brian writes:

..all biblical texts were the products that reflected the socio-political background of the time in which they were written.

This is a different debate.

Funkaloyd writes:

I think that it's very relevant when talking of copies and translations. Many Bibles today, particularly those composed for children, omit or minimize some of the gorier verses through various means. So it's important to consider that there can be motive for making a copy or translation which is significantly different to the original.

The information Brian wrote is completly hypothetical so please provide evidence to support the claim.

This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:07 AM


Thanks
FitzgeraldR
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Funkaloyd, posted 11-06-2005 8:00 PM Funkaloyd has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Nighttrain, posted 11-06-2005 11:41 PM Force has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 1945 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 11 of 67 (257389)
11-06-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Force
11-06-2005 10:11 PM


Re: Biblical Texts
Nighttrain,
I thank you for your response but I will ask you to provide evidence for your claim along with a response that is a bit more lucid.

I don`t think you get it, Fitz. You made the claim. The onus is on you to supply the evidence. Try taking each source separately and then we can study them collectively.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Force, posted 11-06-2005 10:11 PM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Force, posted 11-07-2005 7:56 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
Force
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 67 (257426)
11-07-2005 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Nighttrain
11-06-2005 11:41 PM


Re: Biblical Texts
Greetings,

FitzgeraldR writes:

Nighttrain writes:


I don`t think you get it, Fitz. You made the claim. The onus is on you to supply the evidence. Try taking each source separately and then we can study them collectively.

I have supplied the evidence in URLS in my original post. Review them for your "collective research". BTW in a debate if a person makes a claim and another disagrees then it's up to that person who disagrees to substantiate the opposing claim. I cant believe you are not aware of this fact.

This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:08 AM


Thanks
FitzgeraldR
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Nighttrain, posted 11-06-2005 11:41 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2005 8:13 AM Force has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 67 (257437)
11-07-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Force
11-07-2005 7:56 AM


Re: Biblical Texts
BTW in a debate if a person makes a claim and another disagrees then it's up to that person who disagrees to substantiate the opposing claim. I cant believe you are not aware of this fact.

Nice try, but that's not how it works here. Remember the forum guidelines? You know, the ones you agreed to in order to register? Here's one of them:

quote:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

The burden of support for your claims is always on you; the burden of evidence when challenged on your claim is always yours. Them's the rules!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Force, posted 11-07-2005 7:56 AM Force has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Force, posted 11-07-2005 8:32 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 67 (257444)
11-07-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
11-07-2005 8:13 AM


Re: Biblical Texts
Greetings,

FitzgeraldR writes:

crashfrog writes:

The burden of support for your claims is always on you; the burden of evidence when challenged on your claim is always yours. Them's the rules!

I have provided required information. If my references are not substantial enough just say so. I also think we are getting off topic. One more instance I walk away. Please stick to the topic. In order to stick to my topic I will appease those who ask for more evidence of my claim but please be more specific as to the demands.

P.S. I have been reading the forums on this website and I have noticed 90% of the time the topic is derailed. I will not allow derailing in this thread if derailing does happen again I will accept the default, walk away, and assume the attackers weak minded.

This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:09 AM


Thanks
FitzgeraldR
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2005 8:13 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 67 (257451)
11-07-2005 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Nighttrain
11-06-2005 6:36 AM


Re: Aleph/B
Greetings,

FitzgeraldR writes:

Nighttrain writes:

Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B(Vaticanus) were exploded as accurate manuscripts as long ago as 1883(The Revision Revised--John Burgon)and have had a demolition job up to the present. WH`s axioms of older,shorter,harder and their Genealogical methods have been exposed as nonsense.

I am sorry you maybe correct here. I have been continuing my research and have found some similiar claims of such regarding the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts. I have been unable to verify the claims. Could you assist me with a verification on the truth as to how reliable Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are?

*added====>* According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are highly regarded and used for textual criticism against other manuscripts. So, I dont see how the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts could be corrupted(Quotes and links below).

quote:
Codex Vaticanus is one of the most important manuscripts for Textual criticism and is a leading member of the Alexandrian text-type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaticanus

quote:
Along with Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most valuable manuscripts for Textual criticism of the Greek New Testament, as well as the Septuagint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

Nighttrain writes:


If you have an inerrant manuscript, trot it out and let`s see.

Majority Text(NT), Masoretic Text(OT) and Dead Sea Scrolls.

This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:10 AM


Thanks
FitzgeraldR
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Nighttrain, posted 11-06-2005 6:36 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2005 2:15 PM Force has responded
 Message 44 by sl33w, posted 06-09-2008 2:40 PM Force has responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018