Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
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)English Bible History: Timeline of How We Got the English Bible
3)Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?
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 replied
 Message 43 by munkeyhead, posted 05-09-2008 4:14 AM Force has not replied
 Message 59 by IamJoseph, posted 06-20-2008 8:54 AM Force has replied

  
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 replied

  
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 replied

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

  
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 replied

  
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 replied

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

  
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 replied

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

  
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 replied

  
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
Vaticanus - Wikipedia
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.
Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia
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 replied

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

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 67 (257544)
11-07-2005 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
11-07-2005 2:15 PM


Re: Aleph/B
Greetings,
FitzgeraldR writes:
I am very happy to see you posting in my thread Paulk. Honestly you're one of the people I would like to hear from. A few others are Nosyned and Mark24. However, I will await their arrival.
Paulk writes:
1) The oldest NT bookjs you refer to are NOT examples of the Majority Text. How can you cite them as evidence of reliability of transmisison and then claim that the Majority Text is the original ?
I am just citing manuscripts that are not translations. If I am wrong about them being manuscripts and in fact they are translations then please inform me. I have not found any of the manuscripts I have cited to have been translated.
Paulk writes:
2) Citing both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text is a similar problem. THe DSS includes texts which more closely match the Septuagint texts - but written in Hebrew. You can't claim that both the DSS and the Masoretic texts both represent an inerrant original when there are scrolls in the DSS that are from a different text tradition - and one that may be as old or olfer than the Masoretic text.l
I answer the same as I did above. Please note though that the original claim is simply nothing more then if we had a Bible translated from manuscripts and not other translations I think it would be reliable.
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:11 AM

Thanks
FitzgeraldR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2005 2:15 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2005 5:37 PM Force has replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 67 (257545)
11-07-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
11-07-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Hardly congruent
....BUMP
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 05:02 AM

Thanks
FitzgeraldR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 11-07-2005 2:48 PM Brian has not replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 67 (257556)
11-07-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
11-07-2005 5:37 PM


Re: Aleph/B
Greetings,
FitzgeraldR writes:
Paulk writes:
I was addressing your assertion that the texts you listed represented the inerrant original text
I never said the texts I listed represented the inerrant original text. Stick to topic Paulk. Please do not debate what I claim I know what I claimed.*text removed*
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 04:59 AM

Thanks
FitzgeraldR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2005 5:37 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2005 6:06 PM Force has replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 67 (257562)
11-07-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
11-07-2005 6:06 PM


Re: Aleph/B
Greetings,
FitzgeraldR writes:
Paulk writes:
Now there are disagreements between Siniaiticus and the Majority Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls include texts that are different from the Masoretic text.
I'm afraid you're correct. So the verdict would be that there're differences between all manuscripts(DSS,Minority Text,Majority Text and others) which is very interesting indeed. I have posted this thread in order to prove biblical scripture errant by method of claiming what I thought to be untrue in the first place =).
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Tuesday, November 08, 2005 04:55 AM

Thanks
FitzgeraldR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2005 6:06 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nighttrain, posted 11-07-2005 8:31 PM Force has not replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 67 (257654)
11-08-2005 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brian
11-07-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Hardly congruent
FitzgeraldR writes:
The manuscripts we have today are congruent to the autographs.
Brian writes:
I think “congruent” is a bit of a strong word here, they are maybe similar but they are not congruent.
Ok.
Fitzgerald writes:
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:
The manuscripts were also added to over time, which was directly influenced by the culture that the texts were produced in. Let’s take the Book of Exodus as an example of this. The Book of Exodus is composed of texts that span a very long period of time. Evidence of this is ”The Song of Miriam’ (Exod. 15:21) being dated to the 14th century BCE by similarities to Ugaritic poetry (David N. Freedman, "The Song of Miriam," JNES 14 (1955), 237-250) and the reference to ”Pithom’ (Exod. 1:11), which was only used as the name of a city during the Saite period (7th century BCE) only being used to refer to temples and temple estates before that time. ( Lemche N P, The Israelites in History and Tradition. SPCK, John Knox Press, London and Kentucky). So, surely the Book of Exodus has evolved over time and we have no way of knowing what the original autograph was like.
I completly agree with the possibilty that the biblical manuscripts were added to over time but for the dependency to be directly related to culture is a matter of opinion. I feel, however, that the reason the book of Exodus was perhaps added to is directly related to the fact that this particular book spands alot of time(1300 b.c.e - 1200 b.c.e).
http://www.grahamphillips.net/mountain/search3.htm
FitzgeraldR writes:
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:
Take the DSS and the MT as an example, when we look at the book of Isaiah we discover that there are many differences between the texts.
Ok you're correct here, however, the differences between the two(DSS VS MT) are minor.
FitzggeraldR writes:
Brian writes:
The Books of Samuel are good examples and should really be taken as an example of how different the texts are.
Ok.
Fitzgerald writes:
Brian writes:
I really do not have to as this is your baby and you need to provide evidence to support your claim. You are saying, for example, that the DSS and the MT are identical, which is untrue. For your claim to have any credibility you have to show two copies that are 1000 years apart that are identical, you haven’t done this, even your links haven’t provided anything other than their opinion.
Ok.
Fitzgerald writes:
Brian writes:
Are you saying that no original is required to know EXACTLY what the original said, or are you saying that no original is needed for us to have a good idea of what it said?
I withdraw my claim regarding DSS congruency with any manuscripts.
FitzgeraldR writes:
This is a different debate.
Brian writes:
I really do not think it is a different debate because if any original text was written for a specific social or political reason then some of that text may not appear at all in the DSS.
Ok.

Thanks
FitzgeraldR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brian, posted 11-07-2005 2:48 PM Brian has not replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 67 (257942)
11-08-2005 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ConsequentAtheist
11-08-2005 4:24 PM


Ignorance is Bliss
Greetings,
ConsequentMoronicAtheist writes:
To speak of "congruence" is inane. In fact, to speak of DSS manuscripts as if they represent a coherent variant displays a significant ignorance. Compare the assertion of 'congruent text' [whatever that might mean] with Tov's authoritative characterization of the DSS witnesses as reflecting a pluriformity of textual variants, including proto-Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint (LXX) Vorlage.
The only thing sillier that speaking of congruence is the delusion of some variant 'accurately' reflecting an 'original'. Forgive me - I take that back: the phrase "Inerrant Bible Manuscript" is stunningly naive and speaks volumes about the OP.
The purpose of this thread was to prove by the use of people from this forum that in fact without a doubt that the biblical manuscripts are errant. Now if such a wise guy as your self were to have read the entire thread his idiosyncratic behavior perhaps would not have occured. Now when understanding this behavior you have introduced to this thread perhaps shows ignorance on your part. I will say, however, you could have approached this thread with a bit of a better attitude and said something along the lines of: Sir I see that you have not seen what I've seen perhaps you should check these urls out. However, judging by your attitude and username I can see that you are a minor so you are forgiven.

Thanks
FitzgeraldR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-08-2005 4:24 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brian, posted 11-08-2005 7:29 PM Force has replied

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 67 (257945)
11-08-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Brian
11-08-2005 7:13 PM


Re: Probably a kid's website
Greetings,
One more ignorant foo. I am no Christian believer. I believe in theistic evolution. I Posted those links for my original claim in order to correct their errors. Sometimes when you read websites they don't explain the entire truth and it is hard to discern from truth and lie. So, I used thie knowledge of EVC forum and people like your self and of course MR. Athiest in order to prove Fraudulency.

Thanks
FitzgeraldR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Brian, posted 11-08-2005 7:13 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Brian, posted 11-08-2005 7:37 PM Force has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024