|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Biblical contradictions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6134 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: At the time of Christ, there were two timetables in use by the Jews. The Galileans measured each day from sunset to sunset while the Judeans measured from sunrise to sunrise. Therefore all the Galileans, including Jesus and His disciples, would have eaten their Passover meal on what would be by our reckoning Thursday night. The Judeans, on the other hand, would not have eaten their Passover meal until Friday evening. Thus Christ's crucifixion would have taken place after His own Passover meal but just prior to the meal of those who crucified Him. This explanation is supported by Mark 14:70. In that verse, Peter is told, "Surely thou art one of them: for thou art a Galilaean, and thy speech agreeth thereto." Why would they associate Peter with Christ merely because he was a Galilean? The Galileans had a custom in which they did not work during the day of the Passover. The Judeans, on the other hand, kept the custom of not doing any work after noon on the day of the Passover. Thus any Galilean mingling with a crowd of Judeans on Passover morning would be suspected of being associated with Christ.
quote: Jesus did not say that His followers would routinely perform these tricks. He said that these signs would follow them that believe. Notice also that, in each case, the reference is plural, thus leading one to the conclusion that though every believer may not perform these signs, the body of believers as a whole, including past believers, will be found to have had these signs follow them. This is certainly evidenced to be true throughout Scripture and the history of Biblical Christianity.
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
w_fortenberry Member (Idle past 6134 days) Posts: 178 From: Birmingham, AL, USA Joined: |
quote: The King James Version of the Bible is the primary English translation of the Textus Receptus, the Greek text which has been accepted by Christians since the New Testament era. Most of the other translations are from the Critical Text, a Greek text formulated by Westcott and Hort in 1881. Many arguments have been presented for acceptance of the Critical Text and its translations, however the final test for any book that claims to be holy is that which reveals the presence or absence of error within that book. In Mark 1:2, the TR, as translated in the KJV, states, "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." This is a quote of Malachi 3:1, however the Critical Text changes this verse in Mark to state, "As it is written by the prophet Isaiah..." This certainly qualifies as error, and the Critical Text cannot truthfully claim to be the Word of God. As for why there are so many different translations, let me simply point out that, to my knowledge, the King James Version is the only current English translation of the Bible which can be reproduced royalty free.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7604 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: An interesting post which calls for a couple of small clarifications, and raises a more substantial issue. Firstly, Mark 1:2 has been taken out of context. Here is the KJV of Mark 1:1-31 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Now compare to Isaiah 40:3The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. A reader without this background may think you were suggesting in your post that the Isaiah reference in Westcott and Hort's text was totally wrong. As you can see, it only introduces a minor problem, which is resolved by those manuscripts which have "prophets" in place of "Isaiah". Westcott and Hort were quite clear that their intention was to base their critical text on the oldest surviving version, something they make clear in their handling of what they quaintly term "primitive errors." However, resolving theological problems for fundamentalists who can admit of no flaw in the Holy Word is not necessarily what a critical text is about - of which, more later. Westcott and Hort produced "a critical text" not "the Critical Text." The Textus Receptus is itself a critical text, that is to say, it is an attempt to reconcile the differences between many different manuscripts into a single text: in the case of the original form of the Textus Receptus by Erasmus, he used 6 manuscripts. The Textus Receptus has "evolved" considerably since then, which is just as well, as the original was frankly a rush job by Erasmus and Froben the printer. They produced what would nowadays be called a "spoiler" in the publishing trade: a version hurried into print to hit the market before a rival edition, in this case the wonderfully named "Complutensian Polyglot" of Cardinal Ximenes. Most of the other English translations do not use Westcott and Hort alone: one of the first and most demanding steps in creating a new biblical translation is to establish your critical text. There are many such critical texts which translators use as a starting point - WH is just one of them and happens to have a strong bias towards Alexandrian manuscripts which some translators mistrust. This brings us to the more substantial problem with your original post: critical texts are compiled with a variety of motivations and standards, only one of which you appear to regard as relevant. If one believes that there is a particular form of words which perfectly represents the text God wishes us to read, then one motivation could certainly be to resolve all the differences between the thousands of manuscripts to get to that form of words. If one further believes that this form of words must be free from literal errors, howsoever picayune they may be, then resolving these errors becomes part of the process of deciding which version to include in your critical text. But these are not the purposes of many critical texts. There are manuscripts which read unambiguously, for example "As it is written by the prophet Isaiah..." and some of these manuscripts are unambiguously earlier than some which read "written in the prophets." If your critical edition intends to present the historical text, then including the earliest known version is perfectly legitimate. It appears that you hold a particular view of how Biblical texts should be approached, and within that view your analysis was possibly justified. There are, of course, many different approaches to the Bible as a text and as a holy book. Why are there so many different translations? It is partly because there are so many different approaches to biblical scholarship, and some translations favour one approach over another. It is partly because there are so very many manuscript readings, and translations differently resolve these variant readings. It is also, of course, because English itself is a vibrant living language in which meanings and nuances change over time. And finally, there is the motivation you mention - Bibles sell well, and a best selling edition is frankly, quite a money-spinner. [This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4750 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Although there are numerous translation glitches that ‘suit’ one population over another, only one Biblical contradiction has stymied my ‘fundamentalist’ attempt to render the Bible inerrant in every last detail. Doubtless there are others apparent, but I believe I’ve reconciled them all, including the Genesis discrepancies and the so called Calvanistic-Arminian discrepancies (i.e., God’s Sovereignty vs Free Will). But note this apparent discrepancy:
2 Kings 24.8 states: Jehoiachinb was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. Vs. 2 Chronicles 36.9 states: Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign and he reigned three months Apologists have called this a transcriptional error.(1) If, indeed, this is a transcriptional error, then a purely literal fundamentalist scheme of the KJV seems to fail (at least to a degree). (2) If, on the other hand, I state that I believe the original manuscripts only were correct, then I concede God’s Word is at least partially obscured by errors. (3) Jehoiachin tutored 10 years before really allowed to reign. (4) Or, the words must become ‘surreal’ in their relations (as in the Poetic books) to impart a ‘higher’ meaning, e.g., Jehoiachin was ‘so young’, ‘premadonna-like’, ‘premature’, etc. before taken into captivity by Babylon. (5) A devout Christian may add that the Gospel Word (i.e., the Christ dying for our sins and raising from the dead) must also be ‘symphonic’ with this scripture to be valid. (an offshoot of no. 4 above) Anyone care to comment additionally on this ‘apparent’ contradiction?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7604 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
The New Testament is really my area of interest in textual criticism, but I have no problems with your first two possibilities. Firstly, if this error is simply a transcription error, then the literalism of fundamentalists fails - not just partially to my mind, but completely, because inerrancy cannot be partial, and if it requires human judgement to make sense of it, then it follows that human judgement is appropriately applied to other obscurities.
Secondly, even if the original texts were perfect, errors of transcription and translation are inevitable and obscure any literally true meaning that may have existed. Theologically, I see no basis whatsoever for any form of literalism, so the latter is of lesser interest to me. I had the great good fortune to be raised in a community whose churches were of largely bilingual worshippers, and whose clergy were thoroughly trained in biblical langauges. Many were indeed fundamentalists, but not what I would call literalists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
Discussions on the inerrancy of the Bible is one of contention and duplicity.
Can I pick up a Bible today and find errors in it? Yes! Without a doubt! Does this mean that the Word of God is in error? No! Not even possible! Anyone can put forth what they consider a correct translation of the Bible. Joseph Smith did, and He crossed some verses out while adding others that suited his beliefs. Did this make the Word of God errant? No! It only made Joseph Smith errant! Unless one is able to read and translate the ancient manuscripts for themself, reliance upon God to provide those with honesty and integrity, who will translate and transliterate for the general populace, is the best that most will ever be able to hope for. Why else were we commanded to "Study to show thyself approved"? Enough said. And thanks for your support!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Let's see if we can pick our way through this, assuming KJV for the Bible.
The KJV of the Bible contains errors and contradictions. The Word of God is without errors and contradictions. Therefore, the KJV version of Bible is not the Word of God. But the Word of God *is* contained within the original manuscripts. Therefore, either the KJV was not translated from original manuscripts, or the translation is in error, or both. Hmmm. So how do you know when you have a manuscript that contains God's original words? And how do you know when it's been interpreted and translated properly? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
quote: This is where one must utilize a number of available tools. If the KJV,(your choice, not mine), contains an error in translation, does this nullify it in its' entirety? I would say no, with reservations. Does the supposed error change the intended context of the passage or does the intended meaning still follow through? Can the error be recognized and corrected? Man is a creature of error. Even in science, the god of so many, error abounds. It is therefore our responsibliity to recognize the errors, whether they be in the realm of religion or secularism, and correct them. To simply dismiss something in its' entirety due to human error is, in my opinion, a most foolish option to choose. Did NASA choose to dismiss and abandon space exploration due to the errors which caused the Challenger disaster, or did they recognize the errors, and utilize their skills to correct the problem? Whether one accepts science as the road to ultimate truth, or accepts God as the road to ultimate truth, they make an individual choice and must be fully willing to accept the consequences of that choice. When they launched Challenger, NASA chose to go with "THROTTLE UP" and the result was disastrous. Every indication they had told them they were headed in the right direction, so to speak. Their indications were wrong! Dead wrong!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
The particular Bible used isn't a concern to me. I simply chose the one favored by most Creationists. If you don't like that one pick another.
What are the errors in Genesis that have led Creationists to erroneously conclude the earth is less than 10,000 years old?
quote: Science is tentative, so obviously it cannot be the road to ultimate truth. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, then, answer Percy's original question: How do you recognize the original or "correct" word of God, and how do you recognize a tranlational error that has changed meaning, or not changed meaning? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:
[B]The particular Bible used isn't a concern to me. I simply chose the one favored by most Creationists. If you don't like that one pick another. ***I personally use several translations in my studies. If I had to state a preference, it would be a toss-up between Rotherhams' Literal Emphasised Translation and the Messianic Authorized Version.***Jet
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:What are the errors in Genesis that have led Creationists to erroneously conclude the earth is less than 10,000 years old? ***I can only state my personal opinion on this. I would suppose that those who hold to the idea that the earth is 10,000 years old or younger do so by virtue of Adams' recorded lineage, accepting that Adams' beginning came within days of the earths beginning. I do not believe that the scriptures will support that belief.***Jet
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Percipient:Science is tentative, so obviously it cannot be the road to ultimate truth. ***I Agree***Jet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:
[B] Well, then, answer Percy's original question: How do you recognize the original or "correct" word of God, and how do you recognize a tranlational error that has changed meaning, or not changed meaning? ***Through painstaking and persistant study, research, and prayer, coupled with faith in God and guidance by the Holy Spirit.***Jet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
So how old *is* the earth, and by what evidence do you arrive at your conclusion?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Schraf asks: Jet replies: This is just a way to approach any difficult question, not an answer. Do you have a method or any criteria? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7604 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote: Cool - are people still using Rotherham's? I never saw the point of it as a translation myself except as a crib when studying Hebrew. It's English seemed to be so stilted as to be virtually unreadable on its own and often gave the wrong impression. It reminded me of my friend who lectured at the Scots College in Rome and who insisted on using Scottish idioms literally translated into Italian - "this takes the biscuit" would become "cio prende il biscotto" which confused people no end and many thought he was just tirare il loro piedino. The Messianic Authorized Version is new(ish) to me - is this the one published by the Messianic Bible Society? As I remember they are quite into Gematria. Does their translation / edition actually point out the (alleged) Torah codes in some way or does it just do some name replacement - YHWH Mashiach etc?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024