|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Inerrant Bible Manuscripts? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
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.html2)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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
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:
This is a different debate. ...all biblical texts were the products that reflected the socio-political background of the time in which they were written. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
..Bump
This message has been edited by FitzgeraldR, Sunday, November 06, 2005 07:11 PM Thanks FitzgeraldR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Force Inactive Member |
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: Vaticanus - Wikipedia
quote: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024