Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 305 (359578)
10-29-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Nighttrain
10-28-2006 11:59 PM


Re: two replies for two different purposes
And you should know the real Scriptures before quoting them. Care to show me the originals? Being on first-name terms should give you an inside edge to what really was written. Show us the beginning.
If you are suggesting that the Scriptures we have now are not actually the 'real' scriptures, then the burden of proof remains with the one making the assertion-- in which case, I think we'd all like to know how this esoteric knowledge has come into your possession.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Nighttrain, posted 10-28-2006 11:59 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ReverendDG, posted 10-29-2006 1:47 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 89 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-29-2006 1:39 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 90 by jar, posted 10-29-2006 10:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 305 (359635)
10-29-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by ReverendDG
10-29-2006 1:47 AM


Re: two replies for two different purposes
how is it esoteric? this is not esoteric if you know anything about how historians do things
the answer for you is, that we have compared different versions of the bible texts and found they are not the same, later ones have things inserted, things removed, things reworded
The postulate is that the Bible has been transcribed so many times that the original message has been obscured due to either intentional or unintentional manipulation or embellishment. But how does that claim stand up to scrutiny?
First of all, you have to remember that a scribe was considered a profession. In fact it was was a very prestigious career by virtue of the level of schooling it took. We forget that most people in ancient times were illiterate, and the scribes were not just literate but completely adept n their trade. You also have to consider that scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and certainly altering the Word, whether intentional or unintentional, would bring about dire consequences.
But all of this is merely secondary information when we actually juxtapose certain copies from others. What do we see when we do so? We have had to go by the Masoretic text, Septuagint, and the Vulgate for centuries. What we find is that all of our present-day copies of the Hebrew text which come from an early period are in remarkable agreement. As if that wasn't enough, the Dead Sea Scrolls repudiate the bald assertion that the text has been tampered with.
So, if you can demonstrate for me how the ancient Bible is significantly different from the ones I own, please share this esoteric information.
they have carbon-dated the materals of many older bibles i believe as well, nothing has been found from first to second century that are completely like the ones we have now
The oldest copies we had were the Masoretic texts dating from 900 AD. However, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we empirically know that it dates back to the BC, and it is in total agreement with the Masoretic text. That means the Jews have been careful in transcribing over the centuries, which gives you no reason to continue with your suspicions.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ReverendDG, posted 10-29-2006 1:47 AM ReverendDG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 10-29-2006 7:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 305 (359643)
10-29-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Archer Opteryx
10-29-2006 1:39 AM


Re: Man O Man O Manuscripts!
I understood the statement, NJ, to be referring to the fact that Judaism and Christianity lack original documents or even first-generation copies for any book of the Bible as defined in anyone's canon.
LOL! The original works of Plato don't exist either because it hasn't survived decay. And yet, do we see anyone questioning the validity of the text or subjecting its fans to a harangue on why the original no longer exists.
Variants exist, too. Take the oldest extant copies we now have of a book like Isaiah. The oldest copies in this case are the Qumran scrolls circa first-century BCE/CE. These scrolls differ at many points from the later Masoretic text already standard as a source of translations. Multiple copies of Isaiah were discovered at Qumran and they do not agree at every point with each other, either.
No, they do not. But if you are so certain, I defy you to back up the claim. There is exactly 17 instances of disparity in the words between the Masoretic and the DSS. All of those words, minus one, are only variant in textual enunciation, like how an Englishman would spell 'honour' but an American might spell it 'honor.' There is no contextual change in the meaning of the words from the Masorettes to the Essenes documents. There is only one word that has caused a bit of a stir, and that translates to the word "light" in Isaiah. The DSS does not have it, where the Masoretic text.
You also have sources like the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in the most recent years BCE and quoted by the first Christians. This translation, along with others from ancient times, is based on Hebrew originals earlier than those we now have. We thus have a window on how some earlier versions of the documents read. Some remarkable divergence exists betweeen the translatoins and any docments we now have. But ancient translations do agree with each other on some of these same points. This indicates that this does reflect content in the original documents rather than idiosyncracies of translation.
Again, the LXX has always stood up against scrutiny. It was always wondered whether or not the Masoretic and LXX differed on key areas, but when the DSS was discovered, it made it clear that very little deviation existed, such as which I already shared.
There's nothing 'esoteric' about taking this reality into account. Much of the information is supplied in the translators' forewards and notes in any reputable translation (NRSV, JPS, New Jerusalem Bible, NIV, etc). Further information may be found in the scholars' commentaries provided in standard academic study Bibles (Oxford UK, HarperCollins USA, JPS Torah Commentary).
What they supply is the translation evidence, i.e you'll see LXX = Septuagint, VL = Latin Vulgate, M = Masorettic text, DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls. They are quoting sources not giving you a disclaimer that the Bible can't be trusted as reliable document.
The point being made is that one cannot naively equate the Scriptures one quotes with the original content penned by the original authors. The original content is not content you have.
Again, you and Nighttrain must have some esoteric knowledge because the harmony between the texts has always been known as remarkable. Therefore, you must have some special insight that no one else has.
Fundamentalists up the ante when they claim word-for-word inerrancy in an ancient text. Now even the smallest variants in wording between ancient sources raise serious questions about whether 'God's words' are being reliably preserved.
I've taken inerrancy to mean that Bible is God's Word from start to finish and that God will always make it so that His Word is unfailing-- meaning whatever He says you can take it to the bank. We all know that humans are fallible, but God is not. Some extend the meaning to mean that Bible is free from error, but there is some error from the original. The deviations are so nominal, however, that its absurd to question its historicity. If anything, it should be lauded for its meticulous effort to keep it free from deviation.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-29-2006 1:39 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024