Hi, Angla, I`ve been tempted to track the provenance of 'the Bible' here on EVC many times, but the abysmal lack of knowledge on the part of believers has always stopped me. Would you care to enlarge the topic to include a hunt down the corridors of Christianity to see where it ends? Or should we cut to the chase and see how Eusebius forged his masterpiece? :-)
There are two primary texts from which the major versions of the Bible are translated, what is referred as the Received Text from which the KJ version is translated and the Alexandrian or Nestlie's Text from which the 1901 American Standard Version was translated.
The Alexandrian/Nestlies text includes some of the older manuscripts from which it was derived. For this reason and for others being that imo, it clarifies some problematic aspects of the Received/KJ version, I go with it and the ASV/American Standard Version.
Hey, Buz, you mean a billion Catholics are reading the wrong Bible?
It does not matter which person says they are right. Of course we all say we are right - who would be dumb enough to defend a position we new was false, unless we had an agenda? In fact, an outsider can not tell one from another (wolf in sheep's clothing or the real sheep so to speak). It is, however, completely logical to report that the Creator can and does tell the Truth to those who are interested. No one can argue with the statement that an answer from the Expert is the best answer. The good news is that you do not have to believe me or anyone else. You can know for yourself.
Many wars have been fought and millions died, all insisting they were on a 'mission from God'. They all 'knew'. Major schisms in Christendom were fueled by 'an answer from the Expert'. Who were the outsiders and insiders? So, I think we can put this approach to bed.
the long and short conclusions of mark is evidence of how well documented the bible is. Those two conclusions are not to be considered as authentic because they are not found in some of the key ancient manuscripts.
Hi, Peg, care to put a name to those 'key ancient manuscripts'?
one would be the Codex Sinaiticus another is the Codex Vaticanus No.1209. both of these date back to the 4th century and neither of them have the two conclusions in them.
But, but, but, Vaticanus(B) and Sinaiticus (aleph)don`t agree with each other. And when you look at their provenance, we have no records of their history before 1492 for B and c. 1850 for Sinaiticus. Who knows who was responsible for their compilation or where? Guesswork seems to be the standard for possible early manuscripts, while paleography sweeps with a wide broom.
Math 1.23 applies that prophecy to Jesus the meaning of the name Immanuel is 'With Us Is God'
Matt 1:23 calls him Emmanuel. Same feller?
Matt 1:21(KJV)-And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name Jesus--------
Matt 1:25-and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name 'Jesus'.
Now Immanuel occurs twice in the OT, while Emmanuel appears only once. A total of three in the Bible. Let`s suppose they are identical. Regardless of what the name means (Jesus/Yeshua could mean He who walks with a limp), A proper name is a proper name. a literal name is a literal name. Can you show me where 'Jesus' is called 'Immanuel/Emmanuel'? Or do you think the Isaiah quote mine might be wrong?
Peg, you seem like a sincere person (and an Aussie to boot- oi,oi,oi),and I`d be sorry to see you leave, so do you mind if I give you a few tips?
1. Don`t attempt too many threads at the same time as posters here from long experience are information-dense and rebuttals can be time-consuming.You can burn out in a short time from the overload.
2. Don`t take replies as Gospel (:-)) but do your own study and draw your own conclusions. Try to avoid exact quotes from the main creationist websites as they have some agenda to keep erroneous information posted even when shown they are wrong.
3. If evo posters get a bit gruff, it might be because of a long train of rabid creationists bursting in and saying something like 'Evolution is a pack of atheist lies. What do you say to that? Huh?' Then after a thread length of around 300 careful, explanatory posts, the originator departs and a new boy blows in with something along the same lines.
4. EVC is one of the best learning sites on the Web with specialists from many sciences passing on their knowledge. For free. It can be an eye-opener if you stay for the long haul.
it is a collection of many different scrolls. When the early collators put them together, they made them into book form. they decided where a verse and chapter begins and ends
Interesting point you raise here, Peg. Now, if by 'book', you mean codex, afaik, they didn`t start being assembled until the 2nd. century, C.E. Or thereabouts. All texts up till that time were written on papyrus or skin scrolls. The Qumran Scrolls confirm this. So you can only fit so much text on to a scroll. Usually the bigger scrolls are about thirty feet long. This would limit the text length.
In 11Kings 22:8, the KJV Bible refers to a 'book', but I think this is a bad translation. (where`s Arach when you need him?). If it is just a scroll, then it couldn`t contain the entire Torah. Scholars say it was the Book of Deuteromony from the text quoted (Book of the Law, etc.). If this was the only scroll found (Deut.), where did the rest of the Torah come from? Written later? Found in unknown and unrecorded repairs? The mystery continues.
not according to josephus who argued the superior reliability of the written history of the jews over the histories of the Greeks of his day. He was a pharisee, a scholar, a diplomat and historian. According to him, the holy books were not in question by the jews of his day.
Josephus MAY have had access to the Temple texts captured by Titus at the fall of Jerusalem, but we don`t know which strand they followed. Couldn`t have been the Septuagint (LXX) since Orthodox (?) Jews probably wouldn`t allow Greek texts in their Holy Place.
Can`t have been the Masoretic texts since they weren`t fixed for a few more centuries.
Can`t have been the Samaritan strand since they were regarded as apostates.
Can`t have been the texts cleaned up at the Academy at Jamnia since that happened after Josephus wrote his history.
Can`t have been the strands found at Qumran (DSS) since they covered a range of versions.
So which WAS the OT strand that we have today, Peg? Please don`t say Masoretic.
im not sure what 'strand' ...not that it matters because as Josephus testified the many sacred texts they had were all copied exactly and had no variations among them.
Not so, Peg, because one of the tasks undertaken by the Academy at Jamnia c.100C.E., formed of leading scholars, was to determine which of the texts were genuine or not. A celebrated tale from the discussion is Rabbi Akiva`s fight to retain the Song of Songs. If you wander through the OT, you will see mention of a number of books that aren`t found in today`s OT: From here:
The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they are considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22).
Were they inspired or not?
Were the scribes of the OT copies in fear of changing Scriptures? Didn`t seem to worry those copyists who did the 'Emendations of the Sopherim' and other changes.
The Dead Sea Scrolls show that scribes of that era felt free to change texts to suit beliefs.
Of course, tampering with the Bible didn`t stop there. Centuries of Christian copyists felt free to add, omit, conflate, alter and change book order to suit their 'inspiration'.
i believe these are the Apocryphal writings that were looked at and the council of Jamin left them out of the cannon because they were not considered inspired. They were added by the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria who inserted such Apocryphal writings into the Greek Septuagint version and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings
Nice bit of fancy footwork, Peg, BUT
The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.
we can 'thank' the Roman Catholic Church for that. They added these books to the cannon at the Council of Trent in 1546. Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning â€œof the second (or later) canon,â€ as distinguished from protocanonical.