Changing the Bible

wmam said:

You stated that.........


The Word, or Truth, of Elohim is within the Scriptures as the Scriptures are within the Truth. They are to be one in purpose and understanding so how can one say that one is confused of the other? That would make one or the other false. One upholds the other or it doesn't. When one quotes Scriptures then they are in fact quoting the same if in fact it is something that upholds the Truth. Some believe that the Scriptures as a whole are the inspired Word of Elohim. Some believe, as I think you do, that it is broken up into what Elohim said and that of what man said. Yes............. this is True but that which man said was to glorify and to uphold the will of Elohim. Therefore they are in one accordance and purpose. There is no confusion other than that of what the unrighteous man would have others to believe.

Click to expand...

I hope not. God is not contained by anything as the divine Creator. Christians understand God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present and the Bible is none of these things.

The Bible was placed in the care of humanity from its inception. These feeble hands have passed it on from human to human, and the Bible is riddled with our imperfection from beginning to end. Despite our inabilities, God remains God. We can't change who God is by editing the Bible.

angellous_evangellous said:

We can give it our best guess. The goal of textual criticism is to sort out the best guess of what the originals might have said, and the techniques of text criticism are the most reliable methodological study of the New Testament. It is because of text criticism that we even know that the Bible has been edited.

Click to expand...

In your studies have you discussed when this textual criticism first began? Is this something that Christian scholars have been discussing more recently or has it been a worry for hundreds of years?

angellous_evangellous said:

I hope not. God is not contained by anything as the divine Creator. Christians understand God as all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere present and the Bible is none of these things.

The Bible was placed in the care of humanity from its inception. These feeble hands have passed it on from human to human, and the Bible is riddled with our imperfection from beginning to end. Despite our inabilities, God remains God. We can't change who God is by editing the Bible.

Click to expand...

You've stated the often critisized beliefs of the LDS church very well.

jonny said:

You've stated the often critisized beliefs of the LDS church very well.

Click to expand...

Who can edit the texts is restricted. The edits must further the theology of the orthodox Church. Seriously.

We've been doing it a bit longer than the LDS.

NetDoc said:

Trot out some scriptures or are you making this up as you go along?

Show me where the scriptures claim to be inerrant.

Show me where the scriptures claim to be the Word of God.

Click to expand...

And I quote...............

Support for Inerrancy
from the Teachings of Christ

A study of what Jesus said about the Bible reveals not only His belief in its verbal, plenary inspiration, but that He also believed it was inerrant. In fact, the greatest testimony to the authenticity of the Bible as God’s inspired and inerrant Word is the Lord Jesus. Why is His testimony so important? Because God authenticated and proved Him to be His own divine Son by the resurrection (cf. Acts 2:22-36; 4:8-12; 17:30-31; Rom. 1:4). Christ not only clearly confirmed the authority of the Old Testament, but He specifically promised the New Testament.

Note what Christ taught about the inspiration of the Old Testament:

(1) Its entirety; the whole of the Bible is inspired (Matt. 4:4; 5:17-18). In Matthew 4:4, Jesus responded to Satan’s temptation by affirming verbal plenary inspiration when He said, man is to live by every word (plenary) that proceeds out of the mouth of God (inspiration). In Matthew 5:17-18, Christ promised that the entire Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets, would be fulfilled, not abolished. In fact, He declared that not even the smallest Hebrew letter, the yodh, which looks like an apostrophe (‘), or stroke of a letter, a small distinguishing extension or protrusion of several Hebrews letters (cf. the extension on the letter R with it absence on the letter P), would pass away until all is fulfilled. Christ’s point is that it is all inspired and true and will be fulfilled.

(2) Its historicity; He spoke of the Old Testament in terms of actual history. Adam and Eve were two human beings, created by God in the beginning, who lived and acted in certain ways (Matt. 19:3-5; Mark 10:6-8). He spoke of Jonah and his experience in the belly of the great fish as an historical event (Matt. 12:40). He also verified the events of the flood in Noah’s day along with the ark (Matt. 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27). He verified God’s destruction of Sodom and the historicity of Lot and his wife (Matt. 10:15; Luke 17:28-29). These are only a few illustrations; many others exist.

(3) Its reliability; because it is God’s word, the Scripture must be fulfilled (Matt. 26:54).

(4) Its sufficiency; it is sufficient to witness to the truth of God and His salvation (Luke 16:31).

(5) Its indestructibility; heaven and earth will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. Nothing can stop its fulfillment (Matt. 5:17-18).

(6) Its unity; the whole of the Bible speaks and witnesses to the person and work of Christ (Luke 24:27, 44).

(7) Its inerrancy; men are often in error, but the Bible is not; it is truth (Matt. 22:29; John 17:17).

(8) Its infallibility; the Bible cannot be broken, it always stands the test (John 10:35).

End of quote..............

Shalom.

jonny said:

In your studies have you discussed when this textual criticism first began? Is this something that Christian scholars have been discussing more recently or has it been a worry for hundreds of years?

Click to expand...

Yes. The earliest form of text criticism started with some of the earliest edits of the NT. We think that several edits in the NT were from redactors who had several versions and chose the best reading. The church fathers also spoke of more reliable texts. Text criticism has been with us since the beginning.

angellous_evangellous said:

Who can edit the texts is restricted. The edits must further the theology of the orthodox Church. Seriously.

Click to expand...

When you say orthodox church, are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox? If so, do you know of a resource that outlines the changes that have been made over the years?

jonny said:

When you say orthodox church, are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox? If so, do you know of a resource that outlines the changes that have been made over the years?

Click to expand...

Good question. I use the uncapitalized "orthodox" to refer to orthodox Christianity as outlined in our earlier creeds (Apostles', Nichene, and Athanasian), which includes the EO.

We don't have any originals of the NT. Every line of the NT has edits, so a list of changes will be rather extensive.

Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

Bruce Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration (2005, with Bart D. Ehrman)

jonny said:

When you say orthodox church, are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox? If so, do you know of a resource that outlines the changes that have been made over the years?

Click to expand...

I would also, for myself, wonder about any mistranslations that may have been done from the Greek to the English where it didn't follow the meaning of the Hebrew.

Let's make this simple...

One scripture that shows scripture to be inerrent. None of those you gave me did such a thing.

NetDoc said:

Let's make this simple...

One scripture that shows scripture to be inerrent. None of those you gave me did such a thing.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree to make this simple which I believe I did. I even quoted from someone else to make it not even from me that you might understand better being that I am not the best at trying to get my point across. I am not sure how I can make it anymore simpler than it, obviously, already is.

Shalom.

wmam said:

Yes I agree to make this simple which I believe I did. I even quoted from someone else to make it not even from me that you might understand better being that I am not the best at trying to get my point across. I am not sure how I can make it anymore simpler than it, obviously, already is.

Shalom.

Click to expand...

If plenary inspiration is actually true, and the words are so important, why don't we have all of them? We don't even know which words God "told" the original authors. If the words were so important, I would think that we would actually know all the words that God spoke.

wmam said:

Yes I agree to make this simple which I believe I did. I even quoted from someone else to make it not even from me that you might understand better being that I am not the best at trying to get my point across. I am not sure how I can make it anymore simpler than it, obviously, already is.

Shalom.

Click to expand...

By the lack of scripture that clearly states that the scriptures are inerrant, I will assume that you now can see that it clearly never states as such.

It's a proven fact, that if I tell someone something, who passes to on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, it doesn't take long for the original message to change. This is the hardest part of the Bible to understand. You must use your head, your heart, listen to God and use common sense... (the least common of the senses), to understand God's word.

jgallandt said:

It's a proven fact, that if I tell someone something, who passes to on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, it doesn't take long for the original message to change. This is the hardest part of the Bible to understand. You must use your head, your heart, listen to God and use common sense... (the least common of the senses), to understand God's word.

Click to expand...

Common sense dictates that plenary inspiration is not a plausible approach to Scripture.

NetDoc said:

By the lack of scripture that clearly states that the scriptures are inerrant, I will assume that you now can see that it clearly never states as such.

Click to expand...

That is your take and mine is that it is said to be TRUTH through out the entire Scriptures. It was so stated by YAH and by His Son YAHshua ha Mashaic ben Dawid. That is good enough for me.

wmam said:

That is your take and mine is that it is said to be TRUTH through out the entire Scriptures. It was so stated by YAH and by His Son YAHshua ha Mashaic ben Dawid. That is good enough for me.

Click to expand...

Did YAH or his Son YAHshua ever write anything that is preserved in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament? Aren't we reading copies of copies of copies of something that several other people wrote? The words in the Bible are what people received as they had visions or remember after many years from seeing Christ. Luke wasn't even there, and Paul saw Christ in a vision.

The rationale for plenary inspiration is thus: I feel more warm and fuzzy about the Bible than you, so what I believe must be true.

angellous_evangellous said:

If plenary inspiration is actually true, and the words are so important, why don't we have all of them? We don't even know which words God "told" the original authors. If the words were so important, I would think that we would actually know all the words that God spoke.

Click to expand...

I guess this is one that will just have to be left up to faith as so much is. Either you believe or you don't. As one once said......." You either will or you won't, or you'll do or you don't."

Like so many other things, in what we know as our world and universe, we either have to take it on faith or question it to the death. But to question something to the death to what end? Are we trying to disprove what is or isn't? If one believes something to be True then so be it. Why would anyone try so hard to sway one's belief one way or the other? If that person is solid in their belief then why would anyone care to waste their time to destabilize it? To what gain? What? To some how feel puffed up and feel larger than life that we had some way changed the thinking of ones mind? So silly. We debate here as to questions posed and to each of our beliefs. Why can't others just leave well enough alone what one feels to be Truth and they themselves be happy with their version without demeaning the other or demanding proof through Scriptures only to say themselves that Scriptures are not inerrant? I just don't understand. To me it is as it is and it is Truth.

angellous_evangellous,

Please accept my apology's that most, if not all of this, was not intended to be toward you, or anyone, but rather an observation on the whole. I must say that I have found myself just as guilty and I am not blameless. I to have sought out to either convert, inspire, or lead others to the path of Truth as I believe. At least here I do not believe that this should be done unless one ask for it. We shouldn't force ourselves on one another. We should simply state our beliefs and if questioned about them then answer to the best of our abilities and we shouldn't have to fear others condemning or demeaning that of which we state as our belief and understanding. I have stated that which I Know on this subject and am satisfied that I know that it be Truth. His Truth stands on it's own and needs no help from the likes of mere mortal man. This is what I know and I'm sticking to it.

Shalom.

angellous_evangellous said:

Did YAH or his Son YAHshua ever write anything that is preserved in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament? Aren't we reading copies of copies of copies of something that several other people wrote? The words in the Bible are what people received as they had visions or remember after many years from seeing Christ. Luke wasn't even there, and Paul saw Christ in a vision.

Click to expand...

Yes to all. At least this is part of my faith.

angellous_evangellous said:

The rationale for plenary inspiration is thus: I feel more warm and fuzzy about the Bible than you, so what I believe must be true.

Click to expand...

I like feeling warm and fuzzy. Don't you?

Its called difference of opinion and goes back to the beginning.

wmam said:

Yes to all. At least this is part of my faith.


I like feeling warm and fuzzy. Don't you?

Its called difference of opinion and goes back to the beginning.

Click to expand...

How do you know that YAH and/or his Son wrote anything?