• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nothing Short Of Perfection

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
To Forum members :

The writers and redactors – what they did


When the Israelites leaving Babylon started the process of adopting their new language which came to be square script “Hebrew”, this long process was not merely a change of alphabet but involved changes in grammar and the addition of pointing, vowels and rules of speech and grammar and idiom and it happened over a substantial period of time. A good example of the problems a misunderstanding of a single and simple idiomatic use of language using the word “sin” as an example is found in posts #57 and #67 in this very thread (and some context in posts in between these two posts).

Even the basic language the Jews were adopting was in flux as we know from their texts. For example, the Jewish greek translation of 300 b.c. demonstrates their Hebrew source did not yet have final letter forms, yet they had the dagesh forte. By Jesus’ time he could speak of the “yot” as part of their evolving alphabet. However, the eastern schools (e.g. babylonian) and the western (e.g. Jerusalem) schools were not united in their different and competiing proposals for how this new language would form and be pointed. Thus we see in early texts, different forms.

For example, in some early texts, the vowels are above the letters (mainly eastern) and in other texts, the vowel are below the text (mainly western). Even by Jesus time, the individuals called "Scribes" (in english texts) were not merely low-level "copiers" of text, but served as grammatarians as well. Thus in the greek new testament the word for scribe is γραμματευς grammateus. (Thus they felt they had a right to interpret their writings) The adoption of this new language we now know as the square script Hebrew was still in flux for many years.

There were many, many errors caused by this flux and change in language of a nation. The addition of matris lectiones caused it’s own sets of errors. The confusions caused by this evolution of the text into pointed script with full vowel pointing took place over a long period of time and along different lines in the eastern schools versus the western schools.

This fluidity of language and its unsettled rules caused problem for several centuries. It also was causing problems for the Massorites who are still in the process of adding full vowel pointing in the middle ages. The Massorites tell us this and there are also many lists of errors having to do with spelling and the creation of inaccurate phrases.

For example, David Christian Ginsberg, the foremost scholar of the Massorah of the last century gives us examples. For example, in more than 1500 (one thousand, five hundred) cases in just the printed psalter alone, they used vav (ו ) to express the vowel shurek and cholem or kibbutz, and the yod (י) they used to designate chirec, tzere, and segol. One problem is that the redactors were inconsistent in the use of these substitutes. Because there are fifteen hundren examples in the psalter alone, one can imagine the list if I attempted to post it. However, there are examples on almost every page of the first printed psalter. (Ginsberg gives 4 pages, single spaced in his example list in his book on the Massorah).

Lists of Omissions divided into three classes. Omissions of whole verses. Omissions of half of a verse, and omissions of single words.

The point is that these errors are the types of errors that one expects with any translation from one language to another language, or with inability to accurately translate idiom, and with the formation of a new language in flux and when grammatical rules and even the vowels are in flux.




Billiardsball;


Clear said (#149) "I gave examples concerning errors in posts, 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132. Most of these examples of errors were admissions of errors that originate from the very individual groups who create the bible which you theorize is "inerrant". The creators of the text are telling you there are errors in the text they created, AND they are giving you lists of errors in their text. To then try to elevate and embellish this text to a status of "inerrant" is irrational.
Billiardsball said (#151) "The Masoretes are etc. on extant record were not there, and never claimed to be there, when the text was written!
Clear replied : You do realize that it was theMasoriteswho created theMasoreticBible text and they created theMasorahwith its lists of errors in their text? Their text is the main authoritative text for Rabbinic Judaism. As yet another example of error, their list describes an error in Isaiah 9:3 which, in the KJV reads :Thou hast multiplied the nation and not increased the joy...” Many other bibles have exactly the opposite “Thou hast multiplied the nation and increased their joy...”. These opposing textual renderings cannot both represent inerrancy. This is a VERY well known error (google it). How does one claim inerrancy in texts that have hundreds of such obvious and objective and well-known errors? Name a single bible translation that does not have such errors in their text and translation.
Billiardsball replied : #153 I was Bar Mitzvah using a Masoretic Bible. The Masorites had the role to “count” texts that were pre-existing before them. They were “counting” not “writing and redacting” scriptures as they copied scrolls already extant.

This new theory of yours that the writers and redactors of the text merelycounted letters” is irrational and historically inaccurate.

Yes, they counted letters as well as wrote new text and redacted prior text. It made the inerrantists feel good to create the myth that counting was the ONLY thing they did, but the scholars and textual historians, who knew better, never bought into it. If we retreat into the “land of denial and closed eyes” by creating and then repeating myths and creating even more theories to create an alternative history to live in, then we cannot have rational, logical and meaningful communication with individuals who have accepted authentic history. Also, if we invent and live in alternate history and try to teach this to others, then our claims as Christians become historically irrelevant to the extent that they are untrue.

For example, even in this thread, after readers have seen for themselves, objective errors in the masoretic text, what happens to your credibility and the strength of your claim to “inerrancy” when they can see for themselves that the ancient text has error? Throwing away credibility is not good. Though you complain that I am introducing them to uncomfortable truths, still, at some point, upon simple study of the scriptures, they would have found out these things on their own.

Billiardsball said ; Why did you accuse me of lying [“patently, not “patiently” and obviously untrue”]?......Spend some more time evangelizing our Savior
Billiardsball, I don’t believe that offering an erroneous theory that ancient biblical texts are perfectly inerrant is “evangelizing” our Savior.

It is, instead, false advertising of texts and is bound to disappoint those who buy into it. You say you are “attempting to honor holy writ”. I think your motive itself is fine and honorable, but the method of offering false advertising is misguided and honors neither the text nor the God who tells us we must not bear false witness.

You could simply tell individuals that you are aware that there are errors in all texts but that the many textual witnesses are yet valuable as they offer recurring, constant witnesses regarding Gods’ relationship to man and of his love and regarding the Savior Jesus’ superlative life and sacrifice. You could teach individuals about praying and developing a personal witness as God reveals himself to them and witnesses to them that he loves them and will guide them if they will but seek him.


Billardsball said : “…and less time saying His followers are lying, and naïve, and irrelevant and insincere and the rest, …”
Billiardsball; You are interpreting my words incorrectly. Sit back, relax and be at peace. As to "his followers", Christians are, in the main, quite honest and good and are attempting to achieve a relationship with the God they love and who loves them and they are as honorable as any in their attempts to be obedient to God.. I am not speaking of them in my post. I am speaking about you in this case.

However, I am not saying that you are personally attempting to consciously lead people astray. I am saying that that your theory is patently and obviously false as I’ve already demonstrated to forum readers. Your theory is historically, naïve and it is irrelevant to reality.

IF you are sinning by teaching a false theory of “inerrancy” out of ignorance of truth, then I think it is "שגגח", which refers to a sin or error committed through ignorance. This is not the same as "חטא" which is an error or sin that is done with knowledge of the truth (and thus carries intent to deceive). As, as a self-proclaimed mesianic Jew, you should understand this difference. Other forum members can make their own judgments as to why you continue to teach inerrancy, when they can see, with their own eyes that it is incorrect.

Meanwhile, I think that if you would limit your testimony to things you actually do know; that is, things you have seen and experienced, then your witness will have better credibility.


What do you make of the error in Genesis 1:31?


I hope your spiritual journey is good and wonderful Billiardsball

Clear
τωφιεισεω
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Hi Clear,

Question 1: Thank you for providing an historical overview of some of the inherent problems in translation. Since the original texts were written without the vowel points at issue, we still have them—the documents as they were meant to be preserved. The consonants/originals the Masoretes received are the consonants/originals we have available today. So I cannot be logical and say the Masoretes changed God's Word. How is it you feel they've altered the text beyond recognition if you know what alterations were made?

Question 2: If you don’t adhere to inerrancy, how do you know of “the wonderful love of the Savior” or that I’m committing a “sin” of “omission” and so forth? How can you with authority point to the Bible to reprove my doctrine if you cannot say with certainty any one passage of scripture is original, inspired or inerrant?

Question 3: What error do you believe Jesus Christ made in authoring Genesis 1:31?

Thanks!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
What Scripture says heaven comes to earth ? ______________They are two separate distinct locations or places. Heaven was Not on earth in Eden. Eden was on earth.

If one wants to know what a Catholic believes he goes to a Catholic.
If one wants to know what a Jew believes he goes to a Jewish person.
If one wants to know what a Buddhist believes he goes to a Buddhist.
So, if one wants to know what a Jehovah's Witness believes he can go to www.jw.org

If one wants to know Christian doctrine one should read the NT scriptures. But I'm aware that JW Bible studies are VERY directed. One is disallowed from asking questions not in the authorized tools for "teaching" the Bible.

The Heavenly City comes down to Earth in Revelation and "God shall DWELL with them."
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Yes, New Jerusalem - Revelation 21:1-2; Revelation 3:12 - comes down from God out of heaven, but is everything in Revelation literal ?______

Doesn't Jesus end up with earthly subjects from ' sea to sea ' according to Psalms 72:8 ?_______

Yet, Revelation 21:1 B says there was No more sea. How could Jesus have citizens from sea to sea if the sea is No more unless Rev. 21:1 is Not a literal sea or ocean ?______

Isaiah 57:20 likens the wicked to a restless sea. See also Isaiah 17:11-13 Not the literal sea but wicked mankind is what is destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7

Revelation 17:1 B and Revelation 17:15 likens people to water and we know people are Not literal water.

Isn't Jesus the head or leader of the Christian congregation? _______ Ephesians 5:23 - Jesus is Not literally down here on earth. Yet in that sense Jesus dwells with the congregation.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yes, New Jerusalem - Revelation 21:1-2; Revelation 3:12 - comes down from God out of heaven, but is everything in Revelation literal ?______

Doesn't Jesus end up with earthly subjects from ' sea to sea ' according to Psalms 72:8 ?_______

Yet, Revelation 21:1 B says there was No more sea. How could Jesus have citizens from sea to sea if the sea is No more unless Rev. 21:1 is Not a literal sea or ocean ?______

Isaiah 57:20 likens the wicked to a restless sea. See also Isaiah 17:11-13 Not the literal sea but wicked mankind is what is destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7

Revelation 17:1 B and Revelation 17:15 likens people to water and we know people are Not literal water.

Isn't Jesus the head or leader of the Christian congregation? _______ Ephesians 5:23 - Jesus is Not literally down here on earth. Yet in that sense Jesus dwells with the congregation.

You must understand that in Revelation:

*65% is direct OT prophecy fulfillment/OT quotation

*Therefore, much of Revelation is using biblical plays on words to indicate very literal things

I hope Christians obey Jesus to be FISHERS in the SEA of humanity. In the end of days, as you know, there will be no more SEA of humanity. Either Heavenly citizens and people lost in Hell (evangelical doctrine) or Earthly citizens, 144,000 Heavenly citizens and people annihilated (JW doctrine).

So how come JW's believe in 144,000 LITERAL Heavenly citizens not understanding that they are LITERAL Jewish people from 12 LITERAL tribes of Israel? BE CONSISTENT, please!
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
1) Billiardsball claimed in post # 162 : " Since the original texts were written without the vowel points at issue, we still have them—the documents as they were meant to be preserved. "

Here you are making another historical blunder. We do NOT have any original texts of any biblical documents, whether old OR new Testaments. We cannot even say what the original languages might have been or what the original texts might have looked like.

My point in discussing the shift in language is to show that the adoption of Hebrew by the Israelites brought with it a whole host of errors that resulted from a shift from one language to another language and, this must have happened multiple times as the Hebrews adopted multiple languages, AND, we are only speaking of the types of errors that have been described by the translators, redactors, writers, correctors of the text. We have not yet started into the types of errors that we know exist but for which there is no mechanism to correct them. Ommissions for example, How does one correct a text which is absent, but for which we do not have an earlier, fuller version to correct it. The many, many errors of omission in the book of Samuel are good examples. Such errors cannot BE corrected by any known means without source texts.



2) Billiardball asked : "If you don’t adhere to inerrancy, how do you know of “the wonderful love of the Savior
Errors do not make textual witnesses worthless
The fact that ancient texts have multiple errors of multiple types does not mean that they do not contain much that is wonderful and good. Errors do not meant that repetitive, thematic descriptions are of no value. Not only is there much in biblical texts that describe the Saviors’ love but there are many, many types of extrabiblical witnesses that form other genres of literature left to us by early Christians that help describe their experiences and their witnesses of the love of the Savior. Early Christian Diaries, their lectionaries, their hymns, their psalms, their mishnas, their sacred and non-sacred literature, the ascension and decension literature, the early fiction literature, the eastern literature forming the eastern bible canon (which is much more extensive than the western bible), the apocalyptic literature, etc.

The witness of revelation to an individual
However, of greater value to the individual than literature which describes Gods relationship with another person or group of another time period is the value of the spirit of God and the process of being born again and the personal witness of the spirit concerning the “wonderful love of the Savior”. The witness of the spirit is also more powerful of a witness than reading a text describing someone elses' witness.


3) Billiardsball asked regarding the text and whether he was “committing a “sin” –
My actual words were : “IF you are sinning by teaching a false theory of “inerrancy” out of ignorance of truth, then I think it is "שגגח", which refers to a sin or error committed through ignorance. This is not the same as "חטא" which is an error or sin that is done with knowledge of the truth (and thus carries intent to deceive). As, as a self-proclaimed mesianic Jew, you should understand this difference.

My point was that IF you are committing a sin by teaching a doctrine that is patently and obviously false (and thereby, doing harm to the credibility of the Christian witness itself since your witness harms Christian credibility), then if you do not know the truth, it is a smaller transgression than if you are teaching a doctrine that you actually KNOW to be incorrect.



4) Billiardsball asked : " How can you with authority point to the Bible to reprove my doctrine if you cannot say with certainty any one passage of scripture is original, inspired or inerrant? "

The definition of inerrancy means that there are "no errors". Since all ancient biblical texts of any significant size have errors, by definition and by multiple, objective examples, it is easy to demonstrate that your theory and doctrine that no errors exist in the text is incorrect.

You are unaware of most errors that exist. If you are unaware of them, then you cannot fix them. For example, you cannot fix errors of omission for which the original texts is gone, and there exists no correct text to replace what is missing. Often, we do not know something IS missing, until we discover new text. The discovery of ommitted texts demonstrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls is a good example.

For example, a lost passage of scripture of Samuel was finally able to be replaced only after the discovery of the dead sea scrolls. The missing paragraph belongs to 1 Samuel 11:1. It presents forty nine words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse. AND, there are omissions in many, many of the verses in this chapter and others. "New Samuel" is not the same as old samuel. This is simply another of many, many, many examples of omissions that cannot be corrected until we have some source of the text that should be replaced. We simply don't know what the original texts said.

What would you do with the error in Genesis 1:31?

Clear
τωφυσιειω
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I hope Christians obey Jesus to be FISHERS in the SEA of humanity. In the end of days, as you know, there will be no more SEA of humanity. Either Heavenly citizens and people lost in Hell (evangelical doctrine) or Earthly citizens, 144,000 Heavenly citizens and people annihilated (JW doctrine).

So how come JW's believe in 144,000 LITERAL Heavenly citizens not understanding that they are LITERAL Jewish people from 12 LITERAL tribes of Israel? BE CONSISTENT, please!

It makes sense in the big picture.....do you have a big picture BB?

In Genesis it begins with a life offered to humanity that was entirely earthly and everlasting,. They were given ideal surroundings with everything they needed to make living a pleasure that could be enjoyed forever. But the whole world was wild and untamed outside the garden, so the instruction to them was to "fill the earth" with their kind and "subdue" the land outside the garden until the whole earth looked like Eden. Imagine how long that would take with only two humans to start the process.....there was no mention of death at all, except as a penalty for disobedience to one simple command that placed no hardship on them at all. Death would only come if they disobeyed that one command. There was no long list of rules, just a wonderful life promised of unending life in the most ideal surroundings.This was God's first purpose and we have no reason to believe that he abandoned it.

In his decision to give humans free will, God opened up opportunity for them to make choices; this faculty would serve to enhance their lives in so many ways, but it could also be disastrous if they chose to do wrong....so God kept a knowledge of evil away from them, secured behind a very severe penalty. Had they continued to respect his law and his property and acknowledge all that he had generously provided for them, God's original purpose for man would have turned out to be a wonderful success. Heaven never featured in that scenario at all.

But humans were not the only possessors of free will. Spirit creatures also possessed this gift. One of them entertained wrong desires and rebelled when opportunity was placed before him to become a god to these new, lesser beings. He plotted a way to undo all that God had purposed so that he could obtain what he wanted....but it appears that he underestimated God's response to his actions.

The first thing God did was to evict the sinners from the garden and bar the way to the only means there was to keep them from dying...."the tree of life". (Gen 3:22-24)

Right there in Eden, God prophesied the way he would solve the difficulties that his free willed creatures had created by their disobedience. (Gen 3:15) He promised a seed who would deliver a crushing head wound to the rebel who caused this whole mess, but not before the rebel was permitted to give this seed a heel wound.
This has all occurred in God's time, not ours.

In the beginning, there was no "heaven or hell" offered to human beings.....sin introduced "death" which meant only a cessation of life.
God told Adam in Gen 3:19:
"By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat until you return to the ground from which you were made.
For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return.”


Adam was not told he would go to a place of eternal punishment....but simply that he would go back to where he had been before God created him. The eternal punishment was death....period....a return to the ground.

But what about Adam's children who were born in sin through no fault on their part? How would God rescue them?
God's perfect justice demanded "soul for soul" (literally "life for life") A perfect life had been lost, so a perfect life would need to be offered to balance the scales of justice....enter the seed...the one with the perfect, sinless life.

Jesus had to have his perfect life transferred from heaven to the womb of a Jewish virgin, so that Gen 3:15 could be fulfilled. The seed of the woman and the seed of the devil would be at odds all through this whole time period, but ultimately the heel wound would result in a 'glancing blow' from which Jesus recovered when he was executed and God resurrected him. The perfect life was paid and the debt was cancelled.
Jesus' resurrection guaranteed a resurrection also for those who died as a result of Adam's sin.

Jesus came from heaven as a former spirit, being given a body of flesh and blood....a totally mortal human who could offer his perfect life in exchange for the one Adam lost for his children.
God purposed that a kingdom would be set up to rule mankind and bring redeemed humanity back into an acceptable condition to become reconciled with their Creator, but the barrier of sin had to be removed first.

The final part of God's plan of salvation is looming. Jesus chose the 12 as a foundation for his kingdom. He made a covenant with these ones and told them that they would rule with him in heaven, but that they would have to give up their earthly life and rule with him in heaven. All of the first Christians had that "heavenly calling" (Heb 3:1)...a desire so strong that the apostle Paul could hardly wait to be rid of his sinful flesh and to depart to where his Lord was. This was not to take place until the Lord's return, so all would sleep in death until that time. (1 Thess 4:13-17) Those of that group who were alive when Christ returned would be instantly transformed and taken to heaven.

Since flesh and blood cannot exist in the spirit realm, these "chosen ones" have to be given a spirit body just like Jesus had when God raised him. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was raised in exactly the same body that he had before coming to earth. He was raised "in the spirit". But like other spirit beings, he was able to materialize human bodies when "appearing" to his disciples.

The ones chosen to rule with Jesus (144,000) will also be given spiritual bodies. The kingdom is a government with appointed rulers who will also be priests. (Rev 20:6) Rulers need subjects and priests need sinners so that they can act as priests and intercede for them with God. This kingdom rules for 1,000 years.

Revelation 21:1-5 tells us what this rulership will mean for those redeemed by Christ's sacrifice....all the way back to Abel.

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
(ESV)

Who are these ones ruling? "MAN" This is describing the 'coming' of God's Kingdom (the one Jesus taught us to pray for) and a return to the conditions described in Genesis at the beginning of human life.....there will be 'no more death, pain and suffering' because God has removed all the things that caused it by means of his kingdom in the hands of his Christ and 144,000 "chosen ones" who assist him in bringing the human race back to God in paradise where he originally intended for them to live forever.

This is the big picture for Jehovah's Witnesses and it makes perfect sense rather than everyone going to heaven...what would be the point in that? If Adam had never sinned, Jesus would not have been required to lay down his life and no kingdom or priests and kings would have been necessary. Humans would only ever have known everlasting life on earth in paradise conditions. :)
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Clear,

1. No, we don’t have any texts extant old enough to be original texts. We do have, as you know the consonant texts the Masorites had. My point stands that the Masorites:

a. Did not invent new texts
b. Did not DARE redact existing texts
c. Were the most literal hand-copyists in history, and when they were done they would COUNT, as you certainly know leads to the very name of Masora, and if ONE LETTER was misplaced or mistaken they would set the scroll on fire and disintegrate it!
d. You should certainly know how the Dead Sea Scrolls further show that in the post-exilic/modern period the copyists continued to do the most intense, most scrutinized hand-copy process of all time. You probably know that only a couple of indefinite articles (a, the) no change in meaning are extant in copies of Isaiah 1,000 years apart, with over 50,000 Hebrew words.

2. I appreciate your desire to tell us the many values of the errant Bible texts, but again, how do you know where it says Jesus loves us it is correct, that is, inerrant?

You mentioned the validity of the born again experience. Such experience is called such from Jesus’s words in the third chapter of John. Please prove that statements like those in John 3:3 and 3:16-17 are accurate and not errant.

3. I the Hebrew isn’t inerrant, than how do you know saying anyone ever commits a sin of omission is actually committing a sin? How do you know the text’s descriptions of sins are correct, by the way?

4. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain original texts, how do you know that redactors didn’t mess with the texts to ADD 49 NEW words that weren’t in the originals. It would be different if the scrolls omitted words. Again, I wouldn't hesitate to appeal to the scrolls and then later texts as great examples of the exception, superb accuracy of the copyists among my people, but also wouldn't hesitate to mention that the Qumraner's were likely a fringe group with false "Messianic" ideas and could have added a few words to a Samuel text. Shame it missed the fire instead of a jar of clay, but...

5. I don’t think I’ve been presented with an error from 1:31 other than atheists complaining about God making a good universe that falls. What is the bee in your bonnet, please?

And as an aside, when people who are as well-educated as you say things like "The Bible has many, many errors but lots of good things for us to follow," you do more harm than good and promulgate a false gospel. I was honestly surprised to hear you speak of spiritual birth and regeneration by being born again when you don't know if John's gospel has errors...?!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Deeje,

Thanks for your post, but "The ones chosen to rule with Jesus (144,000) [who] will also be given spiritual bodies..." are actually 12 groups of 12,000 each, with 12 patriarchal names given. I don't think I've ever heard the Jehovah's Witnesses' explanation for why 12 different Israelite leaders were named. Any ideas there?

Also, the 144,000 are "sealed" and you can read about "seals" and markings elsewhere in Revelation and the OT, but where does it say they get "spiritual bodies"? Are you thinking of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15, perhaps?
 

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
Jesus is God but is not the Father. There is no conflict in God but it is the Son who took on the salvific role as mediator. The Holy Spirit leads us to the Son who mediates between us and the Father. Why God has chosen to operate in one way or the other is a pointless question because we can't know the mind of God. All that we do know is that the rejection of Christ is the rejection of salvation.

You claim to be Christian yet you seem make a public point in renouncing it at every turn. What exactly does Christianity even mean to you?
Bingo. God is the community of the divine persons. One God (the community), three persons.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Billiardsball says : "No, we don’t have any texts extant old enough to be original texts. We do have, as you know the consonant texts the Masorites had. My point stands that the Masorites:
a. Did not invent new texts
b. Did not DARE redact existing texts
c. Were the most literal hand-copyists in history, and when they were done they would COUNT, as you certainly know leads to the very name of Masora, and if ONE LETTER was misplaced or mistaken they would set the scroll on fire and disintegrate it!
d. You should certainly know how the Dead Sea Scrolls further show that in the post-exilic/modern period the copyists continued to do the most intense, most scrutinized hand-copy process of all time. You probably know that only a couple of indefinite articles (a, the) no change in meaning are extant in copies ofIsaiah 1,000 years apart, with over 50,000 Hebrew words.



These sorts of advertisements of “inerrancy” were always dead in the water since they are not based on historical reality. The “consonant texts” as you call them will not help you create this alternate universe of "inerrancy" since they themselves are neither “original” nor inerrant, but themselves contained many errors and conflicts.

For example, the Masoretes, describe how they were required to invent the new biblical text out of older, conflicting texts. The sopherim describe the errors and conflicts in source texts they used and they describe rules by which they redacted and created their biblical text which you inherited.

A) TALMUDIC DESCRIPTIONS OF TEXTUAL ERRORS AND HOW THEY WERE HANDLED
For example, the Jerusalem Talmud describes (in Taanith VI:2) the difficulties the sopherim met in dealing with multiple conflicting codices as they were creating their bible (just as modern translators see error and conflict between manuscripts). The Sopherim did not know which textual conflicts were correct, so they developed a rule to choose between conflicting Codices. It was a bit like rolling a set of dice.

The Talmuds’ description says : “Three Codices (of the Pentateuch) were in the Court of the Temple, Codex Meon, Codex Zaatute and Codex Hi. In one reading was מעון (refuge) [Deut 33:27], and the other two Codices read מעונח [with the final He], the reading of the two was accepted and that of the one Codex was rejected. One Codex read זעטוטי [ζητητης] enquiries of [Exod 24:5] and the other two Codices read נערי young men of, the reading of the two Codices was accepted and that of the one Codex was rejected. In one Codex the reading היא[with yod) occurred nine times and in the other two Codices it occurred eleven times, the reading of the two Codices was accepted and that of the one Codex was rejected. 408

In this specific example, the redactors used a simple, but often erroneous rule of “majority”. That is, they somewhat arbitrarily picked a version of text that was present in the highest numbers in various conflicting codices and then used that text in the bible they created. This example is only a single, sample description from hundreds of such conflicts from which redactors worked to create a bible for the Rabbinic Jewish masses who then adopted it as a “standard”.



B) REGARDING INERRANCYS' "WORD COUNTING" CLAIM :

Since the sopherim were paid based on letters copied, they counted letters to determine their pay. However, this habit became useful as a tool to measure consistency as well. This later use is what you are referring to. Your claim that the texts could not have a single letter error or they were "burned" is naive and silly in the extreme. Errors are a part of life.

To use a model codex as an example : In the famous EDITIO PRINCEPS of Jacob b. Chayim’s rabbinic Bible, at the end of the six Parashas, lists of sum totals of WORDS are quite incorrect. To be clear, I am not now speaking of the numbers of LETTERS that are in error, but the number of WORDS that are in error. These errors have been known for hundreds of years and it is an example of similar errors found in other codices.

For examples :
Gen XLI1-XLIV:17 has 2025 word, but ought to only have 2022 words.
Numb XVI:11-XVII:32 has 1462 words, but ought to have 1409 words.
Num XIX:1 – XXII:1 has 1454 words, but ought to be 1245 words.
Num XXII:2-XXV:9 has 1450 words, but there should be 1455 words.
Deut III:23 – VII:11 has 1870 words, but ought to have 1878 words.
Deut VII:12 – XI:25 has 1746 words, but ought to have 1747 words.

Even more glaring are the mistakes that are apparent when one looks at the sum-totals of letters in Genesis. The number of mistakes in counting the total error demonstrated by counting add up to an incredibly large number. The printed Massorah says it ought to have 4395 letters, but it has, instead 87064. This is, itself, a mistake.

Yes, counting was done, and it confirms there are many mistakes and conflicts in the codices. However, counting could neither correct the mistakes nor tell the redactor what correction should be implemented. (For example look at the example of the rule of “corrections”).



C) RULES OF CORRECTION, AN EXAMPLE RULE FOR REDACTORS OF THE TEXT:
The actual rules whereby a Codex would be correctable versus those that could not be corrected are not only somewhat arbitrary in their nature, but the rules are nothing like the rules your inerrancy theory advertised. An example from one canon is as follows (and I am quoting…)

Three mistakes [in each column] may be corrected, but if there are four the Codex must be buried. It is propounded: If the Codex has one correct column it saves the whole Codex. R. Isaac b. Martha said in the name of Rab if the greater part of the Codex is correct. Said Abayi to R. Joseph if the Codex has three mistakes in one column what is to be done? He replied. It must be given to be corrected and it is right. This [i.e. the duty to correct it] is applicable to defectives only [i.e. when plenes have been written defective], but in the case of plenes [i.e. when plenes have been written instead of defectives] we need not trouble about it.

Thus, when a plene error happens, the scribe had no duty to have the codex corrected. The rule tells us that to write a plene as a defective, is a serious mistake ONLY when three such mistakes occur in a single column. AND, it is only when four occur in a single column that the Codex is abandoned to the Geninza. The reverse sorts of mistakes (i.e. a defective written plene), are not even considered serious. Thus, when in doubt, the scribes tended to write plene. Ginsberg observes that such rules “explains the fact that so many cases of plene have with impunity crept into the manuscripts.” (gwf 157) To create the silly advertisement that codices were “set on fire” when a single letter is found in error is simply a silly, irrelevant fantasy and has nothing to do with authentic history. Of course the redactors knew there would be errors made.



D) REGARDING THE REQUEST THAT I PROVE INERRANCY FOR YOU
Billiardsball said : I appreciate your desire to tell us the many values of the errant Bible texts, but again, how do you know where it says Jesus loves us it is correct, that is, inerrant?
You mentioned the validity of the born again experience. Such experience is called such from Jesus’s words in the third chapter of John. Please prove that statements like those inJohn 3:3and 3:16-17 are accurate and not errant
.
If the Hebrew isn’t inerrant, than how do you know saying anyone ever commits a sin of omission is actually committing a sin? How do you know the text’s descriptions of sins are correct, by the way?

You are joking, right? You are asking me to prove inerrancy? Really?
If you read this thread you will see that YOU are the one who is advertising inerrancy that "slices and dices" and I am demonstrating over and over that it is an incorrect theory.

If you believe in inerrancy, then YOU are the one who is invited to prove your point. I might point out that you've done nothing to prove inerrancy other than to repeat your bald claims while readers have seen example after example of objective data showing that inerrancy is a fantasy.


D) REGARDING BILLIARDSBALLS' IGNORANCE OF AN ERROR IN THE TEXT
Billiardsball said : I don’t think I’ve been presented with an error from 1:31 other than atheists complaining about God making a good universe that falls. What is the bee in your bonnet, please?
Are you admitting that you are unaware of the error in Genesis 1:31?
IF you are ignorant of an error in Genesis 1:31, then how can you possibly claim to know what is inerrant from errant.
IF you are ignorant of an error in Genesis 1:31, then how can you claim it can be fixed and corrected?
IF you are ignorant of an error in Genesis1:31, then do you think it's possible that you are ignorant of other errors?
IF you, who are somewhat familiar with biblical content are ignorant of many errors that exist, then don't you think it's likely that a large number of christians who are even less familiar with biblical text are unaware of errors?

Readers have seen, over and over, that your theory of inerrancy is simply inconsistent with the real historical world. I'm guessing readers are becoming tired with the concept.

In any case Billiardsball, I hope your spiritual Journey is a good one as you learn to deal with historical realities.

Clear
τωσεδρτωω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Clear,

Please allow me to help. I think this will clear your confusion. You are quoting the Talmud in support of your case:

When do you think the Masorites did their first work?

When do you think the Talmud moved from oral (traditions passed down) to written form?


I think a careful study of the dates will enlighten you, bearing in mind that in ancient and modern courts of law and in logic, commentators making assertions hundreds of years after events are not considered--well, inerrant!

As for the other, it sounds like your syllogism is:

1. BB thinks the Bible is inerrant.
2. The Bible is errant.
3. BB is errant.

But I have instead:

1. The Bible is inerrant.
2. I'm being accused of not knowing some imagined error in Genesis 1.
3. Therefore, my accuser is mistaken.

Does that help?
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Billiardsball said : “ I was honestly surprised to hear you speak of spiritual birth and regeneration by being born again when you don't know if John's gospel has errors...?!

I thought this point had merit and deserved a reply.

You should not be surprised at the description of being born again and of the spirit of God as a means of education and change inside of the Christian experience of any age. Authentic, historical religion has always been characterized by communication between God and mankind, including individuals. The Christian literature is full of the witness that God is very willing to communicate with his children whom he loves and desires to assist in learning principles that will, prepare them to ultimately live in a social heaven in joy and harmony.

The spirit of God is an integral part, not only of communication between God and mankind, but in assisting mankind through this educational experience. It is as Barnabas describes, a “renewing”, as though God was "making men of another type”,”as if he were creating us all over again.”

The simple observation that texts have some errors in them does not affect the actual gospel at all, nor does it affect any true or authentic principle of authentic religion. God works with imperfect men and men produce imperfect witnesses. Thus, when you find spelling errors, or incorrect words in my posts (e.g. if I write “patiently incorrect", rather than “patently incorrect" ....), it doesn’t affect the value of a personal witness, nor does it change the facts of our Christian experiences given us by the spirit, which witness to us of spiritual truths.

Yes, John does have errors in the text. Still, John remains a profound and wonderful witness of the Savior of mankind. Truly and honestly, Christians have nothing to fear from knowledge and from admitting there are errors in the ancient texts.


Clear
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Billiardsball said : “...it sounds like your syllogism is:

1. BB thinks the Bible is inerrant.
2. The Bible is errant.
3. BB is errant.

But I have instead:

1. The Bible is inerrant.
2. I'm being accused of not knowing some imagined error in Genesis 1.
3. Therefore, my accuser is mistaken
.”


Billiardsball and forum members : My logic is as follows

Regarding “inerrancy” of ancient texts :
1. Billiardsball teaches that the biblical text has no errors.
2. The biblical text has obvious and objective errors, as my multiple examples show.
3. Billiardsball is in error.

Regarding the theory that "The redactors didn’t really redact"
1. Billiardsball teaches that the Masorites, sopherim, etc. did not redact texts.
2. The Sopherim and Masorites redacted the texts and give us many objective examples of this.
3. There is a great deal of objective data showing redaction and Billiardsball has give NO examples (not a single one) showing texts were not redacted just as the Masorites claimed to have done.
3. Billiardsball is in error on this point.

Regarding the “Even one bad letter gets a manuscript burned” theory :
1. Billiardsball teaches that if ONE LETTER was misplaced or mistaken, they would “burn the scroll”
2. The Sopherim and Masorites did not “burn the scroll” but had logical rules of corrections.
3. We have multiple manuscripts that have evidence of corrections being made and Billiardsball has NO examples (not a single one) showing texts are perfect without errors despite being asked for an example.
4. Billiardsball is in error on this point.

Regarding the theory of “change of indefinite articles” in Isaiah theory :
1. Billiardball teaches that Qumran Isaiah (Dead Sea Scroll Isaiah) shows “that only a couple of indefinite articles (a, the) no changes in meaning are extant...
2. Billiardsball doesn’t even realize that Hebrew doesn’t even HAVE an indefinite article in it’s language and is simply repeating a party line he heard somewhere.
3. Billiardsball is willing to offer a great deal of errancy to teach inerrancy. This is not good.
4. Billardsballs’ data is simply not credible.


My conclusion is that :
Billiardsball really, truly, badly, wants to believe in inerrancy in his desires to “honor the text”, and so continues to cling to this theory. However, no historian of the text, no scholar of the text, no one who has enough knowledge to work with ancient texts teaches this fantasy, but instead, they report what they see with their own eyes, working with the texts. Thus, is it those most ignorant of the actual data, who are making this claim and adhering to this theory.

These are my specific syllogisms

Billiardsball. Really, there is nothing to fear from allowing the actual texts to speak of their historical past. Creation of an alternate history only helps if one remains INSIDE that alternate world. IF one, then wants to discuss actual and real history with individuals who are engaged in real history, then the alternate history will not work and is exposed for what it is. It may seem like it honors God to embellish and exagerate the qualities of Christians and Christian "things", but that will only work until one compares the exagerations and embellishments with reality. Then such exagerations disappoint and deflate and frustrate.

Clear
τωσεσιτωω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Billiardsball said : “ I was honestly surprised to hear you speak of spiritual birth and regeneration by being born again when you don't know if John's gospel has errors...?!

I thought this point had merit and deserved a reply.

You should not be surprised at the description of being born again and of the spirit of God as a means of education and change inside of the Christian experience of any age. Authentic, historical religion has always been characterized by communication between God and mankind, including individuals. The Christian literature is full of the witness that God is very willing to communicate with his children whom he loves and desires to assist in learning principles that will, prepare them to ultimately live in a social heaven in joy and harmony.

The spirit of God is an integral part, not only of communication between God and mankind, but in assisting mankind through this educational experience. It is as Barnabas describes, a “renewing”, as though God was "making men of another type”,”as if he were creating us all over again.”

The simple observation that texts have some errors in them does not affect the actual gospel at all, nor does it affect any true or authentic principle of authentic religion. God works with imperfect men and men produce imperfect witnesses. Thus, when you find spelling errors, or incorrect words in my posts (e.g. if I write “patiently incorrect", rather than “patently incorrect" ....), it doesn’t affect the value of a personal witness, nor does it change the facts of our Christian experiences given us by the spirit, which witness to us of spiritual truths.

Yes, John does have errors in the text. Still, John remains a profound and wonderful witness of the Savior of mankind. Truly and honestly, Christians have nothing to fear from knowledge and from admitting there are errors in the ancient texts.


Clear

Clear,

You write textual errors in the Bible do not affect the Bible. Yet, for one notable example, scholars debate whether the end of Mark, a summary statement including the gospel and its implications/repercussions, should be included in the text. Do you think Mark 16:9-20 is scriptural or...?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Billiardsball said : “...it sounds like your syllogism is:

1. BB thinks the Bible is inerrant.
2. The Bible is errant.
3. BB is errant.

But I have instead:

1. The Bible is inerrant.
2. I'm being accused of not knowing some imagined error in Genesis 1.
3. Therefore, my accuser is mistaken
.”


Billiardsball and forum members : My logic is as follows

Regarding “inerrancy” of ancient texts :
1. Billiardsball teaches that the biblical text has no errors.
2. The biblical text has obvious and objective errors, as my multiple examples show.
3. Billiardsball is in error.

Regarding the theory that "The redactors didn’t really redact"
1. Billiardsball teaches that the Masorites, sopherim, etc. did not redact texts.
2. The Sopherim and Masorites redacted the texts and give us many objective examples of this.
3. There is a great deal of objective data showing redaction and Billiardsball has give NO examples (not a single one) showing texts were not redacted just as the Masorites claimed to have done.
3. Billiardsball is in error on this point.

Regarding the “Even one bad letter gets a manuscript burned” theory :
1. Billiardsball teaches that if ONE LETTER was misplaced or mistaken, they would “burn the scroll”
2. The Sopherim and Masorites did not “burn the scroll” but had logical rules of corrections.
3. We have multiple manuscripts that have evidence of corrections being made and Billiardsball has NO examples (not a single one) showing texts are perfect without errors despite being asked for an example.
4. Billiardsball is in error on this point.

Regarding the theory of “change of indefinite articles” in Isaiah theory :
1. Billiardball teaches that Qumran Isaiah (Dead Sea Scroll Isaiah) shows “that only a couple of indefinite articles (a, the) no changes in meaning are extant...
2. Billiardsball doesn’t even realize that Hebrew doesn’t even HAVE an indefinite article in it’s language and is simply repeating a party line he heard somewhere.
3. Billiardsball is willing to offer a great deal of errancy to teach inerrancy. This is not good.
4. Billardsballs’ data is simply not credible.


My conclusion is that :
Billiardsball really, truly, badly, wants to believe in inerrancy in his desires to “honor the text”, and so continues to cling to this theory. However, no historian of the text, no scholar of the text, no one who has enough knowledge to work with ancient texts teaches this fantasy, but instead, they report what they see with their own eyes, working with the texts. Thus, is it those most ignorant of the actual data, who are making this claim and adhering to this theory.

These are my specific syllogisms

Billiardsball. Really, there is nothing to fear from allowing the actual texts to speak of their historical past. Creation of an alternate history only helps if one remains INSIDE that alternate world. IF one, then wants to discuss actual and real history with individuals who are engaged in real history, then the alternate history will not work and is exposed for what it is. It may seem like it honors God to embellish and exagerate the qualities of Christians and Christian "things", but that will only work until one compares the exagerations and embellishments with reality. Then such exagerations disappoint and deflate and frustrate.

Clear
τωσεσιτωω

Clear,

I think you have conflated corrected manuscripts with what are commonly known as alternate readings. The distinction is subtle and I hate to split hairs with you (although if you say many texts in the Bible are in error, I still don't know how you know which Bible texts I should follow/obey, including the ones that indicate God is able to protect His own words and make them come to pass, how it is that the Word is like weapons and armor, how and why Jesus said we are to live by every Word from God's mouth, etc.) but you wrote:

"...We have multiple manuscripts that have evidence of corrections being made..."

Please cite such a text and give two (or if more than two, those also) of its alternate renderings, and then please tell everyone which is right and which is wrong, and your reasoning between the right original and the redacted, errant version. Please allow explain in detail the implications of the doctrinal impact the wrong and right renderings provide. Then I'll understand better your perspectives.

Thanks.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
1) In post # 175, Billiardsball says : " You write textual errors in the Bible do not affect the Bible. "
You are making yet another very basic blunder in simple interpretation. I actually said textual errors do not affect the GOSPEL. Biblical errors DO affect the bible. Below is a quote of what I actually said for you to re-read : “The simple observation that texts have some errors in them does not affect the actual gospel at all, nor does it affect any true or authentic principle of authentic religion. God works with imperfect men and men produce imperfect witnesses.”


2) In post # 175, Billiardsball says "I think you have conflated corrected manuscripts with what are commonly known as alternate readings. "
You are making yet another textual blunder. It feels like you are trying to “read up” on “catch words” or concepts that sound like they might save you from admitting error exists. If so, we are long past that point. Readers have already seen that the biblical texts have errors and such silly attempts to find a way out of errancy simply reveals desperation and denial.

Re-read my posts, For example, Isaiah 9:3 which, in the KJV reads :Thou hast multiplied the nation and NOT increased the joy...” is not simply an "alternate reading" to the opposite rendering “Thou hast multiplied the nation and increased their joy...” found in other bibles, unless you allow that “alternate reading” in this case means “erroneous reading”.

If you truly cannot see the difference between “not increased joy” and “increased joy”, and cannot tell which is correct, and you cannot imagine a doctrinal impact between the two renderings, then you are not going to be able to “understand better” a more complicated historical perspective that is explained to you.

Billiardsball, you are having such a difficult time with the very simple, specific, self-admission of the concept that ancient texts have error that I do not think it will help you at all to delve into your other irrelevant requests, or to change the subject.

Until you have enough insight that allows you to recognize the simple principle of error in texts then more complex principles will simply serve to confuse you even more. I think it will help both readers and you, if you keep this very, very, very, simple rather than add irrelevant requests or to change the subject or make things more complicated.

I recommend you FIRST, figure out and come to grips with the most simple of these principles; (that of error in texts), and THEN try to tackle the more complex historical issues.

In any case, I hope that if you become interested in religious history, your journey into it becomes successful and satisfying for you.

Clear
τωσισιφιω
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Clear,

1. You have indeed conflated alternate readings with errors--and I'll explain more below.

2. The gospel of Jesus Christ is found... in the Holy Bible. If you are unsure which parts/verses/passages/books of the Bible have errors, how do you know the truths of the gospel?

3. I asked you to show where an alternate rendering (or redaction, if you prefer) significantly changed a text. Isaiah 9 is a poor example you've chosen. The passage you excerpted reads as:

The people who walk in darkness
Will see a great light;
Those who live in a dark land,
The light will shine on them.

You shall multiply the nation,
You shall increase their gladness
;
They will be glad in Your presence
As with the gladness of harvest,
As men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders,
The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian.

The context of the words I emphasized with bold text demonstrate why I could not find "NOT increase" as even an alternate rendering in Bibles. I would say the correct reading is INCREASE and that NOT INCREASE was an unfortunate rendering or later redaction that is not in the original text. Do you agree?

PS. As I've patiently explained several times to you, I matriculated for a Religion degree majoring in NT studies nearly 30 years ago. You talk incessantly about how I must not understand the issues, on the contrary, I emphasize the real issue--adherence to the words of Jesus Christ, revealed through His chosen ammanuenses, salvation for our souls, apart from the doctrines of men and the cults.

Psalms 12:6: "...The words of the LORD are flawless"

Psalms 119:89: "Your word, O LORD, is eternal, it stands firm"

Proverbs 30:5-6: "Every word of God is flawless"
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Billiardsball :

In what has to be the ultimate in irony, your last post confirms my point.

Though you claim the masoretic bible is without error, forum readers will notice you avoided using the masoretic reading and, instead, chose to quote Isaiah 9:3 from a text reading OPPOSITE of the masoretic. The official Masoretic reading of Isaiah 9:3 (which you claim is perfect) is : "Thou hast multiplied the nation, and NOT increased the joy". You quoted a version where God INCREASED the joy.

I don’t know if you thought forum members would not see the switch, or if you simply didn’t have enough insight to realize what you were doing and what it meant. In either case, if you gather the courage to ask yourself WHY you claim the masoretic is perfect, yet chose to quote a version that reads OPPOSITE to the masoretic you say is perfect, then you may gain insight that will help you.

Bibles that follow the Jewish (Masoretic ) reading and read : “and NOT increased the joy” include :
the King James Bible,
Wycliffe 1395,
Coverdale 1535,
the Great Bible 1540
Luther’s bible 1545
Matthew's Bible 1549,
the Bishops' Bible 1568,
the Geneva Bible of 1599
the Douai-Rheims Bible 1610,
The Bill Bible 1671,
Webster's Bible 1833,
The Longman Version 1841,
The Calvin Version 1856,
The Smith Bible 1876
The Revised English Bible 1877,
the Douay Version 1950,
The Word of Yah 1993,
Green's interlinear Hebrew 2000,
The KJV 21st Century Version 1994,
the Third Millennium Bible 1998,
Green's Literal 2005,
The Revised Geneva Bible 2005,
the English Jubilee Bible 2010
The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010
The New European Version 2010,
The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011, Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011
the BRG Bible 2012,
the Lexham English Bible of 2012
The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012,
the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012

There are others, Etc., etc.

If you have a friend that you trust who reads Hebrew, ask him to read the sentence from MASORETIC Isaiah 9:3 to you, Below is a cut and past from the official MASORETIC text. It clearly says “NOT increased” (I have typed the negative “לא” (i.e. NOT) in BLUE)
הִרְבִּיתָ הַגּוֹי,לא הִגְדַּלְתָּ הַשִּׂמְחָה; שָׂמְחוּ לְפָנֶיךָ כְּשִׂמְחַת בַּקָּצִיר, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָגִילוּ בְּחַלְּקָם שָׁלָל.

So, you have inadvertently given us confirmation concerning the very example I offered you :

In summary :
The two versions of the verse in Isaiah 9:3, say the opposite thing.
The two opposing versions cannot be correct at the same time.
The fact that you chose a non-Masoretic reading, (even if it was a sub-conscious choice), should give you some insight as to what you actually believe concerning the Masoretic.

Billiardsball, I know you want to feel educated and that you claim education, but I must remind you that your claims are often inflated and embellished. For example, you claimed that you were trained in greek. However, you actually cannot read greek nor understand greek AFTER claiming training in greek. You must understand that this has, affected the credibility of your many claims, many of which are completely silly.

For example, readers will remember, your claimed that some changes in Hebrew texts had to do with changes in the indefinite article in hebrew texts when even basic readers in Hebrew realize that Hebrew does not HAVE an indefinite article in it's language. Such silly, erroneous claims take a toll on your credibility. You MUST learn to be more careful in the claims you make.

Regardless of how educated you feel you are, it is obvious that you lack knowledge regarding specific history and specific language as it applies to the theories you have made in these threads.

In any case Billiardsball; I hope you gain insight and knowledge and satisfaction as you learn to face the historical realities of textual history. Good luck

Clear
τωακτωακω
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Clear,
You write textual errors in the Bible do not affect the Bible. Yet, for one notable example, scholars debate whether the end of Mark, a summary statement including the gospel and its implications/repercussions, should be included in the text. Do you think Mark 16:9-20 is scriptural or...?

The ancient manuscripts support Bible canon.
It is Not Bible canon, but KJV that used spurious verses such as the verses after Mark 16:8
Please notice the style of writing changes after verse 8.
There are No corresponding cross-reference verses after verse 8 as there is with the rest of Mark.
Both Jerome and Eusebius believed Mark's gospel account ended at Mark 16:8

So, there is a BIG difference between recognizing copyists mistakes that crept into copies of Bible text, and dismissing the whole Bible as fabricated.
 
Top