Nothing Short Of Perfection

Clear,

I didn't say the Masoretic was flawless in Hebrew or English--you implied the straw man stance you wanted to uphold. I said rather that the consonants of the text were NEVER redacted and that choices were made regarding the addition of vowels (as you knew before launching this line of discussion). A refutation of your position which you ducked in its entirety.

Have I said I do not read or understand Greek? Your psychic powers are presumptive. And you are continuing to do exactly what I've asked you in recent posts to not do, attack my intelligence, my knowledge base, and therefore, my personal integrity. While I grant you that you are obviously a religion professor who practices somewhere or at least a supreme autodidact, I cannot help your liberal stance on the Word of God. For that, your personal repentance is required. I was exceptionally humble on the Mormon thread I was asked to join, and worked hard to confine myself to honest questions. You have been unaccountably rude on both threads--unless you are not a Christian at all...? I'm asking not presuming. You have mentioned some gospel and the born again experience but are not an evangelical Christian, is that correct?

Also, your practice is clearly to nitpick my words when your other assaults fail. You seem unaware that the total changes in what we read in ENGLISH in Isaiah between earlier extant copies and the revelation of the Dead Sea Scrolls across 50,000 words over 1,000 years in ENGLISH were little indefinite articles that did not change the meaning of the text one whit. THIS is tremendous documentary evidence of the extreme accuracy with which the heirs of the Masorite tradition copied the Word of God. Yes? No? I tend to post for the benefit of future generations only because you typically ignore my questions. For example, when I relented and allowed you to shift the goal posts to discuss a Genesis verse, I actually asked you a question in humility and you assaulted my knowledge again--"Don't you know what the error is?" NO, I don't know what a presumed error is in a verse in a book I believe is flawless. So I asked you, and you snapped at me.

And I've asked you now several times which is correct, not increased or increased. Which do you choose? And with other textual issues, such as whether we are saved by faith and trust or repentance or works, how do you choose? Your gospel and mine, your salvation and mine, hinge on the answers.

Thank you.

URAVIP2ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thank you. We can both see the same perspective. The whole Bible is lovely and perfect.

1) Billiardsball now says in post #181 : " I didn't say the Masoretic was flawless in Hebrew or English… "


Billiardsball, If readers are somewhat confused at this new claim, you must take some responsibility for the confusion. If you remember, your many original claims that the bible was “inerrant”, which means, “without error”. For examples :

IN post #57 Billiardsball said : …I think you need to repent and also believe the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant…

IN post #97 Billiardsball said : Inerrancy is taught in scripture itself.

IN post Billiardsball said : #118 …However, you should recall how in the first centuries after Christ, godly men constantly quoted passages and verses of the scripture as unadorned truth. Again, everyone in the West took God's Word for what it says it is... "flawless". How can a book with contradictions be "flawless"? The groups that enunciated the truth of inerrancy were emphasizing and defending what was already in the text. Inerrancy is not a small claim to make of so many texts by so many authors. I have personally investigated hundreds of so-called contradictions and found them non-substantive.

IN post Billiardsball said : #151 …How is it that prophecy is inerrant despite the manipulations of the text you are citing? b. If the text is an accurate witness, and God says the text is pure and perfect,… … Each claim of errancy is simply disproven, often by reviewing context and the original languages.

IN post Billiardsball said : #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. …Any of 66 books of inerrancy I would call a sizable tract. …the Lord commanded us to live (and die, and resurrect) by every recorded errant word of God?

IN post Billiardsball said : #162 …If you don’t adhere to inerrancy, how do you know of “the wonderful love of the Savior”

IN post Billiardsball said : #172 1. The Bible is inerrant.

These statements and more, clearly indicate a claim to biblical “inerrancy”. If you are now ready to move away from inerrancy, this is good and we can agree that the Masoretic is NOT flawless in any Hebrew form or any English translation of the Hebrew.



2) Billiardsball said #181 “I said rather that the consonants of the text were NEVER redacted ….”
That train has already left since forum readers have been given multiple examples of consonantal redactions.



3) Billiardsball said #181 “While I grant you that you are obviously a religion professor who practices somewhere…”
I am not a religion professor. I am a born-again, LDS Christian who works at a normal job like most other individuals on the forum. It will not solve any problems for you to imagine me as a professor of religion. In fact, it will not solve problems if you focus on who I am at all. Focus instead on the logic and the rational nature of posts and the quality of the data in the posts rather than on irrelevant biases.


Clear
τωνετζσιω

Billiardsball ;


I was never your enemy and it is not my intention to “beat you up” on a public forum. It’s just that you make so many inaccurate and silly claims that are incorrect and inconsistent with basic historical principles. Most of your claims I assume, like “inerrancy”, are probably things you learned when you were younger and have simply accepted them as "true". Perhaps you've even taught them to other individuals who did not know enough to examine them and this seemed like further confirmation.

For example, you claim in post #181 : “ You seem unaware that the total changes in what we read in ENGLISH in Isaiah between earlier extant copies and the revelation of the Dead Sea Scrolls across 50,000 words over 1,000 years in ENGLISH were little indefinite articles that did not change the meaning of the text one whit. THIS is tremendous documentary evidence of the extreme accuracy with which the heirs of the Masorite tradition copied the Word of God. Yes? No?“

This claim would be evidence if it were true. However, it is a ridiculous claim that is easily disproved by the Religious scholars that have even basic familiarity with the Isaiah scroll. I think claims like these sprout up by well-meaning individuals who are honestly trying to “honor” the religious text by creating miraculous claims and apply them to the text to both impress investigators of Christianity and well as reassure themselves. The problem is, such things are not even faintly correct. It is a case of “creating myths for Jesus”.

For example, I should first point out that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not written IN ENGLISH. Secondly, regarding Isaiah, you quote “50,000 words” yet NA-27 lists only25,608 words in the entire book of Isaiah, making your claim impossible. Such myths are not created by scholars who are familiar with the DSS Isaiah Scroll, (since they come face to face with errors in the scrolls) but by ignorant individuals who have not or cannot even read the DSS Isaiah. This should tell you something. While you make the impossible claim of 50,000 words compared in a 25,000 word document, consider what the Dead Sea Scroll scholars say from a direct cut and paste from a the scholars newsletter from the Israel Museum web site (The Israel museam that actually HAS and displays the dead sea Isaiah scroll) :

“The text of the Great Isaiah Scroll generally conforms to the Masoretic or traditional version codified in medieval codices (all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version, in the same conventional order). At the same time, however, the two thousand year old scroll contains alternative spellings, scribal errors, corrections, and most fundamentally, many variant readings. Strictly speaking, the number of textual variants is well over 2,600, ranging from a single letter, sometimes one or more words, to complete variant verse or verses.

For example, the second half of Verse 9 and all of Verse 10 in the present Masoretic version of Chapter 2 are absent from the Great Isaiah Scroll in the Israel Museum's full manuscript that you see here online. The same verses, however, have been included in other versions of the Book of Isaiah in the scrolls found near the Dead Sea (4QIsaa, 4QIsab), and the Hebrew text from which the ancient Greek version or Septuagint (3rd-1st century BCE) was translated. This confirms that these verses, although early enough, were a late addition to the ancient and more original version reflected in the Great Isaiah Scroll. "

This statement was simply cut and pasted from the museums web site : http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah and it is the same claim I have been making all along. The ancient texts have errors, i.e. they are not "inerrant" nor "flawless" and there are multiple variants of the texts.

Billiardsball, I am not trying to “beat you up” publically. I am not your enemy. But you must learn to think about the validity of the claims you are making and consider whether they are even true before offering claims in a public forum where individuals are free to examine whether your claims are actually true. The nature of a true “witness” for Jesus is not simply someone who makes as many embellished, inflated, and fantastic claims as they can “to honor Jesus”, but the concept of being a witness to historical claims also entails having legitimate reasons and data and logic as to why one believes a historical claim.

I honestly honor your desires to honor our savior Jesus. However, I think your tendency to offer credibility-destroying myths is counter-productive and does not, ultimately, further the Christian goal better than simply offering less fantastic, yet true witnesses. IF you can simply examine your claims a bit more closely before offering them to the public, your Christian life could be more satisfying. Good Luck Billiardsball.

I truly and honestly wish you a good and satisfying spiritual journey in this Life Billiardsball.

Clear
τωνεφιτωω

Clear,

I believe the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts. It's beneath you to cherry pick as if you were unaware that this was my stance. You claim there are errors in the Masorite text. The consonants were in the earlier text, the vowels were added. Stop splitting hairs.

Also, if you identify as a born again Christian, why certain of your responses on the Mormon thread. I asked if you were an evangelical, born again Christian. Thank you.

Clear,

I apologize for writing ENGLISH when my intention was to write HEBREW. We both know English was not a language two millennia ago.

I must be reading the wrong websites again:

After years of careful study, it has been concluded that the Dead Sea Scrolls give substantial confirmation that our Old Testament has been accurately preserved. The scrolls were found to be almost identical with the Masoretic text. Hebrew Scholar Millar Burrows writes, “It is a matter of wonder that through something like one thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said in my first article on the scroll, ‘Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition."

Source: https://www.probe.org/the-dead-sea-scrolls/

1) REGARDING THE SHIFT OF "INERRANCY" from 'THE BIBLE" TO AN "ORIGINAL" MANUSCRIPTS IN AN "ORIGINAL" LANGUAGE.
Billiardsball said : "I believe the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts. It's beneath you to cherry pick as if you were unaware that this was my stance."

“…inerrant in the original manuscripts…this was my stance”. Since the “original manuscripts” are not in existence and all manuscripts of any size show error, are you speaking of theoretical “autographs” written by the hands of the prophets? If so, then your stance has NOT been clear and this represents a significant new shift in claims.

If you are speaking of a non-existent "original" text in an "original language" then are you saying the forum readers should have known, all along, that you have been speaking of a non-existent, but theoretical text? If you are now speaking of a theoretical "original" text in some unknown "original language", do you think readers will take kindly to this new twist in plot or will they feel you have baited them with one context and an existing “inerrant” bible, only to switch to another context and a theoretical “inerrant” bible that doesn’t exist?


2) REGARDING SOURCES OF INFORMATION WE SEEK
Billiardsball says : " I must be reading the wrong websites again:"

Yes, your choice of website is poor. However, the skewing of and lack of historical context is, I think, a greater hurdle for you than picking a specific website. Seeking a scholarly website (rather than one that quotes a scholar out of context) is important.

However, more important than websites, are scholars papers that actually describe the texts in greater contextual detail, rather than papers or websites that pre-digest information and offer bits and pieces of information inside a chosen context. You should know this already.

For example, the inerrantist Gleason Archer compares two Isaiahs from cave one. The quote does NOT describe the context. If the two texts he compared were 100 word texts from scraps, that originated in the same textual families, then 5% error is not good at all (that means every 20th word is different....or has an error every 20th word, etc.) IF he is speaking of larger texts, such a a text with 10,000 or 20,000 words, then the accuracy is still poor by modern standards, but good considering ancient conditions and the quote may have greater meaning and import. In any case, note that Gleason describes ERRANCY, he is NOT describing INERRANCY, but rather he's describing a low DEGREE of errancy. This has been my point as well. READ what your own apologetics are saying.

I agree with Millar Burrows that “It is a matter of wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.” (1955). One doesn't know how much "alteration" impresses him, but still, he speaks of "alteration". Your own apologetic tells us that the texts are not flawless, but are "altered". This has been my point as well. Your own website, describes errancy, NOT inerrancy.


3) REGARDING MY INTEREST IN THE LDS / MORMON THREADS
Billiardsball asked : " Also, if you identify as a born again Christian, why certain of your responses on the Mormon thread. "
As the "LDS/mormon" label under my name indicates, I am a mormon (LDS=mormon) who is a born again Christian and am an adult convert to Restorational (LDS) Theology. Thus, I am interested in the occassional thread in the Mormon DIR.


I will be traveling for the next three days and so internet will be spotty and my responses to inerrancy may be short until I return on the 16th. I'll try to check in. Good journey Billiardsball.

Clear
τωνεακδρω

Clear,

Again, you are great at straining gnats (and I hope not swallowing false religious camels!). We both know inerrantists like me believe that the original texts are readily reconstructed from what is extant--and lovely--and perfect--and profitable for reproof, doctrine, correction and teaching. Basically, your stance is that God is incapable of preparing and preserving a received text that is enough for us. Further, I've asked you multiple times now to not merely spit at the text from a distance (It has errors, say scholars!) but to prove your stance by showing an example(s) of different renderings and then saying which is true and which is false, something you've yet to do!

Does it seem disingenuous to you to state there is no original text to read and then saying the text now is wrong...? It should. "Dear, the paint on this house is wrong, not that I can see the paint beneath and there may not really be any paint beneath, but this current paint isn't what the people intended to paint, surely." Are you that unaware that this precise sort of sophistry is why we are constantly in a constitutional crisis in America when dealing with activist judges? I was not around when the framers wrote the Declaration and Constitution, etc. but I know well how they felt about abortion, gay marriage, etc.

I have no desire to wade into this topic, but after reading the last 6 pages or so, I feel compelled to ask if you are really enjoying any of this conversation? (If so, I can't imagine why.)

Have fun?
Arthur

POST ONE OF FOUR

1) Billiardsball said : “ Basically, your stance is that God is incapable of preparing and preserving a received text that is enough for us. “

This mischaracterization is another basic blunder at interpretation. God is certainly capable of preserving sufficient text if that had been God’s goal. Instead God does not force mankind to robotic perfection as they write down and pass on their religious histories. God allows religious individuals to make errors.


2) Billiardsball said : “ Further, I've asked you multiple times now to not merely spit at the text ...“

The wonderful and profound ancient textual witnesses for God and Jesus are not something I “spit at”, but instead, I honor the authors and their superlative and inspired work. To merely notice that the wonderful and fascinating and powerful witnesses contained in ancient records are not perfect (“flawless” and “inerrant” as you describe them) is not to demean or disrepect the texts.

The obvious fact that your own scholars in your own quotes from your own websites describe the fact that the texts have errors, should tell you something. Even the scholars in YOUR examples tell us the theory of inerrancy and flawlessness in ancient texts is an error.



3) Billiardsball said : “ Further, I've asked you multiple times now ... to prove your stance by showing an example(s) of different renderings and then saying which is true and which is false, something you've yet to do!

Actually, I've given the forum members (and you) many, many examples of errors introduced into subsequent text that was not in the earlier source text. Let me recap, all from prior posts.

REGARDING THE NATURE OF TEXTUAL ERRORS IN BIBLICAL TEXTS

a) "True" vs "False" versus the concept of "errors"
The nature of some textual errors is not simply that one sentence is “true” and the other “false”, but there are many types of textual errors in ancient texts. For example, a simple error in spelling or grammar does not make the witness “false”, still it is an error.

b) The concept of "alteration" and "mis-translation" as a type of "error" in the translation of meaning of a text.
Since no one knows what the “original” autographs of the bible said, then one cannot know what the missing text originally said. In such cases, the text may be in error without someone knowing the error even exists.

For example, you yourself admit that you are ignorant of what the textual error in Genesis 1:31 might be. Thus, you cannot understand the importance of the error nor do you know what the original text is nor can you correct the error that you know nothing about. Most Christians are in the same situation. You and they, simply do not know about certain errors in the text they are reading.

In post # 104 I gave you and forum readers, examples of errors dealing with insertions of false text in the western bible by when I said : “When Erasmus and the printer Stephen Froben, created their wildly popular 1516 bible, Erasmus tried to correct his New Testament by leaving out the Johannine comma (1 john 5:7-8), a spurious text which had made it’s way into the New Testament’s of the day. “ The spurious text is “false” and his correction in leaving it out was “true”.

In post #115 I gave you example of a “minus” error by showing how accurate text was removed from the bible, using Luthers change in the 10 commandments as an example. I described to you and forum readers how Luther purposefully deleted the 2nd of the ten commandments in his 1522 bible, and I explained : “Thus, the ten commandments were different between protestants and catholics in Europe for a time. “ Luthers version of the 10 commandments was “false” and the original version was “true” to the greek and Hebrew text. This same situation of a differing set of ten commandments existed between the Samaritans and the Jews in Jesus’ day. The Samaritans had in their Bible versus the ten commandments the Jews held in their bible at the time of Jesus, both having a different set of 10 commandments.

In post # 121 I discussed errors associated with the change in language. “For example I said : “ Such additions of He to the earlier text explains some of the unusual variations between the different versions of the Hebrew text. For example, In2 Samuel 24:13the text reads “or wilt thou flee (נסד )three months before thine enemies?”, whereas in 1 Chronicles 21:12 the quote is “or wilt thou be destroyed (נספה ) three months before thine enemies”. The massoretes tell us that the original text in both passages was נסד without the He(ה)and this was introduced into Chronicles by the editor/redactor of that base text. The copyist in a later period, simply mistook נ for a פ. The fact that the earlier Jewish Septuagint and the Vulgate will have נסד confirms this error.” In this case, the Septuagint has the original or “true” text while the Masoretic has the erroneous or “false” text.


In post # 121 I gave a visual example of how mistake in reading letters was so easy to make to allow readers to see with their own eyes how copyists could have made certain types of errors in the texts they were copying. I said : “ I have pasted a text from Joshua 1 below. I have circled (in yellow) three letters that all appear as Tavs ( ת ) except, when I first read the middle "tav", the word simply does not make sense. Finally, it only made sense when I realized the middle letter in the example was not a tav at all, but was a final nun followed by a less well formed beginning nun of the following word that were written so close that there was no space so as to separate them.

Both my wife and I read the final line (lower right corner) as starting with "Betun" with a tav (a nonsense word) initially. I looked at it several times until it was clear that it was two words ("Been Nun") ("son of Nun"). This is how easily one letter can be mistaken for another. AND, this particular hebrew script is impeccable in it's appearance. Many, of the early texts are not nearly so beautiful and clear. Ancient scribes also made similar mistakes in both writing and reading. Thus, such errors crept into texts.

The same difficulties are exhibited with the texts showing the early introduction of the matris lectiones. The Aleph ( א )is occasionally left out, and occasionally added when it is improper to do so. Ocassionally this changes meanings significantly and has resulted in errors in text.

For example, in2 Kings 7:17, the later form of the text read המלכ "the King" without the aleph of המלאכ "the messenger" (my computer doesn’t write a final Kaf form….). The primitive form that reads, “the messenger” (with aleph) appears correctly in the Septuagint and the Syriac Jewish versions, but not in the massoretic. Thus, it is not “the king” who came down in this sentence, but it should read that “the messenger” came down. The preceding chapter has it in it's correct form (6:33).

In2 Samuel 11:1the opposite type of error is created when an aleph is inserted into the very same word, making “the messengers” (המלאכימ) out of “the Kings” (המלכימ) (my computer doesn’t convert to final mem’s either…)”

Given the simple explanation, I assumed you realized this meant that 2 Kings 7:17 "messenger" is an erroneous translation of "king" while 2 Samuel 11:1 "the Kings" has an incorrect translation of "the messengers". My intent was not merely to point out mistakes, but to explain HOW such mistakes found their way into the bible.

POST TWO OF FOUR


In post # 122 I gave you and readers, more examples relating to the strange use of the hebrew letter Yod “י” where the primitive orthography is retained in some instances when it lacks in other instances :

For examples :
“Gen 24:35, 25:24, 40:10,
Exodus 8:12, 14:7, 15:11, 20:18, 26:24; 35:27,;
Leviticus 10:16, 17:7;
Numbers 2:12; 6:5, 33:55;

These are only a small portion of examples from the lists of this specific kind of errors. We are not even touching upon other types of errors yet at all.


Occasionally these errors have little effect and in other instances, the effect can be quite important. The difference in versions caused disagreements among the various schools of Judaism and so their different versions of the scriptures were affected differently.

For example, the various Jewish Schools had varying opinions as to whether hebrew mem “מ” denoted plural or third person plural in some cases.

For example,Jeremiah 6:15originally read בנפלמ which one school read “among them that fall” and thus marked the reading with a Yod “י” to create a plural while another school rendered it “they shall utterly fall when they do fall” (as appeared in the LXX). The same case happens in vs 29 of this chapter. This sort of change happened fairly frequently and is partly why Translators feel like pulling their hair out sometimes and at other times, do not change an error unless they have reason to believe they have a better option for the text.

For example, in Jeremiah 17:25 the primitive text had ובסוסס to which they then added the later vowels to form “and on horses” while other texts followed the Jewish LXX version, reading και ιπποισ αυτων “and on THEIR horses”. In similar fashion, in ezekiel 7:24, “the strong” becomes “their strength” (c.f. the LXX, “the boasting of their strength”).

According to the sources, Ps 58:12 was “God is Judge” in one school, and was “God is THEIR JUDGE” according to another school while in the Jewish LXX it becomes “God that judgeth them” (“ο θεοσ χρινων αυτουσ”).

The differences such changes cause are, occasionally, major. The absence of the Yod plural in Job 19:18 becomes “for ever they rejected me” (“εισ τον αιωνα με απεποιησαντο”) in the Jewish LXX, while another one school renders it as “young children” and another school renders it “ever”.

The differing rules between the school regarding hebrew “yod” and pluralization resulted in multiple conflicting versions of stories. For example, In 2 Sam 5:6 says “the inhabitant” of the land (singular) while 1 Chron 11:4 renders the Jebusites as “the inhabitants” of the land (plural) despite the primitive spelling being the same. One school inserted a “vav” while the another school inserted a “yod” to create their different and conflicting words. The same principle is involved in 2 Kings 18:28 and Isa. 34:13 where the same description is rendered differently (i.e.Hear the word” -singular versus “hear the words” - plural).

Sometimes the type of errors cause minor translations changes (but there are many such conflicts) while there are fewer major translational changes (but some are very important to theology). Again, we are, so far, only speaking of the difficulties caused by single letter changes that were associated (in the main) with the addition of the matris lectiones.

Many of these sentences are obvious errors but one cannot tell what the original text intended. While the rendering “the inhabitant” is an error compared to “the inhabitants” when referring to a nation, one cannot say with equal certainty whether “on horses” is more correct than “on THEIR horses” in another text. One can say with certainly that one family of texts is in error, but who can say which since both sentences are logical and rational?


In post # 132 I explained that : “… the Massorah also provides several lists of Sopheric alterations (withoriginal readings). For examples, the Manuscripts Orient 1397 and Orient 2349 not only ascribed the changes to the Sopherim, but declared that according to the opinion of some Schools the changes were made by Ezra Himself. Whether Ezra actually did make the changes or this claim simply represents a mechanism to increase credibility that the changes were authorized can’t really be proven.

The manuscript Orient 1425 also preserved a list of textual changes as well as containing a basic Hebrew Grammar called Maase Ephod by Prophiat Duran. The list of changes is small, only fifteen changes, but it’s evident the list is sourced from another source prior to the Massoretic recension . “

In this same post I gave you and readers example of changes to the text :

Gen XVIII:22: IN Genesis 22, the introduction context of the chapter is “And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre…” (vs 1). The story then follows that three men came to Abraham who bowed to them (vs 2) As talk turns to the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah at least two of the men went toward Sodom. The sentence in verse 22 of the later Jewish massoretic reads "And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom,“but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.”

In all three Massoretic Rubrics in the manuscripts Orient 1379, 2349 and 2365, each emphatically states that the original reading was “but the Lord stood yet before Abraham”but that the text was altered. Other lists such as the ancient List of the Maase Ephod confirms that the text was originally “and the Lord still stood before Abraham”.

The greatest scholar on the Massorah, Ginsberg himself tells us : “With such an emphatic declaration before us, both in the ancient post-biblical records and in the Massorah itself, it seems almost superfluous to point out that it would be most incomprehensible for the redactors of the text to state that they have here altered the text and also to give the original reading when they had in fact done no such thing.” The context, and the logical continuity of the original narrative is more logical and reasonable and smoothly transitions in the original as compared to the textual change. “

In this same post, I said the text tells us that “It was the Lord who came down to see and tell Abraham whether the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had acted in accordance with the bitter cry which went up to heaven; “

I gave you and readers multiple examples of both error and indications of which was the “true” (original) text and which was the “false” (altered) text. I even explained the reason for the change from an original text (true text) to an altered and erroneous false (false text).


I said : “The reason for this and other changes is often that a phrase is deemed derogatory to the character and station of Deity.

Those who changed the text were trying to honor God rather than attempting to corrupt a text. For example, the phrase to “stand before another” is often a stock phrase denoting a state of inferiority and homage (comp Gen XVIII:8; XLI:16, Deut I:38; XVIII:7 etc) such as when one “stood before” a judge. Thus, it seemed derogatory to say that the Lord stood before Abraham. Hence in accordance with the Massoretic rules “to remove all indelicate expressions”, this and other phrases were altered by the Sopherim.

For example : In Numb XI:15 All four ancient records and Massoretic Lists, mark this passage as an alteration of the Sopherim. The three Yemen MSS. And the Massorah inside the Maase Ephod tell us the original text was “Kill me I pray thee out of hand if I have found favour in thy sight that I may not see thy evil”. Since the statement might be construed as ascribing evil to the Lord, the Sopherim altered it into “that I may not see my evil” (which the AV and the RV render “my wretchedness”).

Thus, I explained to you that the AV and the RV and the Masoretic were altered and contained erroneous (i.e. “false”) text and I even described the original (i.e. “true”) text.

I explained that : “ Changes were made not only to make the text conform to the editors interpretation of what "protected and enhanced God", but to protect and enhance the character of other individuals as well.

For example, The lists of emendations include I Sam III:13 which originally said : “because his sons cursed God”.

However, It seemed to lessen the stature of the Eli, if his own sons openly blasphemed God without Elis’ reprimand. Thus, the Sopherim altered the text by omitting the aleph and yod and changing אלהם (God) into להם (them). Thus, they cursed “THEM” in the altered texts (rather than cursing God).

Thus, the words “cursed them” are the “false” and erroneous text while the original text was “cursed God”. Though you complain that I have yet to give you examples, you need to READ the examples I have given you before complaining.

POST THREE OF FOUR


The Masoretes described their reasons for making other changes (and introducing errors into the text) as well. I said :

“The early Judeo-Christian God was quite anthropomorphic (i.e. had similar characteristics to mankind). This was uncomfortable to the various later Judaisms and thus certain anthropomorphisms were to be removed as well. Following this rule explains certain changes to the text. For example :

2 Sam XVI:12 was changed so that “Lord will behold with his eye“ (the official Keri) was changed to a Kethiv, reading “on mine iniquity”, or “on mine affliction”. This was done in accordance with the recensional canon rule that anthropomorphisms are to be removed.

This same motivation (removing anthropomorphisms) was the motive underlying the change to Ezek VIII:17. Though the present version reads “and lo, they put the branch to their nose”, the ancient authorities list this as a change made by the Sopherim. The original phrase was :”and low, they put the branch to my nose”, (i.e. to my “face”)

Hosea IV:7 :is another alteration of the Sopherim. The list tell us the original text read “My glory they have changed into shame” which the Sopherim altered into “Their glory I will change into shame."

Hab I:12 currently says : “Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? We shall not die. “ whereas the original was “Art thou not from everlasting? O Lord my God, mine Holy One, thou diest not.”

Rashi (1040-1105) made the original text a basis of his explanation. “The prophet says why art thou silent to all this. Art thou not from everlasting my God, mine Holy One, who diest not.” This change is so well known that the RV tells us in the margin “according to an ancient Jewish tradition “thou diest not”. Like many prior examples,The reason for the alteration is that it was considered offensive to say of God, : “thou diest not”. Hence “we shall not die” was substituted.

These are ALL examples of pointing out errors in the text and it should be clear to all readers (if it hasn’t been clear to you) that the original text is “original” (i.e. the “true” text) and the alterations are the erroneous texts.


In post # 166, I also pointed out error of omission where the current text is missing earlier text. This can never be fixed unless and until we discover texts that give us what is missing. In fact, some errors of omissions are unknown because we don’t know where specific lacunae are.

I explained in post # 166 :

“… 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 to1 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.

I explained in post # 171, how certain errors were known and how they were handled by the Jews : I said :

“ 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”.”

Even the Jews themselves and their Sopherim and Masoretes could not tell which texts were correct and thus, could not guarantee correctness of the texts resulting from such processes as they describe in this Talmudic example.

Regarding your claim that the Masoretes ONLY counted and that the counting confirmed your theory of an “inerrant” and “flawless” text, I explained in post #171 :


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”).

Regarding your theory that even a single error resulted in the burning of a text resulted in an “inerrant” and “flawless” text.

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 amquoting…)

“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.

POST FOUR OF FOUR


In post #179 you, yourself gave us evidence of error in the Masoretic text when you quoted as your text of preference, a text reading OPPOSITE of the Masoretic text. I explained :

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.



Forum members, It is simply logical and rational that individuals make mistakes and that there is no magical spell placed upon biblical texts which prevent them from being affected by the individuals and groups which create them. The theory that any existing biblical text is “flawless” and “erroneous” is obviously, itself, an erroneous claim regardless of any good-hearted motive underlying the creation of that theory.

The theory that there was a theoretical “original text” that no longer exists, but which was correct is simply a metaphysical theory which, although theoretically possible, is both unproveable, and irrelevant, since no one has ever seen and individuals do not work with or use this theoretical and non-existent text.

Yes, the texts have obvious errors. Yet the superlative and wonderful witness in their many forms and repeating themes form a coherent and fairly consistent theme that tells us much about God and religious principles and about Jesus, the Savior of Mankind. The text need not be absolutely "perfect" and "inerrant" and "flawless" to accomplish this specific goal of being a witness to God and his goodness. Whether one strains at gnats or camels (or not) is different than claiming that gnats and camels do not exist.

Clear
δρεισεσιω

Atpollard said : " I have no desire to wade into this topic, but after reading the last 6 pages or so, I feel compelled to ask if you are really enjoying any of this conversation? (If so, I can't imagine why.) "

Hi Atpollard, I can't answer for Billiardsball and his motives for continuing a specific conversation on his inerrancy theory, however, I do have an underlying, important motive for carrying on conversations regarding modern christian theory.

For me, conversations like this provide fodder for descriptions and definitions of various modern Christian theories and how they differ from early Christian worldviews. My interest is, obviously, early Christian traditions, doctrines and practice. However, the value of conversation with individuals who have adopted newer theories and the later worldviews is that it keeps me in touch with how such views are different and the issues caused by evolution of doctrines over time. Such discussions allow me to see if the logic and data of early Christianity and it's worldviews are more rational, more logical and have better confirming data when compared to later theories. I think individuals like Billiardsball are often more in tune with modern Christian theories than myself.

I don't necessarily "enjoy" such conversations, but they are helpful for me in understanding and developing concepts of religious thought that I would never have had on my own.

Having said all of this, I think readers have already made whatever decision they are going to make regarding the theory of "errancy" of ancient texts and further data and logic is unnecessary on either side of the question. Readers are probably "tired" of not being exposed to more meaningful and profound thought and the petty and meaningless is not satisfying nor entertaining nor educational for them.


Clear

The obvious fact that your own scholars in your own quotes from your own websites describe the fact that the texts have errors, should tell you something. Even the scholars in YOUR examples tell us the theory of inerrancy and flawlessness in ancient texts is an error.

Click to expand...

That statement is untrue.

The nature of some textual errors is not simply that one sentence is “true” and the other “false”, but there are many types of textual errors in ancient texts. For example, a simple error in spelling or grammar does not make the witness “false”, still it is an error.

Click to expand...

That must be convenient to say how a statement or text is untrue while being neither true nor false. You can see why I say it smacks of sophistry.

I want you to decide whether God is capable or preserving an inerrant text and whether He is willing to do so.

If you were conversant with Jewish understanding—and I don’t expect you to be as a Gentile—you would know that the rabbis know and teach that even malformed Hebrew letters are pointers to gematria truth. Jewish people read the text on four levels, only one is face value. Before you accuse me of being convenient, understand that Genesis 1:1 has embedded in the Hebrew so many instances of the gematria value of seven that the odds of composing a random Hebrew sentence this magnificent is 6,000,000,000 to 1 against, and that gematria in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek reveals this perfection runs through the 66 books of the Bible only, not the apocrypha.

The problem with your examples from Luther and elsewhere/else when is you are certainly continuing to ignore my (common) evangelical stance that Paul and Moses et al wrote inerrant statements. Luther’s redactions would not be inerrant nor would a translated Bible possibly be perfect. It could be darn close, however.

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.

Click to expand...

You at this point either or lying, or are so incensed that I dare believe the Word of the pure God is pur,e that you simply don’t read anything I write with any degree of care before replying. Yes, I did NOT quote the Masoretic text because even a child will admit (which you will not!) that the passage HAS to be increased the joy—but I NEVER said the Masoretic text is inerrant. I wrote that the vowel points were added and guesses made—but you KNEW that so your comments are VERY disingenuous. Nor will I "bore" you, being a Jew, with the tensions between Jews and Christians regarding the Masoretic "confirmed" text.

We are so far off the OP! Jesus, being perfect, substituted for imperfect sinners on the cross. PLEASE go back to the OP.

1) Clear said : “The nature of some textual errors is not simply that one sentence is “true” and the other “false”, but there are many types of textual errors in ancient texts. For example, a simple error in spelling or grammar does not make the witness “false”, still it is an error.”
Billiardsball replied : That must be convenient to say how a statement or text is untrue while being neither true nor false. You can see why I say it smacks of sophistry.

My sentence simply points out that a spelling error doesn’t make a statement false. If a child writes : “I luv you mom.”, the statement may be true despite having a “false” spelling (i.e. an error) in the text. This is not sophistry (which implies deception), but rather it is simple logic.


2) Billiardsball admits : Luther’s redactions would not be inerrant nor would a translated Bible possibly be perfect.

I very much agree with this statement you make. It has been my point all along. That is, there is no existing biblical text of size that we know of that exists in any in language which is inerrant. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Thus, any theory which says any existing biblical text is “inerrant” or “perfect” or “flawless”, is incorrect.


3) Billiardsball said : I NEVER said the Masoretic text is inerrant. I wrote that the vowel points were added and guesses made…

I also agree with you that vowel points were added and “guesses were made…”


4) Regarding Isaiah 9:3 :
Billiardsball said : Yes, I did NOT quote the Masoretic text because even a child will admit (which you will not!) that the passage HAS to be increased the joy—

Since you are not a translator, I think your bare logic is fine as far as the logic can take you. Knowledge of language and text will take you into further considerations.

For example, translators try to create logical coherency in multiple ways. In doing so, some very fine translators leave the negative in this sentence while trying to create a sentence that doesn’t offend the theology of the reader.

For example, Gussetius renders the text “"thou hast multiplied the nation to whom thou hadst not given great joy:''” Kay adds “but now” to create a logical sentence that retains the negative “לא”. Another translator (I can’t remember who) simply divides the sentence differently (before the negative) and accomplishes the same thing as Kay accomplished, but uses two sentences in order to do it.

I think your logic upon which you made your guess as to the version you think is correct is fine. I hope the fact that you had to make your own “guess” and had to choose between two opposite bible readings based on your own logic, will give you some empathy for translators who are faced with difficult textual decisions as well as gained insight as to why translations are not straight-forward decisions.

Good luck coming to your own decisions and beliefs Billiardsball. And I hope your journey is good.

Clear
δρτωακειω

Interesting topic wonderful insight .
I went to a protestant junior school , church of England .
We were taught the revelation for Christians only began with the new testament , teacher skipping the first half did raise an eyebrow .
We only studied the life of Jesus in particular the parables , golden rules. Jesus in the new testement sets a standard to which we should refer to for guidance in this life. End of this where it ends for christians.
My junior school teacher was a very religious man .
We did look at the old testement in our last year before secondary school however the first three years of my Christian education was on new testament on which I was Confirmed .
Myself to study the old testement always felt I was taking from the tree , never felt comfortable with old testement , if it is indeed going beyond the knowledge required then I understand the reasons for confusion .

Clear said:

1) Clear said : “The nature of some textual errors is not simply that one sentence is “true” and the other “false”, but there are many types of textual errors in ancient texts. For example, a simple error in spelling or grammar does not make the witness “false”, still it is an error.”
Billiardsball replied : That must be convenient to say how a statement or text is untrue while being neither true nor false. You can see why I say it smacks of sophistry.

My sentence simply points out that a spelling error doesn’t make a statement false. If a child writes : “I luv you mom.”, the statement may be true despite having a “false” spelling (i.e. an error) in the text. This is not sophistry (which implies deception), but rather it is simple logic.


2) Billiardsball admits : Luther’s redactions would not be inerrant nor would a translated Bible possibly be perfect.

I very much agree with this statement you make. It has been my point all along. That is, there is no existing biblical text of size that we know of that exists in any in language which is inerrant. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Thus, any theory which says any existing biblical text is “inerrant” or “perfect” or “flawless”, is incorrect.


3) Billiardsball said : I NEVER said the Masoretic text is inerrant. I wrote that the vowel points were added and guesses made…

I also agree with you that vowel points were added and “guesses were made…”


4) Regarding Isaiah 9:3 :
Billiardsball said : Yes, I did NOT quote the Masoretic text because even a child will admit (which you will not!) that the passage HAS to be increased the joy—

Since you are not a translator, I think your bare logic is fine as far as the logic can take you. Knowledge of language and text will take you into further considerations.

For example, translators try to create logical coherency in multiple ways. In doing so, some very fine translators leave the negative in this sentence while trying to create a sentence that doesn’t offend the theology of the reader.

For example, Gussetius renders the text “"thou hast multiplied the nation to whom thou hadst not given great joy:''” Kay adds “but now” to create a logical sentence that retains the negative “לא”. Another translator (I can’t remember who) simply divides the sentence differently (before the negative) and accomplishes the same thing as Kay accomplished, but uses two sentences in order to do it.

I think your logic upon which you made your guess as to the version you think is correct is fine. I hope the fact that you had to make your own “guess” and had to choose between two opposite bible readings based on your own logic, will give you some empathy for translators who are faced with difficult textual decisions as well as gained insight as to why translations are not straight-forward decisions.

Good luck coming to your own decisions and beliefs Billiardsball. And I hope your journey is good.

Clear
δρτωακειω

Click to expand...

I have empathy for translators who make tough calls in non-Bible languages and between formal and dynamic translation. Obviously, we both feel that way. What that and your latest opinions have to do with the evangelical/fundamental statement of the last century or so that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts and the original languages is beyond me. You are again (again, again!) showing us all how difficult it is to bring Hebrew and Greek into other languages... and how does that refute inerrancy in the source texts?

And of course, educated guesses were made when vowel points were made to the Masoretic texts. However, you make their work sound spurious in general. My Jewish people took/take this work so seriously that entire scrolls were consigned to the fire if a single error was discovered. But, is it hard for you to understand that false Messianic/Messianic pretender/apocalyptic groups like those who created the Dead Sea Scrolls would play with the text some? Isn't that exactly the kind of argument that fuels the current Jewish/Christian arguments over the Septuagint renderings and the apostles' Septuagint references and quotations? Of course it is.

I think we can safely agree that you have definitely put some doubt in our mind regarding whether the word "not" was omitted in Isaiah and that there may be some extra words or missing words in Samuel's work, etc. Can we get back to the NT being the Word of God and the only source of the true salvation? The PERFECT salvation? That was the OP.

PS. Don't take my facetious tone as an admittance of errancy or declare your victory by fiat. After all, you will probably ignore all my points above. You certainly ignored how it is that "errant" verses throughout the 66 books were composed to create gematria prime embeddings, each with odds in excess of 6 Billion to 1!

PPS. You've cited a number of translators who added a "not" for you. Is the not there in the Hebrew or isn't it, do you think? How did all those other translators miss it if so? Because if it isn't in the Hebrew, you've shown an "errancy" in English, right?

SpeaksForTheTrees said:

Interesting topic wonderful insight .
I went to a protestant junior school , church of England .
We were taught the revelation for Christians only began with the new testament , teacher skipping the first half did raise an eyebrow .
We only studied the life of Jesus in particular the parables , golden rules. Jesus in the new testement sets a standard to which we should refer to for guidance in this life. End of this where it ends for christians.
My junior school teacher was a very religious man .
We did look at the old testement in our last year before secondary school however the first three years of my Christian education was on new testament on which I was Confirmed .
Myself to study the old testement always felt I was taking from the tree , never felt comfortable with old testement , if it is indeed going beyond the knowledge required then I understand the reasons for confusion .

Click to expand...

As a Jewish Christian I agree, we need to look at the Old Testament. And if we only look at the NT, the NT affirms the perfection and profitability of paying attention to the OT! Peter says, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Sure, I walked with Jesus for years, sang and spoke with Him. But if you look carefully at the OT, you have better evidence via fulfilled prophecy of Jesus's divinity, mission and message!"

Thanks for your comments.

SpeaksForTheTrees said:

Interesting topic wonderful insight .
I went to a protestant junior school , church of England .
We were taught the revelation for Christians only began with the new testament , teacher skipping the first half did raise an eyebrow .
We only studied the life of Jesus in particular the parables , golden rules. Jesus in the new testement sets a standard to which we should refer to for guidance in this life. End of this where it ends for christians.
My junior school teacher was a very religious man .
We did look at the old testement in our last year before secondary school however the first three years of my Christian education was on new testament on which I was Confirmed .
Myself to study the old testement always felt I was taking from the tree , never felt comfortable with old testement , if it is indeed going beyond the knowledge required then I understand the reasons for confusion .

Click to expand...

Is it more like Revelation began with the NT or ended with the NT ?_______ The reason I mention end of the NT, or end of the first century, is because Revelation was written close to the end of the first century, so the setting for Revelation could Not be for the people living in the first century. The setting for Revelation is for our day or time frame - Revelation 1:10

Jesus explained the old Hebrew Scriptures for us - Luke 4:15-17; Luke 4:18-20
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written " meaning already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures - Luke 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 B
The NT has corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses and passages to the OT.
However, the old Hebrew Scriptures, as far as the Constitution of the Mosaic Law goes, that Law was only for the ancient nation of ancient Israel.- Romans 10:4
In a sense we fulfill the kingly law - James 2:8 - or royal law, by keeping the Golden Rule, and Jesus' New commandment - John 13:34-35 - to have self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus did.