And then there's the Tanakh.
-
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!
Was the Bible accurately preserved?
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible history
And then there's the Tanakh.
firedragon
Veteran Member
What are these five books?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Depends on what is preserved. What I understand is that you specifically spoke of the Tanah, then the pentateuch. Yes. The pentateuch has been preserved pretty well. But what is the pentateuch? Is it the Torah of Moses? Or is it a collection of books authored by different authors much later? What is preserved?
This is the question that should be asked.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. BTW, these books were not named as canon by Eusebius either.
You do realize those are independent questions, right? That is:
- Whether or not it is "the Torah of Moses" (whatever that's suppose to mean) has nothing to do with, either, what's been preserved or whether it's been accurately preserved.
- Similarly, what's been preserved or whether it's been accurately preserved says nothing about whether or not it is "the Torah of Moses.
Last edited:
firedragon
Veteran Member
Alright brother. thanks
firedragon
Veteran Member
Alright. I agree. I think in my question its pretty clear that these two are distinct question.
Anyway,
Yes. The Tanah is pretty well preserved.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist environment and was never taught these things.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And I've always thought it a bit strange that an omnipotent god was unable to insure his message would never be ambiguous. That he would purposely create a work that some would misunderstand.
.
And what does that mean?
I always thought it a bit strange that someone would presume to know much of anything about preternatural agency..
I always thought it a bit strange that someone would presume to know much of anything about preternatural agency..
Skwim
Veteran Member
In as much as spirtual-philosophy mentioned that it was necessary to unscramble key ideas in the Bible so as to "get at something close enough" to their meaning, I simply think it a bit strange that an omnipotent god was unable to insure his message would never be ambiguous. That instead what he had to impart to mankind would be made unmistakably clear. Don't you?
As for myself, all I know is what the Bible says, in this case that god is omnipotent, (Revelation 19:6 "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.") and what others claim is true. Both of which, I seldom take as necessarily true.
.
And THAT is the biggest problem of all! The more accurately you assume that the original texts were preserved, the less excuse you have for the contradictions. And if you want to get around the contradictions by allowing that accuracy of transmission is poor, then you must ask, "why should I pay attention at all?"
Describing such things as the Documentary Hypothesis as an 'excuse' is adolescent at best. It is also completely irresponsible, since it almost certainly reflects a biased shallowness pursued by someone who has never taken the time to familiarize himself with the relevant scholarship.
And what is the "relevant scholarship?" I've read Clement of Rome, you know -- though I had to do it sitting on a cold balcony to keep awake, it's so freaking boring (this was during a university course in which I read most of the early Christian fathers). I've also read Bart Ehrman, almost of all, by the way -- and Friedman and others. And even worse, the Nag Hammadi Library, and much more besides. So please don't suppose that I'm so monumentally unread that I don't have any glimmer of what I'm talking about. It's insulting of you to impute that since I don't believe as you do, I must therefore be unlettered and unlearned.
And for the record, I most certainly did NOT describe the Documentary Hypothesis as "an excuse." I used the word "excuse" to refer to those people who understand that sort of thing, and still refuse to accept that all is not as the usual proponents of Biblical inerrancy would have you think.
"Friedman and others .. and even worse, the Nag Hammadi Library ..."! Seriously? The arrogance and deceit would be laughable were it not so repulsive.
(For those unaware of the extent of the claim, here is the Nag Hammadi Library.)
Where did you do that?
And you consider that arrogance and deceit? That happens to have been part of my studies at York University, in Toronto. Perhaps you feel that nothing but the Bible should be studied, but that is not the conclusion of educators around the world.
In the quote you cited. You apparently didn't read it correctly. "The more accurately you assume that the original texts were preserved, the less excuse you have for the contradictions." Please note, this speaks directly to the people reading the original texts, and to their assumptions about them. Not to the texts themselves.[/quote][/QUOTE]
Please try to avoid feable attempts at feeble ad hominem.
And you, would you consider avoiding terms like "arrogance" and "deceit?"
And for the record, I was being quite open and honest. My professor at York University, while I was reading Nag Hammadi and the Early Christian Fathers just happens to have also been a Catholic priest, and if he can respect the value in reading those works towards a more complete understanding of religion, then why wouldn't you?
Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. I have never spoken against reading such material. I simply don't find your claims credible or, for that matter, relevant.
But I do love Toronto (although I tend to focus on Stratford and Niagara-on-the-Lake).
