I'll have to look it up, I've never really studied it before.
The Study Bible I'm using says that the date of writing is "Uncertain." Like I said, I'll have to look into it.
Well, if the 1500 BC date is accurate (as you admit that Christian apologists typically claim) then the point still stands. Even if the numbers aren't exactly right, the point is that the Bible was written over hundreds of years by dozens of authors, yet the unity and consistency of the message is remarkable.
Thing is, as I said before, I don't see any reason to accept, or even respect, an opinion no matter how much concensus there might be within any given group, if no one's willing to explain what it's based on (this in reference to the apologists dating of Job).
It's stands to reason that a compilation of writings intended as sacred scripture for a specific religion would have a common theme.
FGS said:
We'd have to go over specific examples if you wanted to delve farther into this.
It's just a trend I've noticed. I probably couldn't give you much more than anecdotal evidence.
FGS said:
Again, even if the age is not precisely right, the overall point still remains.
The point, in my opinion, is a completely subjective opinion presented as objective historical fact. I'm just trying to put things in perspective.
FGS said:
I wasn't responding to a claim of deletion. You said, "There are differences in the placement and order of some books..." If Jeremiah goes before Isaiah, I don't really give a hoot, neither should anyone else who actually cares about the content in the books themselves.
Deletion of texts is a factor for consideration though, probably the most relevant one.
FGS said:
A couple of things:
First of all, notice the similarity between the KJV and the NWT. The Pe****ta is the odd man out here. This is because it is written in Syriac, not English as the other two, and my guess is there's been something lost in translation between Hebrew-->Syriac-->English.
Actually, the Pe****a is supposed to have been translated directly from Aramaic.
According to the preface to my copy of the Pe****a, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac are
"sister tongues". In fact the Greeks called Aramaic "Syriac".
I have to admit, some of the passages (in the Pe****a) make much more sense to me when read and compared to the same passages in versions translated from the Greek.
another example; Habakkuk 3:4
Pe****a; "...in the city that his hands have established shall he store his power"
NWT:"...he had two rays [issuing] out of his hands, and there the hiding of his strength was".
KJV: "...he had horns coming out of his hands; and there
was the hiding of his strength".
FGS said:
Second, this does nothing to detract from the overall point of the passage (that Job feels alone). It's hardly a "key phrase."
There are better examples, but most are at least a paragraph long. I chose the briefest
FGS said:
Third, this is exactly the reason that it's important, as I said, to look at the original language (in this case, Hebrew) above any other translation. I'll look up the original word in Hebrew for you when I have a sec.
This is exactly what the publishers of (my version) of the Pe****a are claiming to do.
Note: I realise that hardly qualifies as an unbiased opinion.
It would be interesting to see what a scholar of the Tanach would have to say on this.
FGS said:
I've never been a huge fan of the KJV, either. However, the inconsistencies of one translation do not damage the reputation of the originals.
Still, there's no denying the influence it's had and still has in shaping the way we interpret the Bible.
In my opinion most of the modern versions that make significant departures from the KJV wind up substituting translations that convienantly address established secular objections to tradtional interpretations of passages in the KJV. Which, rather than making them anymore accurate, merely makes them less honest.
FGS said:
I think you'd have a hard time proving that. It's not as though Bible translators go, "Well, this could have more than one meaning...well, King James put ______, so let's go with that." LOL.
What, in your opinion, did the compilers/translaters of some of the more modern versions of the Bible use as their primary source of reference?
FGS said:
Only the first couple hundred years, really, and again, she's arguing for the internal consistency of what is NOW recognized as canonical, not what might have been.
Sorry but I don't consider it particularly impressive that a collection of books which has been whittled down over the course of several centuries still retains most of it's original content.
Saying, "Well, the parts that are still there have always been there" wouldn't prove much even if it were true, which it isn't entirely.
FGS said:
As I understand it, our understanding of the authorship comes from the early Church. Like I said, if they didn't have a problem with it, neither do I.
Which is fine, for you it's an issue of faith.
What I object to is when someone accepts something on faith and then trys to present it as reliable historical fact, which is what I feel Razmatazz was doing in the post I originally responded to.
Like I say, just trying to introduce a little perspective.
FGS said:
Which 4?
Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon are all directly signed by Paul in the first verse of each of the epistles. The only one I've ever heard questioned is Hebrews, since Paul didn't directly sign it, and again, I think our knowledge of his authorship of it comes from early Church teaching.
I would have to look that up.
I don't think anyone's denying that there were writings that didn't make it into the canon. The point is, those that ARE in the canon are internally consistent.
They're consistent within themselves, yes. They're history of consistancy as a body of works is actually pretty recent; just since the council of Trent in the 16th century.
