• 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?

Neuropteron

Active Member
Following claim was made in 1 Pet 1:23 and Isa 40:8
“The word of the Lord endureth forever”.

How can we believe this proclamation to be true when there is not a single original manuscript of the Hebrew scripture earlier than A.D 1008 (now preserved in Leningrad) and none of the complete (or nearly complete) Greek manuscripts earlier than the fourth century after Christ ?

We should keep in mind that the prophecy states that the “word” would endure, not necessarily the medium those words were written on. Those words consist of revelations, laws, principles, doctrines etc...If we were to accept this premise, how can it be verified ?

One way is to examine the history of how the scriptures were copied.

For those who are interested, here is a short synopsis of this process:

Until the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians, the “book of the law”(Pentateuch)
was kept preserved by the side of the ark of the covenant. First by Joshua (Josh 24:26) then Samuel (1Sam 10:25).
For a time these copies were lost, until 641 B.C. when the “forgotten “book of the law” were discovered by Josiah, at which time the worship of Gods such a Marduk, various triads, Shamash, rulers of the Zodia etc... was eliminated and the worship of Jehovah was restored in Judah.
According to Daniel 9:2 the “word of the Lord” was available in Babylon.
After the return from the exile in Babylon, Ezra is found reading the law to the people.(Neh 8:1-18)

Since not all the Jewish exiles who in 537 B.C returned from captivity spoke or understood Hebrew but rather Aramaic or a related Semitic language, the Pentateuch had to be interpreted or paraphrased. This was done orally and is know as the Targum. There are various extant Targums versions today of all the Hebrew scriptures, except Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah.

Subsequently various translation were made, the oldest is the Samaritan Pentateuch around 450 B.C. (However extant mss are of far later date).

About 280 B.C. The Hebrew Scriptures began to be translated in Greek and is called the Septuagint.
A great number of these were distributed throughout the ancient world and played a large part in the preservation of God's word and became the basis for translation into other languages.

As to the Greek Scriptures, genuine texts have been preserved not only in the Sinaitic and Vatican 1209 mss, but in about 4,000 more Greek mss, in addition to 9,000 other language mss. Interestingly, so many Bible text are quoted in the post-apostolic period in various literary work, that almost the entire Greek text could be compiled from these quotations.

No other book in the world has ever receive such a reverent, fastidiously careful treatment and careful copyist procedure throughout the centuries as has the Bible .

In order to make the Word of God known its copyists and translators often added to their painstaking labour the sacrifice of their lives.
Additionally no other book had to face such a powerful foe, that not only legislated the murder of translators and distributors of it, but burned countless thousands copies of the Holy Scriptures along with those that read it.

Do you find that history support the assertion that the Bible has been preserved ?

Some claim that it is only by Divine intervention that we are able to have a copy of the Bible today, what do you think ?
 

leov

Well-Known Member
Following claim was made in 1 Pet 1:23 and Isa 40:8
“The word of the Lord endureth forever”.

How can we believe this proclamation to be true when there is not a single original manuscript of the Hebrew scripture earlier than A.D 1008 (now preserved in Leningrad) and none of the complete (or nearly complete) Greek manuscripts earlier than the fourth century after Christ ?

We should keep in mind that the prophecy states that the “word” would endure, not necessarily the medium those words were written on. Those words consist of revelations, laws, principles, doctrines etc...If we were to accept this premise, how can it be verified ?

One way is to examine the history of how the scriptures were copied.

For those who are interested, here is a short synopsis of this process:

Until the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians, the “book of the law”(Pentateuch)
was kept preserved by the side of the ark of the covenant. First by Joshua (Josh 24:26) then Samuel (1Sam 10:25).
For a time these copies were lost, until 641 B.C. when the “forgotten “book of the law” were discovered by Josiah, at which time the worship of Gods such a Marduk, various triads, Shamash, rulers of the Zodia etc... was eliminated and the worship of Jehovah was restored in Judah.
According to Daniel 9:2 the “word of the Lord” was available in Babylon.
After the return from the exile in Babylon, Ezra is found reading the law to the people.(Neh 8:1-18)

Since not all the Jewish exiles who in 537 B.C returned from captivity spoke or understood Hebrew but rather Aramaic or a related Semitic language, the Pentateuch had to be interpreted or paraphrased. This was done orally and is know as the Targum. There are various extant Targums versions today of all the Hebrew scriptures, except Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah.

Subsequently various translation were made, the oldest is the Samaritan Pentateuch around 450 B.C. (However extant mss are of far later date).

About 280 B.C. The Hebrew Scriptures began to be translated in Greek and is called the Septuagint.
A great number of these were distributed throughout the ancient world and played a large part in the preservation of God's word and became the basis for translation into other languages.

As to the Greek Scriptures, genuine texts have been preserved not only in the Sinaitic and Vatican 1209 mss, but in about 4,000 more Greek mss, in addition to 9,000 other language mss. Interestingly, so many Bible text are quoted in the post-apostolic period in various literary work, that almost the entire Greek text could be compiled from these quotations.

No other book in the world has ever receive such a reverent, fastidiously careful treatment and careful copyist procedure throughout the centuries as has the Bible .

In order to make the Word of God known its copyists and translators often added to their painstaking labour the sacrifice of their lives.
Additionally no other book had to face such a powerful foe, that not only legislated the murder of translators and distributors of it, but burned countless thousands copies of the Holy Scriptures along with those that read it.

Do you find that history support the assertion that the Bible has been preserved ?

Some claim that it is only by Divine intervention that we are able to have a copy of the Bible today, what do you think ?
1 Pet is not about printed or written text, imo.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Most Christians have very limited knowledge of how the Bible they believe to be "complete and infallible" ever came to exist in the first place. For example...

A list of the books comprising the "Christian" canon was compiled in Rome just prior to 200 A.D. This list was discovered in 1740 in the Ambrosian Libary in Milan, Italy. Missing from the accepted canon in 200 A.D. were Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Only two of John's letters were considered canonical, not three, but we don't know for sure which two. The Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon, however, were included.

Eusebius of Caesara, one of the most notable Church historians to have ever lived, described (in about 300 A.D.) a canon which included only twenty-seven of the books in today's New Testament. Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were described as questionable, as were Jude and Revelation. In the fourth century, St. Gregory of Nazianzus continued to reject Revelation and states, "You have all. If there is any any besides these, it is not among the genuine [books]." The canon he set forth was ratified some three centuries later.

The Greek Codex Claromontanus, one of the most significant New Testament manuscripts, contains a list of the canonical books of the fourth century. (The manuscript itself originates in the sixth century, however most scholars believe that the actual list dates back to the Alexandrian Church from two centuries earlier.) That list did not exclude Philippians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians or Hebrews. But guess what? It does include the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

And what about about Paul's epistles? Why, for instance, was his epistle to the Laodiceans considered less authoritative than his other epistles? Or was it? Maybe it had just been lost prior to when the first canon was compiled. It's mentioned in Colossians 4:16, for instance. Obviously, it was considered authoritative at the time it was written. Paul also wrote an additional epistle to the Ephesians and another to the Corinthians. When did his "apostolic authorship" come into question? Jude, too, wrote another epistle. Why would it have be considered so unreliable as to have been intentionally omitted from the today's canon?

If we go to the Old Testament, there are even more books that are missing. These were written by "Samuel the seer," "Nathan the prophet," "Shemaiah the prophet" and others. 2 Chronicles mentions many of these by name. Why haven't we gotten rid of 2 Chronicles by now, since it references so many prophets whose work was apparently not the word of God after all?

The Bible canon itself has been changed many, many times over the years. Surely books don't go from being "God breathed" to "not God breathed" and sometimes back again over the years.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Was the Bible accurately preserved
Mostly it was, but note that the form of the manuscripts is assumed to be that form from after all the changes finally stabilized under the influence of the bishops. Before then, there were many kinds of writings having all kinds of ideas. Only those ideas which were accepted by the bishops were copied; the others were lost to history.

In conclusion: the manuscripts that match the currently accepted version of the Bible (based on what the Church Fathers thought); these were accurately preserved. Any other writings similar to Bible writings; these were not copied and were lost.

Some early manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, did survive; but these were rejected as not part of the Bible.

When you find an ancient manuscript that matches the currently accepted version of the Bible, you will say the Bible was accurately preserved. When you find an ancient manuscript that doesn't match; you will say this is not part of the Bible, so whether there is an extant copy is irrelevant.

So by definition, the Bible was accurately preserved.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Mostly it was, but note that the form of the manuscripts is assumed to be that form from after all the changes finally stabilized under the influence of the bishops. Before then, there were many kinds of writings having all kinds of ideas. Only those ideas which were accepted by the bishops were copied; the others were lost to history.

In conclusion: the manuscripts that match the currently accepted version of the Bible (based on what the Church Fathers thought); these were accurately preserved. Any other writings similar to Bible writings; these were not copied and were lost.

Some early manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, did survive; but these were rejected as not part of the Bible.

When you find an ancient manuscript that matches the currently accepted version of the Bible, you will say the Bible was accurately preserved. When you find an ancient manuscript that doesn't match; you will say this is not part of the Bible, so whether there is an extant copy is irrelevant.

So by definition, the Bible was accurately preserved.
Evidently you believe the Bibles of today accurately preserve the source manuscripts, at least in meaning. Unfortunately, among the many versions of the Bible the various wordings in many verses produce messages that are at odds with one another.

.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
How can we believe this proclamation to be true when there is not a single original manuscript of the Hebrew scripture earlier than A.D 1008 ...

The Wikipedia entry is more accurate:

The Leningrad Codex ... is the oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew, using the Masoretic Text and Tiberian vocalization. It is dated 1008 CE (or possibly 1009) according to its colophon.​

But even with this corrective, the factoid does not falsify Isaiah 40:8 which has nothing to do with text enduring.

The OP is simply meaningless.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Following claim was made in 1 Pet 1:23 and Isa 40:8
“The word of the Lord endureth forever”.

How can we believe this proclamation to be true when there is not a single original manuscript of the Hebrew scripture earlier than A.D 1008 (now preserved in Leningrad) and none of the complete (or nearly complete) Greek manuscripts earlier than the fourth century after Christ ?

We should keep in mind that the prophecy states that the “word” would endure, not necessarily the medium those words were written on. Those words consist of revelations, laws, principles, doctrines etc...If we were to accept this premise, how can it be verified ?

One way is to examine the history of how the scriptures were copied.

For those who are interested, here is a short synopsis of this process:

Until the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians, the “book of the law”(Pentateuch)
was kept preserved by the side of the ark of the covenant. First by Joshua (Josh 24:26) then Samuel (1Sam 10:25).
For a time these copies were lost, until 641 B.C. when the “forgotten “book of the law” were discovered by Josiah, at which time the worship of Gods such a Marduk, various triads, Shamash, rulers of the Zodia etc... was eliminated and the worship of Jehovah was restored in Judah.
According to Daniel 9:2 the “word of the Lord” was available in Babylon.
After the return from the exile in Babylon, Ezra is found reading the law to the people.(Neh 8:1-18)

Since not all the Jewish exiles who in 537 B.C returned from captivity spoke or understood Hebrew but rather Aramaic or a related Semitic language, the Pentateuch had to be interpreted or paraphrased. This was done orally and is know as the Targum. There are various extant Targums versions today of all the Hebrew scriptures, except Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah.

Subsequently various translation were made, the oldest is the Samaritan Pentateuch around 450 B.C. (However extant mss are of far later date).

About 280 B.C. The Hebrew Scriptures began to be translated in Greek and is called the Septuagint.
A great number of these were distributed throughout the ancient world and played a large part in the preservation of God's word and became the basis for translation into other languages.

As to the Greek Scriptures, genuine texts have been preserved not only in the Sinaitic and Vatican 1209 mss, but in about 4,000 more Greek mss, in addition to 9,000 other language mss. Interestingly, so many Bible text are quoted in the post-apostolic period in various literary work, that almost the entire Greek text could be compiled from these quotations.

No other book in the world has ever receive such a reverent, fastidiously careful treatment and careful copyist procedure throughout the centuries as has the Bible .

In order to make the Word of God known its copyists and translators often added to their painstaking labour the sacrifice of their lives.
Additionally no other book had to face such a powerful foe, that not only legislated the murder of translators and distributors of it, but burned countless thousands copies of the Holy Scriptures along with those that read it.

Do you find that history support the assertion that the Bible has been preserved ?

Some claim that it is only by Divine intervention that we are able to have a copy of the Bible today, what do you think ?

Does Divine Intervention include the deletion/addition of whole sections of NT books?

Does it allow for different canons of the NT TODAY in the Christian world?
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Evidently you believe the Bibles of today accurately preserve the source manuscripts, at least in meaning. Unfortunately, among the many versions of the Bible the various wordings in many verses produce messages that are at odds with one another..
I agree there are some discrepancies. But the message is basically the same with small variations.

But this is because the texts having major variations and that didn't support a specific teaching from a specific group; these were not copied and have vanished.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I agree there are some discrepancies. But the message is basically the same with small variations.
Consider the following three verses and the word I've highlighted in each.

Philippians 3:8
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,​

of 55 Bible versions checked, this is how the word σκύβαλον; "skybalon" has been translated:


"refuse"
"dung"
"garbage"
"rubbish"
"filth"
"trash"
"worthless"
"less than nothing"
"manure"
"waste"
"dirt"
"sewer trash"
Is "less than nothing" anywhere close to being "manure" (manure can be quite useful). Or "dirt" the same as "dung"?

___________________________________________

John 14:2
In My Father’s house are many mansions
(μονή; "monē")


"Mansions"
"Places"
"Dwellings"
"Dwelling places"
"Room"
"Room to spare"
"Rooms"
"Abodes"
"Places-to-stay"
"Homes"​

Is a "room" close to being the same as "mansions"?

___________________________________________

Isaiah 45:7
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
(רַע; "ra`")

"Evil"
"Disaster"
"Calamity"
"Doom"
"Woe"
"Sorrow"
"Trouble(s)"
"Bad times"
"Discords"
"Hard times"​

Now, I don't believe it's of no small consequence to get wrong what god has said he creates. And obviously "evil" is nowhere near the same thing as "hard times," nor is "sorrow " the same thing as "calamity."



So, what is the reader to believe to be the truth? Somebody, err . . . many somebodies . . . have screwed up in preserving the Bible's accurately. :shrug: And while two of the mistakes made in the verses above aren't particularly consequential---I believe that in Isaiah 45:7 is---the fact that they occur at all sends the message that the Bible is prone to error and not trustworthy. How can anyone trust that other verses have not been mistranslated as well? Perhaps very important verses. The way I see it, one can't.


.

.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Following claim was made in 1 Pet 1:23 and Isa 40:8
“The word of the Lord endureth forever”.

How can we believe this proclamation to be true when there is not a single original manuscript of the Hebrew scripture earlier than A.D 1008 (now preserved in Leningrad) and none of the complete (or nearly complete) Greek manuscripts earlier than the fourth century after Christ ?

We should keep in mind that the prophecy states that the “word” would endure, not necessarily the medium those words were written on. Those words consist of revelations, laws, principles, doctrines etc...If we were to accept this premise, how can it be verified ?

One way is to examine the history of how the scriptures were copied.

For those who are interested, here is a short synopsis of this process:

Until the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians, the “book of the law”(Pentateuch)
was kept preserved by the side of the ark of the covenant. First by Joshua (Josh 24:26) then Samuel (1Sam 10:25).
For a time these copies were lost, until 641 B.C. when the “forgotten “book of the law” were discovered by Josiah, at which time the worship of Gods such a Marduk, various triads, Shamash, rulers of the Zodia etc... was eliminated and the worship of Jehovah was restored in Judah.
According to Daniel 9:2 the “word of the Lord” was available in Babylon.
After the return from the exile in Babylon, Ezra is found reading the law to the people.(Neh 8:1-18)

Since not all the Jewish exiles who in 537 B.C returned from captivity spoke or understood Hebrew but rather Aramaic or a related Semitic language, the Pentateuch had to be interpreted or paraphrased. This was done orally and is know as the Targum. There are various extant Targums versions today of all the Hebrew scriptures, except Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah.

Subsequently various translation were made, the oldest is the Samaritan Pentateuch around 450 B.C. (However extant mss are of far later date).

About 280 B.C. The Hebrew Scriptures began to be translated in Greek and is called the Septuagint.
A great number of these were distributed throughout the ancient world and played a large part in the preservation of God's word and became the basis for translation into other languages.

As to the Greek Scriptures, genuine texts have been preserved not only in the Sinaitic and Vatican 1209 mss, but in about 4,000 more Greek mss, in addition to 9,000 other language mss. Interestingly, so many Bible text are quoted in the post-apostolic period in various literary work, that almost the entire Greek text could be compiled from these quotations.

No other book in the world has ever receive such a reverent, fastidiously careful treatment and careful copyist procedure throughout the centuries as has the Bible .

In order to make the Word of God known its copyists and translators often added to their painstaking labour the sacrifice of their lives.
Additionally no other book had to face such a powerful foe, that not only legislated the murder of translators and distributors of it, but burned countless thousands copies of the Holy Scriptures along with those that read it.

Do you find that history support the assertion that the Bible has been preserved ?

Some claim that it is only by Divine intervention that we are able to have a copy of the Bible today, what do you think ?
Literary drift has already been established in regards to existing documents. Most of original Bible doesn't even exist anymore leaving secondary documents to 'act' as the original with the gaps filled in in with medieval documents attributed to the Catholic Church.

I would say with some degree of confidence that the original is nothing like what we're reading today in the Bible.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
And while two of the mistakes made in the verses above aren't particularly consequential
Yes, this is the main point. And the key ideas of the Bible are expressed not in just one passage per idea, but in many many passages. So you can unscramble the meaning and get at something close enough.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Now, I don't believe it's of no small consequence to get wrong what god has said he creates. And obviously "evil" is nowhere near the same thing as "hard times," nor is "sorrow " the same thing as "calamity."
Actually, the word "evil" has all kinds of meanings. For example, the damage caused by a tornado is "evil". In the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, the word "evil" doesn't only refer to moral evil.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
the fact that they occur at all sends the message that the Bible is prone to error and not trustworthy.
There are two main reasons the Bible is not trustworthy:
  1. The writers often claim the message is from God, but it isn't -- it's from the human mind.
  2. In the early days of Christianity, certain zealous leaders squelched the writings and teachings from various groups they didn't like. As a result, the New Testament doesn't contain a good sample of what was believed back then.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
There are two main reasons the Bible is not trustworthy: ...

What does it mean to say that some pericope is not trustworthy?

Also, one gets the sense that
  • you claim that the bible is not trustworthy because it refers to god, while
  • you reject god because, among other things, the bible is not trustworthy.

Finally, you're dismissing canon as an entity rather than as a collection.

But you're no doubt comfortable with all this.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Following claim was made in 1 Pet 1:23 and Isa 40:8
“The word of the Lord endureth forever”.

How can we believe this proclamation to be true when there is not a single original manuscript of the Hebrew scripture earlier than A.D 1008 (now preserved in Leningrad) and none of the complete (or nearly complete) Greek manuscripts earlier than the fourth century after Christ ?

We should keep in mind that the prophecy states that the “word” would endure, not necessarily the medium those words were written on. Those words consist of revelations, laws, principles, doctrines etc...If we were to accept this premise, how can it be verified ?

One way is to examine the history of how the scriptures were copied.

For those who are interested, here is a short synopsis of this process:

Until the destruction of the first temple by the Babylonians, the “book of the law”(Pentateuch)
was kept preserved by the side of the ark of the covenant. First by Joshua (Josh 24:26) then Samuel (1Sam 10:25).
For a time these copies were lost, until 641 B.C. when the “forgotten “book of the law” were discovered by Josiah, at which time the worship of Gods such a Marduk, various triads, Shamash, rulers of the Zodia etc... was eliminated and the worship of Jehovah was restored in Judah.
According to Daniel 9:2 the “word of the Lord” was available in Babylon.
After the return from the exile in Babylon, Ezra is found reading the law to the people.(Neh 8:1-18)

Since not all the Jewish exiles who in 537 B.C returned from captivity spoke or understood Hebrew but rather Aramaic or a related Semitic language, the Pentateuch had to be interpreted or paraphrased. This was done orally and is know as the Targum. There are various extant Targums versions today of all the Hebrew scriptures, except Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah.

Subsequently various translation were made, the oldest is the Samaritan Pentateuch around 450 B.C. (However extant mss are of far later date).

About 280 B.C. The Hebrew Scriptures began to be translated in Greek and is called the Septuagint.
A great number of these were distributed throughout the ancient world and played a large part in the preservation of God's word and became the basis for translation into other languages.

As to the Greek Scriptures, genuine texts have been preserved not only in the Sinaitic and Vatican 1209 mss, but in about 4,000 more Greek mss, in addition to 9,000 other language mss. Interestingly, so many Bible text are quoted in the post-apostolic period in various literary work, that almost the entire Greek text could be compiled from these quotations.

No other book in the world has ever receive such a reverent, fastidiously careful treatment and careful copyist procedure throughout the centuries as has the Bible .

In order to make the Word of God known its copyists and translators often added to their painstaking labour the sacrifice of their lives.
Additionally no other book had to face such a powerful foe, that not only legislated the murder of translators and distributors of it, but burned countless thousands copies of the Holy Scriptures along with those that read it.

Do you find that history support the assertion that the Bible has been preserved ?

Some claim that it is only by Divine intervention that we are able to have a copy of the Bible today, what do you think ?

I understand the Vulgate to be the closest existing bible to the original, compiled some 80 years after the original book which no longer exists.

Considering very few of the bibles from later periods agree with the vulgate and most modern bibles cannot agree with each other. I would say the evidence suggests that no, the bible is not accurately preserved.

That does not include the mishmash, old wives tales and ditched gospels that went on before the book was canonised
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Yes, this is the main point. And the key ideas of the Bible are expressed not in just one passage per idea, but in many many passages. So you can unscramble the meaning and get at something close enough.
Yeah, a form of cherry picking: "I get to choose which unscrambled meaning best fits my theology."

.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Again, which Bible are we talking about? There have been several different canons over the centuries.

The Eastern churches excluded five books from the NT.

Other denominations included 1 Clement or 3rd Corinthians.
 
Top