YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Some of us have. I haven't read all the posts so please excuse, have you expressed where you think the dead are?After 46 pages, have we figured out where the dead are?
-
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!
Where are the Dead?
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
What? That the “dead are sleeping”? It’s at John 11:11-14.
Jesus likened death to sleep… how do you see it?
Where?
HI @Hockeycowboy
Hockeycowboy said : "I was wondering, do you believe the Apocryphal books are inspired?
As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we don’t. We feel that if they were from Jehovah God, He would have included them in the Bible Canon. (post #920)
First of all, let me point out that none of my quotes came from the apocrypha.
Thus I cannot be sure if you meant the apocrypha or are simply referring to early Judeo-Christian literature you are unfamiliar with.
The second point is that you referred to "the Bible Canon" but you did not say WHICH Bible Canon and from WHICH time period.
This is important historically since there are multiple Bible "Canons" a historian might refer to.
This is important since we are speaking of historical issues and not of any modern religious movements "canon".
Let me explain.
If you are a protestant in American using the King James Bible in the 20th century then your bible "canon" will typically have 66 books in it.
If you used the King James version in the 17th century, your bible "canon" had 80 books in it.
If you were Catholic in American then your "canon" (including deuterocanon), your bible "canon" typically had 73 books in it.
If you are an Eastern Orthodox Ethiopian then your bible "canon" will have either 81 books or 84 books depending upon which canon used. You will then have a book of Enoch in your modern bible; a book of Jubilees, Barnabas, etc.
If you are a 4th century Christian in the east and are using the Codex Sinaticus your canon will include the books of Barnabas and Hermas
If you are using the official Jewish Masoretic Bible then the text is not original in many cases as the Masoretics give us multiple examples of changes they made to the text.
If you are a First Century temple centric Jew at Qumran, we don't actually know what their canon was, though we know it was larger than the orthodox Rabbinic Jewish sect, and their text was, in certain cases much larger. (for example, In 1 Samuel, 11:1 the Deas Sea Samuel includes forty nine more words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse. Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL.
We also know that parts of the Bible were edited text from other books such as the Book of Jasher. (Jasher is not a name but a hebrew reference to another "authentic" or "upright" or "correct" record.)
The point is that if you are going to refer to your modern personal canon, you will need to have some reason why it is the inspired and correct one, rather than the many other canons that exist and have existed and are felt to be "inspired" and the correct one.
Thirdly, The historical issue in this case is not one of "canon", but of what the early Judeo-Christians believed and how they interpreted sacred text.
The historical issue is what the early Christians describe in their literature as their beliefs and how they interpreted sacred texts in certain time periods. For example, The diary of Perpetua purports to be the diary of a convert to Christianity approx 200 a.d. where she indicates early Christian beliefs. Whereas Hebrew Enoch is Jewish literature from approx 300 b.c. and other lectionaries, personal letters, epigraphs and pseudoepigraphs may or may not have been scripture, they are still a historical record which describes the beliefs of the various Judeo-Christians in different places and in different time periods.
IF a specific tradition is repeated over and over in multiple such texts over large periods of time and over large geographical space then such a doctrine represented the most common belief of the historical time period one is referring to.
There are thousands and thousands of such early Judeo-Christian documents describing early religious beliefs. For example, Charlesworth contains two volumes of almost one thousand pages each and they are ONLY the Jewish epigraphs, and ONLY those that have been discovered, and ONLY those deemed of significant historical religious import, and ONLY those which have been translated into english.
Fourthly, It is frequently difficult to separate some of this material from the biblical material since the bible sometimes sources from, refers to, and quotes from such literature.
For example, New Testament Jude directly quotes from Jewish Enoch and Lawrence found over 127 references in the New Testament to themes from Enoch. When you read the New Testament, you are reading sometimes, from Enoch. Unless the author actually reveals the source of the quote as Jude does, how does one separate what is "biblical" from the source the bible is quoting from?
Fifth. While I understand the tendency to simply read whatever bible version one has on hand and to apply an interpretation to that text, this method cannot tell us how the earliest Judeo-Christians interpreted the text.
So, if the Jehovahs Witnesses (or any other of the relatively modern Christian movements) simply read the text, interpret it to mean something, it still cannot tell them how the Early Christians interpreted that same specific text as there are multiple conflicting interpretations applied by the many different Christian movements who did the same thing. This method doesn't work in the historians world.
Sixth. Any of the various Bibles and canons do not exist in a historical vacuum.
The Historian MUST turn to outside historical data to make some sense of certain narratives in the biblical text.
For examples :
Before the Dead Sea Scrolls narratives, commentators often blamed Abraham for "lying" about sarah to the Egyptians (and to Abimelech) by saying she was his sister rather than admitting she was his wife in Genesis 12 and Genesis 20. Without the additional information from historical narratives such as the Dead Sea Scroll narratives, Abraham seems to simply have no justification, but with the additional historical information, Abraham remains justified.
Another example is The story of the silver cup in Genesis 44:5 where Joseph tells the servant to put his silver cup (or gold depending on the version you have) into Benjamins sack and when it is found, then say to his brothers : "Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination? This is a wicked thing you have done.’” (niv)
The story of Joseph pretending to divine by use of the cup does not exist in the bible, but one must turn to the historical records for the narrative of Joseph pretending to use the cup to divine, nor does the biblical narrative explain fully why the cup is important to the story. Such details as to what the ancients believed about Joseph in this specific case must come from the ancient historical narratives outside of the bible.
Another example from Numbers 12 when Moses is taken to task for having married an ethiopian woman (not Zipporah, the Midianite). Numbers 12:1 relates "Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his "Ethiopian" wife, for he had married an "Ethiopian."
The biblical narrative does not tell us why he married this woman and so one must turn to the historical narratives to know why he did this. Without such information, Moses seems to have done something wrong, but with the additional ancient historical information, Moses is justified.
The world of the historian is more complicated than that of the typical Christian or Jew who reads their biblical text.
One cannot always accurately separate what is "inspired" from what is not inspired, (even in the mistakes in the biblical text one may ask if every thing in them is "inspired"), and because the biblical text and the historical narratives inter-relate so often.
The historian is often simply trying to understand what the ancients believed and how they interpreted the biblical texts they had.
So whether the sacred texts are inspired (even given the errors in the texts) or not, the people who read such texts anciently and in modern times can feel inspiration from multiple texts.
For example, you reference the Jewish tradition of death as "sleeping" in the above post #922 saying :
"... the “dead are sleeping”? It’s at John 11:11-14. Jesus likened death to sleep… how do you see it?
However, you did not maintain the reference in context of the Jewish belief concerning what "sleep" entailed anciently.
Sleep was NOT simply a time of unconsciousness when nothing was happening but instead it was a time of greater revelation and dreams and though the physical body was unconscious, the mind was alive and was communicative with God just as with death the body is unconscious but the spirit remains alive and cognisant in Jewish historical tradition. Thus the Jews say that sleep is 1/60 of death and dreams are 1/60th of prophesy.
Sleep was a wonderful time of revelation as the scriptures tell us that many, many people anciently had revelations while asleep through dreams.
In any case Hockeycowboy, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful.
Clear
Hockeycowboy said : "I was wondering, do you believe the Apocryphal books are inspired?
As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we don’t. We feel that if they were from Jehovah God, He would have included them in the Bible Canon. (post #920)
First of all, let me point out that none of my quotes came from the apocrypha.
Thus I cannot be sure if you meant the apocrypha or are simply referring to early Judeo-Christian literature you are unfamiliar with.
The second point is that you referred to "the Bible Canon" but you did not say WHICH Bible Canon and from WHICH time period.
This is important historically since there are multiple Bible "Canons" a historian might refer to.
This is important since we are speaking of historical issues and not of any modern religious movements "canon".
Let me explain.
If you are a protestant in American using the King James Bible in the 20th century then your bible "canon" will typically have 66 books in it.
If you used the King James version in the 17th century, your bible "canon" had 80 books in it.
If you were Catholic in American then your "canon" (including deuterocanon), your bible "canon" typically had 73 books in it.
If you are an Eastern Orthodox Ethiopian then your bible "canon" will have either 81 books or 84 books depending upon which canon used. You will then have a book of Enoch in your modern bible; a book of Jubilees, Barnabas, etc.
If you are a 4th century Christian in the east and are using the Codex Sinaticus your canon will include the books of Barnabas and Hermas
If you are using the official Jewish Masoretic Bible then the text is not original in many cases as the Masoretics give us multiple examples of changes they made to the text.
If you are a First Century temple centric Jew at Qumran, we don't actually know what their canon was, though we know it was larger than the orthodox Rabbinic Jewish sect, and their text was, in certain cases much larger. (for example, In 1 Samuel, 11:1 the Deas Sea Samuel includes forty nine more words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse. Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL.
We also know that parts of the Bible were edited text from other books such as the Book of Jasher. (Jasher is not a name but a hebrew reference to another "authentic" or "upright" or "correct" record.)
The point is that if you are going to refer to your modern personal canon, you will need to have some reason why it is the inspired and correct one, rather than the many other canons that exist and have existed and are felt to be "inspired" and the correct one.
Thirdly, The historical issue in this case is not one of "canon", but of what the early Judeo-Christians believed and how they interpreted sacred text.
The historical issue is what the early Christians describe in their literature as their beliefs and how they interpreted sacred texts in certain time periods. For example, The diary of Perpetua purports to be the diary of a convert to Christianity approx 200 a.d. where she indicates early Christian beliefs. Whereas Hebrew Enoch is Jewish literature from approx 300 b.c. and other lectionaries, personal letters, epigraphs and pseudoepigraphs may or may not have been scripture, they are still a historical record which describes the beliefs of the various Judeo-Christians in different places and in different time periods.
IF a specific tradition is repeated over and over in multiple such texts over large periods of time and over large geographical space then such a doctrine represented the most common belief of the historical time period one is referring to.
There are thousands and thousands of such early Judeo-Christian documents describing early religious beliefs. For example, Charlesworth contains two volumes of almost one thousand pages each and they are ONLY the Jewish epigraphs, and ONLY those that have been discovered, and ONLY those deemed of significant historical religious import, and ONLY those which have been translated into english.
Fourthly, It is frequently difficult to separate some of this material from the biblical material since the bible sometimes sources from, refers to, and quotes from such literature.
For example, New Testament Jude directly quotes from Jewish Enoch and Lawrence found over 127 references in the New Testament to themes from Enoch. When you read the New Testament, you are reading sometimes, from Enoch. Unless the author actually reveals the source of the quote as Jude does, how does one separate what is "biblical" from the source the bible is quoting from?
Fifth. While I understand the tendency to simply read whatever bible version one has on hand and to apply an interpretation to that text, this method cannot tell us how the earliest Judeo-Christians interpreted the text.
So, if the Jehovahs Witnesses (or any other of the relatively modern Christian movements) simply read the text, interpret it to mean something, it still cannot tell them how the Early Christians interpreted that same specific text as there are multiple conflicting interpretations applied by the many different Christian movements who did the same thing. This method doesn't work in the historians world.
Sixth. Any of the various Bibles and canons do not exist in a historical vacuum.
The Historian MUST turn to outside historical data to make some sense of certain narratives in the biblical text.
For examples :
Before the Dead Sea Scrolls narratives, commentators often blamed Abraham for "lying" about sarah to the Egyptians (and to Abimelech) by saying she was his sister rather than admitting she was his wife in Genesis 12 and Genesis 20. Without the additional information from historical narratives such as the Dead Sea Scroll narratives, Abraham seems to simply have no justification, but with the additional historical information, Abraham remains justified.
Another example is The story of the silver cup in Genesis 44:5 where Joseph tells the servant to put his silver cup (or gold depending on the version you have) into Benjamins sack and when it is found, then say to his brothers : "Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination? This is a wicked thing you have done.’” (niv)
The story of Joseph pretending to divine by use of the cup does not exist in the bible, but one must turn to the historical records for the narrative of Joseph pretending to use the cup to divine, nor does the biblical narrative explain fully why the cup is important to the story. Such details as to what the ancients believed about Joseph in this specific case must come from the ancient historical narratives outside of the bible.
Another example from Numbers 12 when Moses is taken to task for having married an ethiopian woman (not Zipporah, the Midianite). Numbers 12:1 relates "Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his "Ethiopian" wife, for he had married an "Ethiopian."
The biblical narrative does not tell us why he married this woman and so one must turn to the historical narratives to know why he did this. Without such information, Moses seems to have done something wrong, but with the additional ancient historical information, Moses is justified.
The world of the historian is more complicated than that of the typical Christian or Jew who reads their biblical text.
One cannot always accurately separate what is "inspired" from what is not inspired, (even in the mistakes in the biblical text one may ask if every thing in them is "inspired"), and because the biblical text and the historical narratives inter-relate so often.
The historian is often simply trying to understand what the ancients believed and how they interpreted the biblical texts they had.
So whether the sacred texts are inspired (even given the errors in the texts) or not, the people who read such texts anciently and in modern times can feel inspiration from multiple texts.
For example, you reference the Jewish tradition of death as "sleeping" in the above post #922 saying :
"... the “dead are sleeping”? It’s at John 11:11-14. Jesus likened death to sleep… how do you see it?
However, you did not maintain the reference in context of the Jewish belief concerning what "sleep" entailed anciently.
Sleep was NOT simply a time of unconsciousness when nothing was happening but instead it was a time of greater revelation and dreams and though the physical body was unconscious, the mind was alive and was communicative with God just as with death the body is unconscious but the spirit remains alive and cognisant in Jewish historical tradition. Thus the Jews say that sleep is 1/60 of death and dreams are 1/60th of prophesy.
Sleep was a wonderful time of revelation as the scriptures tell us that many, many people anciently had revelations while asleep through dreams.
In any case Hockeycowboy, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful.
Clear
Last edited:
What do you think?
The Bible says “God is love”, right?
(He certainly loves those who love Him.)
Now, if we could talk with our dead loved ones, it would bring us much comfort, wouldn’t it? Would a loving God deny us that, if it really was possible? I don’t see why.
Is it even possible? Not according to the Bible; Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalm 146:3,4. Psalm 115:17 says those who die, go into “the silence of death.” Ecclesiastes 3:19,20 says man dies the same as animals die. “And they all have but one spirit.”
But there are those who say they do speak with the dead.
Is the Bible wrong?
There must be some hidden danger in trying it. Indeed, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 tells us that Jehovah God condemns the practice, linking “enquiring of the dead” with magic, omens, and fortune-telling.
Could there be some harm that could result from these endeavors?
Magic, in the Bible, is mentioned in Exodus 7 in relation to Pharaoh’s priests; the forces behind it were in opposition to Jehovah God.
Anything opposing Jehovah God, or that Jehovah condemns, can end up being harmful to us humans.
Jehovah wants to protect us, so thru the Bible He’s given us guidance (while He is temporarily staying out of human affairs).
IMO, It’s up to us to heed it.
When God’s Kingdom comes (Matthew 6:9,10), the Resurrection of mankind (Acts 24:15) will take place. (John 6:40) It will rectify all the injustices everyone throughout history has experienced, and all the differing ideas, ie., confusion, surrounding the condition of the dead will be gone. Truth will finally become known. All mysteries will be cleared up.
(We’ll also find out other things, like how the Egyptians built the pyramids, who built Stonehenge, who killed Hoffa, who killed JFK, etc., etc.)
I believe the Scriptures support this understanding.
The Bible says “God is love”, right?
(He certainly loves those who love Him.)
Now, if we could talk with our dead loved ones, it would bring us much comfort, wouldn’t it? Would a loving God deny us that, if it really was possible? I don’t see why.
Is it even possible? Not according to the Bible; Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalm 146:3,4. Psalm 115:17 says those who die, go into “the silence of death.” Ecclesiastes 3:19,20 says man dies the same as animals die. “And they all have but one spirit.”
But there are those who say they do speak with the dead.
Is the Bible wrong?
There must be some hidden danger in trying it. Indeed, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 tells us that Jehovah God condemns the practice, linking “enquiring of the dead” with magic, omens, and fortune-telling.
Could there be some harm that could result from these endeavors?
Magic, in the Bible, is mentioned in Exodus 7 in relation to Pharaoh’s priests; the forces behind it were in opposition to Jehovah God.
Anything opposing Jehovah God, or that Jehovah condemns, can end up being harmful to us humans.
Jehovah wants to protect us, so thru the Bible He’s given us guidance (while He is temporarily staying out of human affairs).
IMO, It’s up to us to heed it.
When God’s Kingdom comes (Matthew 6:9,10), the Resurrection of mankind (Acts 24:15) will take place. (John 6:40) It will rectify all the injustices everyone throughout history has experienced, and all the differing ideas, ie., confusion, surrounding the condition of the dead will be gone. Truth will finally become known. All mysteries will be cleared up.
(We’ll also find out other things, like how the Egyptians built the pyramids, who built Stonehenge, who killed Hoffa, who killed JFK, etc., etc.)
I believe the Scriptures support this understanding.
I’m sorry. I edited my reply… I meant the accepted 66-book Bible Canon.
If you go to a store & say you want a Bible, that’s what they’ll give you. I’ve never found anything else. You have to specifically say “Catholic Bible,” to get the Apocrypha. And the store probably won’t have it.
Hi @Hockeycowboy
1) WHICH BIBLE AND WHICH CANON FROM WHICH TIME AND PLACE IS THE “MOST INSPIRED”
Hockeycowboy said : “I meant the accepted 66-book Bible Canon.”
If you go to a store & say you want a Bible, that’s what they’ll give you. I’ve never found anything else. You have to specifically say “Catholic Bible,” to get the Apocrypha. And the store probably won’t have it. (POST #925)
So can I assume you are referring to one of the modern versions of the bible in the English language?
If so, then my feeling is that words spoken or written under the influence of revelation are inspired and modern versions of ancient inspired words remain inspired to the degree that modern sacred texts reflect the original inspired words.
I don’t feel any obligation to believe that later, uninspired changes to and mistakes in the texts are inspired. Some modern "translations" have specific and terrible errors in their text and do not represent the original text.
I also believe that the original (or earliest) language the words were spoken in and the texts were written in are, historically, a better representation of the original words than the various later translations.
2) IS A MODERN BIBLE WRITTEN IN ENGLISH WITH ITS CANON SUPERIOR (IN ANY WAY) TO THE MORE ORIGINAL BIBLE IN THE MORE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE?
This still leaves you with the historical task of telling us why YOUR modern bible with its canon (that you just bought from the religious book store) is more inspired than either the ancient bibles in the original languages and why your western “modern” canon is more inspired than the “modern” Eastern Ethiopian bible with its different canon.
Why is your canon more inspired than theirs or ANY canon of the ancient Judeo-Christians that contains more than the 66 books in your personal canon?
3) WHY ARE YOUR INTERPRETATIONS FROM YOUR SACRED TEXT MORE CORRECT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANS?
Why are your interpretations of your modern texts more correct than the interpretations of the text described by the earliest Judeo-Christians?
One key concept here is what is historically “original”.
My point is that I think the earliest Judeo-Christian thematic beliefs as described by the earliest Judeo-Christians themselves in their earlier literature seem to be more logical and more rational than the interpretations and doctrines created by the later Christian movements.
4) A HISTORICAL LITERARY EXPERIMENT REGARDING THE ANCIENT CONCEPT OF “SLEEP” –
I’ve already explained in post #923 why historical literature is important in understanding history, including religious history and why we cannot understand certain biblical references without more historical data.
If you want to try an experiment I describe below in point#5, it may clarify further the import of such ancient literature.
5) “SLEEP DEATH” - HISTORICAL LITERATURE IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE ANCIENTS
I’ve noticed that “sleep death” is a term often used by Jehovahs Witnesses but, like the example of buying a modern bible and assuming both the text and one’s interpretations are the same as the ancients who wrote the text, they use the ancient worldview of “sleep” in ways that are, historically, incoherent.
To keep things simple, why don’t you gather information from ONLY the biblical text you have to explain the ancient Jewish concept specifically about sleep itself (sleep and death come later) while I will use additional data from early Jewish sources specifically regarding Sleep.
We’ll present that historical information to readers and see which method comes to a closer and greater depth of historical understanding about Jewish religious concepts regarding sleep. (which is where you purport to get the interpretation of "sleep death" you have).
Then we’ll apply THAT historical information to death and see where it takes us.
Do you have any interest in trying this experiment in historical discovery? I don't know how much time you have or want to spend on this principle of historical study. If you don't have time (or interest) in this specific experiment, I understand and hope your life is wonderful and your spiritual journey is great.
Clear
μη μετα εισ μ
1) WHICH BIBLE AND WHICH CANON FROM WHICH TIME AND PLACE IS THE “MOST INSPIRED”
Hockeycowboy said : “I meant the accepted 66-book Bible Canon.”
If you go to a store & say you want a Bible, that’s what they’ll give you. I’ve never found anything else. You have to specifically say “Catholic Bible,” to get the Apocrypha. And the store probably won’t have it. (POST #925)
So can I assume you are referring to one of the modern versions of the bible in the English language?
If so, then my feeling is that words spoken or written under the influence of revelation are inspired and modern versions of ancient inspired words remain inspired to the degree that modern sacred texts reflect the original inspired words.
I don’t feel any obligation to believe that later, uninspired changes to and mistakes in the texts are inspired. Some modern "translations" have specific and terrible errors in their text and do not represent the original text.
I also believe that the original (or earliest) language the words were spoken in and the texts were written in are, historically, a better representation of the original words than the various later translations.
2) IS A MODERN BIBLE WRITTEN IN ENGLISH WITH ITS CANON SUPERIOR (IN ANY WAY) TO THE MORE ORIGINAL BIBLE IN THE MORE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE?
This still leaves you with the historical task of telling us why YOUR modern bible with its canon (that you just bought from the religious book store) is more inspired than either the ancient bibles in the original languages and why your western “modern” canon is more inspired than the “modern” Eastern Ethiopian bible with its different canon.
Why is your canon more inspired than theirs or ANY canon of the ancient Judeo-Christians that contains more than the 66 books in your personal canon?
3) WHY ARE YOUR INTERPRETATIONS FROM YOUR SACRED TEXT MORE CORRECT THAN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF ANCIENT CHRISTIANS?
Why are your interpretations of your modern texts more correct than the interpretations of the text described by the earliest Judeo-Christians?
One key concept here is what is historically “original”.
My point is that I think the earliest Judeo-Christian thematic beliefs as described by the earliest Judeo-Christians themselves in their earlier literature seem to be more logical and more rational than the interpretations and doctrines created by the later Christian movements.
4) A HISTORICAL LITERARY EXPERIMENT REGARDING THE ANCIENT CONCEPT OF “SLEEP” –
I’ve already explained in post #923 why historical literature is important in understanding history, including religious history and why we cannot understand certain biblical references without more historical data.
If you want to try an experiment I describe below in point#5, it may clarify further the import of such ancient literature.
5) “SLEEP DEATH” - HISTORICAL LITERATURE IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTANDING THE ANCIENTS
I’ve noticed that “sleep death” is a term often used by Jehovahs Witnesses but, like the example of buying a modern bible and assuming both the text and one’s interpretations are the same as the ancients who wrote the text, they use the ancient worldview of “sleep” in ways that are, historically, incoherent.
To keep things simple, why don’t you gather information from ONLY the biblical text you have to explain the ancient Jewish concept specifically about sleep itself (sleep and death come later) while I will use additional data from early Jewish sources specifically regarding Sleep.
We’ll present that historical information to readers and see which method comes to a closer and greater depth of historical understanding about Jewish religious concepts regarding sleep. (which is where you purport to get the interpretation of "sleep death" you have).
Then we’ll apply THAT historical information to death and see where it takes us.
Do you have any interest in trying this experiment in historical discovery? I don't know how much time you have or want to spend on this principle of historical study. If you don't have time (or interest) in this specific experiment, I understand and hope your life is wonderful and your spiritual journey is great.
Clear
μη μετα εισ μ
Last edited:
Hi @nPeace
I think your questions are thoughtful and good. Thanks for not simply arguing but for thinking about what is important to ask.
nPeace asked : “Why do persons believe dead bodies are raised up? Or rather, why do you believe that?” (post #927)
1) THE RESURRECTION DOESN'T SEEM TO SIMPLY BE A RISING AGAIN OF THE "ORIGINAL" MOLECULES OF THE ORIGINAL BODY IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, BUT INSTEAD, THE IMMORTAL RESURRECTED BODY SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT.
My current historical model is that think the ancient Judeo-Christian literature is not describing the original molecules and atoms of an original “dead body” of individuals being reconstructed in the resurrection.
But instead, as with the creation of Adams' body out of "dust" and as with Jesus’ resurrection, it is “types and images” that are being used to describe new and somehow different bodies in the resurrection.
If the resurrected bodies are immortal, then they must be different.
I think the reason the ancient Judeo-Christians believed in resurrection is that they saw in their teaching and texts the promise of a resurrection (a rising again “re” – “surrection”).
I think that the early Judeo-Christians and their teaching are the most correct because I have not seen (so far) any other interpretations and doctrines that, to me, seem as rational and as logical as their interpretations and teachings.
2) THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL TEXTS OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL BOOKS.
nPeace said : “You mentioned. "original inspired words".
Where do we find those? We have manuscripts - copies, but no original text. Isn't that true? (post #98)
You are perfectly correct on this point.
We have NO originals (autographs) of any of the ancient biblical texts and can only guess what the original words were.
To try and discover what the most “original” words in the sacred texts were is what textual criticism tries to do.
I don’t believe this can actually be done but instead, I think their attempts will end up only being able to guess as to the closest version they “think” they have.
For example, In the Novum Testamentum Graece, the Nestle Aland group has attempted for decades to come up with criteria to at least “rate” verses for how close to the original they think the various texts are, but due to the number of variants, I do not think they will ever, really come to a determination as to what the original New Testament said.
The problems are worse for the Old Testament Septuagint and the Masoretics give us examples of entire lists of changes they themselves made to the the bible they created for orthodox rabbinic Judaism. In some cases they mention what the text they worked with said before they made changes, but not always. So the problem is much worse with their Old Testament as well.
This is another reason I do not think anyone can provide good data as to why their personal bible with its’ canon of preference is “more inspired” than another bible with a different canon of preference.
Clear
I think your questions are thoughtful and good. Thanks for not simply arguing but for thinking about what is important to ask.
nPeace asked : “Why do persons believe dead bodies are raised up? Or rather, why do you believe that?” (post #927)
1) THE RESURRECTION DOESN'T SEEM TO SIMPLY BE A RISING AGAIN OF THE "ORIGINAL" MOLECULES OF THE ORIGINAL BODY IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, BUT INSTEAD, THE IMMORTAL RESURRECTED BODY SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT.
My current historical model is that think the ancient Judeo-Christian literature is not describing the original molecules and atoms of an original “dead body” of individuals being reconstructed in the resurrection.
But instead, as with the creation of Adams' body out of "dust" and as with Jesus’ resurrection, it is “types and images” that are being used to describe new and somehow different bodies in the resurrection.
If the resurrected bodies are immortal, then they must be different.
I think the reason the ancient Judeo-Christians believed in resurrection is that they saw in their teaching and texts the promise of a resurrection (a rising again “re” – “surrection”).
I think that the early Judeo-Christians and their teaching are the most correct because I have not seen (so far) any other interpretations and doctrines that, to me, seem as rational and as logical as their interpretations and teachings.
2) THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL TEXTS OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL BOOKS.
nPeace said : “You mentioned. "original inspired words".
Where do we find those? We have manuscripts - copies, but no original text. Isn't that true? (post #98)
You are perfectly correct on this point.
We have NO originals (autographs) of any of the ancient biblical texts and can only guess what the original words were.
To try and discover what the most “original” words in the sacred texts were is what textual criticism tries to do.
I don’t believe this can actually be done but instead, I think their attempts will end up only being able to guess as to the closest version they “think” they have.
For example, In the Novum Testamentum Graece, the Nestle Aland group has attempted for decades to come up with criteria to at least “rate” verses for how close to the original they think the various texts are, but due to the number of variants, I do not think they will ever, really come to a determination as to what the original New Testament said.
The problems are worse for the Old Testament Septuagint and the Masoretics give us examples of entire lists of changes they themselves made to the the bible they created for orthodox rabbinic Judaism. In some cases they mention what the text they worked with said before they made changes, but not always. So the problem is much worse with their Old Testament as well.
This is another reason I do not think anyone can provide good data as to why their personal bible with its’ canon of preference is “more inspired” than another bible with a different canon of preference.
Clear
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thank you.
New bodies not only makes sense, but agree with what Paul stated.
(1 Corinthians 15:38) . . .God gives it a body just as it has pleased him. . .
I often wonder why people think the old body is raised up and given to the person.
Since you don't believe that, I guess you wouldn't know.
I'll ask the next person I hear mention it.
I thought you did. I must have misread.
Thanks for your answer.
While the textural critic are guessing, Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.
They know this because of the following.
Dead Sea Scrolls
A collection of thousands of ancient scrolls and scroll fragments, in particular those found in 11 caves at Qumran, near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. (See QUMRAN.) These writings are thought to have originally been part of some 930 Biblical and non-Biblical Jewish manuscripts. The majority are written in Hebrew, others in Aramaic, and still others in Greek.
The text of the Isaiah scroll - as well as the text of other Bible books among the Dead Sea Scrolls - was carefully compared with manuscripts that were copied about a thousand years later. The comparison showed that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy. It is of particular interest that the divine name appears with great frequency in both Biblical and non-Biblical documents
Leningrad Codex
The Hebrew Bible text in the Leningrad Codex is remarkably consistent with that found in many of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are more than 1,000 years older. (See DEAD SEA SCROLLS.) While there are some variations in wording, the message remains the same.
Manuscripts
The original Bible manuscripts disappeared long ago. However, very old copies have been found, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls of books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Some of these scrolls, including fragments, have been dated to the third century B.C.E. It is estimated that a total of about 6,000 manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures or parts thereof are still in existence in various libraries. Of the Christian Greek Scriptures, about 5,300 are in Greek and about 10,000 are in Latin, besides many other languages.
Having more than 5,000 manuscripts, which allows for examining, and detecting any errors or latter additions, is an
If you could imagine, comparing that many documents, and using the comparisons to find the most accurate renderings. Then comparing the most accurate, with scrolls dated about 1,000 years earlier, and finding that the message is the same, you could understand how that would give ones confidence in the message being not only reliable, but divinely preserved.
Add to that, the fact that men risked their life to protect the Bible from enemies seeking to destroy it, and the Bible surviving to become the most widely translated, copied, and read book. Too, the contents prove to be divinely inspired, as stated at 2 Timothy 3:16, and 2 Peter 1:20-21, there is no reason to not trust the Bible 100%.
The Bible's message running throughout the 66 books of its pages, is too perfect, to have not been divinely inspired, and preserved.
However, that evidence is not enough for the faithless. So, understandably, many enemies and skeptics of the Bible will be evident.
That fact is more evidence for Christians, that the Bible is reliable.
I don't believe any translation has ever claimed to be “more inspired”.
The only ones who tend to make that claim, have been those who worship the KJV... at least, that I know of, but we usually sympathize with these, since they don't really understand the use of the term inspired.
No translation can be said to be inspired. Bible writers were inspired by God.
I like the fact that there are so many manuscripts translators have available, to be able to put together a modern translation, from the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
A good proof for me, of a translation that is more accurate, and advantageous, would be its consistency in the use of the divine name, as one example.
It is of particular interest that the divine name appears with great frequency in both Biblical and non-Biblical documents.
What do you think about translation that have either taken out completely, God's name from the pages of their translation, or are inconsistent in how they treat the divine name?
Last edited:
Hi @nPeace
Thank you for another thoughtful response.
Lets assume your theory regarding the biblical text and your 66 book canon are correct and see where that takes us and if this theory can answer important question.
1) DO INDIVIDUALS "KNOW" OR SIMPLY "BELIEVE" THEIR PERSONAL SCRIPTURES ARE AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE?
nPeace said : “Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.” (post #930)
I "sort of" agree that the texts we have are "pretty good" versions of the early texts.
However, Individuals do not “Know" how close they are to "originals" but instead, they “believe" they are close to the originals.
Let me explain regarding this principle of faith (but not knowledge)
They (and apparently you) simply (typically) are unaware of differences and variations that the scholars are aware of.
And they (and you apparently) believe and assume they are reading the “original text” when many times they are simply reading a variation of the original.
This is not to say the current texts are not well transmitted given the circumstances surrounding ancient texts.
Given the antiquity of, and the various editing of the texts, they are remarkably well transmitted.
However, your examples that you used to confirm the texts are the same examples used to demonstrate differences in the various versions.
For examples :
2) REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (DSS) COMPARISON WITH CURRENT TEXTS :
nPeace said : “The comparison showed that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy” (post #930)
The problem is not where the ancient DSS texts agree with the modern texts, the problem is with the comparisons that disagree in their readings and variations.
Consider for example, the difference between 1 Samuel 11:1 narratives of the Dead Sea Scroll and the NIV below.
The NIV narrative reads “Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.” (NIV 1 Sam 11:1)
The same Dead Sea Scroll narrative reads : "Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites severely. He gouged out the right eye of all of them and there was no one to save Israel. There did not remain an Israelite man who was beyond the Jordan whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not gouge out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the hand of the Ammonites and went to Jabesh. And they were there about a month. Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash king of Ammonites, “Make a covenant with us, and we will serve you.” (1 Samuel 11 from Scroll 4Q51)
The NIV version has thirty words (30) while the DSS 4Q version has 101 words (101) and the DSS narrative is much larger and more detailed narrative that explains much that the typical bible narrative leaves out. (An approximately 70 word difference in one verse.)
While I have simply pointed out the difference in a single verse, there are smaller (but relatively important) differences in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 in JUST the first chapter of Samuel. So, the DSS versions of certain narratives do NOT show the text is unchanged but some narratives are quite different while other narratives are well preserved.
An important point is that while individuals who are not really familiar with and have never read the Dead Sea Scroll Texts offer incorrect anecdotes that the Dead Sea Scrolls “confirm” the typical text, the scholars who are actually FAMILIAR WITH and have READ the scrolls point out the Scrolls have important differences in the narratives.
So, I agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm the text that is similar (which is much of the text), the Dead Sea Scrolls also point out many differences that are present in various versions of bibles.
3) REGARDING THE INTENTIONAL CHANGES THE JEWISH MASORETICS MADE TO THE BIBLE THEY CREATED IN THE MIDDLE AGES FOR RABBINIC JEWS
On the other hand, the Masoretics tell us (in the Masorah) that they intentionally changed certain texts in the bible they created.
Which is then to be considered the “original” text?
The text in it’s “original” form, or the texts they created in the Masoretic?
It is more complicated than to simply claim Christians “know” their bible is correct when the truth is that they “Believe” that their texts are correct. (and it goes without saying that "correct" is a relative term).
4) REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE LENINGRAD CODEX :
nPeace said : “While there are some variations in wording, the message remains the same.” (post #930)
I agree the message is, in the main, the same or similar, BUT, there are variations ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE of the Leningrad Codex and SOME of the variants in the text are important variants.
The variants in the Leningrad Codex cause the same textual problem as the variants seen in the Dead Sea Scroll.
Which of the variations represent the more original?
THIS is the problem.
5) REGARDING THE MANUSCRIPTS AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
nPeace said : “The original Bible manuscripts disappeared long ago. However, very old copies have been found, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls of books of the Hebrew Scriptures. “ (post #930)
I have already given examples of why this claim actually demonstrates problems with variations.
Having said this, I still agree that given the nature of ancient narratives, the sacred narratives are fairly remarkable in their transmission.
We have similar texts to the ancients, yes, but they are not the same as the original texts and some of the variations are important.
6) AN EXAMPLE OF A SINGLE VARIATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT NARRATIVE (JOHN 1:18)
A similar problem occurs with the New Testament Text. For example, John 1:18.
The picture below shows NA27 variants in New Testament John 1. (I highlighted verse 18 is used in my example)
While the english translation is typically like the kjv show below :
“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him..” (John 1:18 kjv)
Greek readers will see that the highlighted source text actually reads :
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God, [μονογενεσ θεσ] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (Greek source text, NA27, Greek New Testament)
The different between these two is theologically important.
The picture below shows a highlighted list of 5 variations in this single verse.
Which one is original?
Most scholars believe the “only Begotten God” is more original but this causes problems for some modern religionists.
Most Jewish and Christian religionists are simply unaware of the variations and errors.
So, they do NOT "know" their text is original, but they merely "believe" that their text is original.
Having said this, I think the text is, for the most part, wonderfully well preserved given the very, very difficult circumstances related to editing the vast early literature; deciding what to include in the various sacred texts from that source text; then creating an ancient narrative form and then transmitting that over centuries of time and undergoing multiple translations by various different religious movements (having their own translational biases) before the text could be better stabilized by the invention of printing.
7) TRANSLATIONS OF THE EARLY NARRATIVES ALSO CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR THE TEXT
For example , HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE TRANSLATIONAL PROBLEM OF GENESIS 1:1
One of the first translational difficulties translators run into is the problem with Genesis 1:1.
nPeace, how would YOU personally solve this translational problem?
8) HOW DOES ONE DECIDE THEIR PERSONAL CANON IS CORRECT AND OTHER CANONS ARE INCORRECT?
nPeace said : “The Bible's message running throughout the 66 books of its pages, is too perfect, to have not been divinely inspired, and preserved.” (post #930)
I agree that the texts are wonderfully preserved given the typical conditions of translation of ancient texts in general.
Do you apply this specific belief to the eastern bible with its modern 81 (or 84) book canon, or do you only apply it to your canon?
If not, why not?
Why is your personal, modern canon correct while the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus canon incorrect?
Why would the modern Eastern Canon be incorrect while your canon is correct?
9) PEOPLE ARE INSPIRED, NOT BOOKS.
nPeace said : “No translation can be said to be inspired. Bible writers were inspired by God.” (post #930)
I agree with this.
People are inspired, not books.
I think the phrase "Inspired text" is a metaphor for the fact that the words originated from revelatino/inspiration.
People who write can be inspired and people who read can be inspired.
10) ADDING TO AND TAKING AWAY FROM SACRED TEXTS
nPeace asked : “What do you think about translation that have either taken out completely, God's name from the pages of their translation, or are inconsistent in how they treat the divine name?” (post #930)
I think the prohibition regarding not adding nor taking away (Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:18-19) is important in treating sacred texts.
I think it is wrong to remove the name from sacred texts where we have evidence that it originally appeared and it is wrong to add it where we have no evidence that it appeared.
Again, I want to point out that your points seem well thought out and not merely argumentative. I LIKE the fact that you are able and willing to try to provide examples. Good job and thank you.
Clear
μνε εισε μ εισ καιρο
Thank you for another thoughtful response.
Lets assume your theory regarding the biblical text and your 66 book canon are correct and see where that takes us and if this theory can answer important question.
1) DO INDIVIDUALS "KNOW" OR SIMPLY "BELIEVE" THEIR PERSONAL SCRIPTURES ARE AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE?
nPeace said : “Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.” (post #930)
I "sort of" agree that the texts we have are "pretty good" versions of the early texts.
However, Individuals do not “Know" how close they are to "originals" but instead, they “believe" they are close to the originals.
Let me explain regarding this principle of faith (but not knowledge)
They (and apparently you) simply (typically) are unaware of differences and variations that the scholars are aware of.
And they (and you apparently) believe and assume they are reading the “original text” when many times they are simply reading a variation of the original.
This is not to say the current texts are not well transmitted given the circumstances surrounding ancient texts.
Given the antiquity of, and the various editing of the texts, they are remarkably well transmitted.
However, your examples that you used to confirm the texts are the same examples used to demonstrate differences in the various versions.
For examples :
2) REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (DSS) COMPARISON WITH CURRENT TEXTS :
nPeace said : “The comparison showed that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy” (post #930)
The problem is not where the ancient DSS texts agree with the modern texts, the problem is with the comparisons that disagree in their readings and variations.
Consider for example, the difference between 1 Samuel 11:1 narratives of the Dead Sea Scroll and the NIV below.
The NIV narrative reads “Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.” (NIV 1 Sam 11:1)
The same Dead Sea Scroll narrative reads : "Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites severely. He gouged out the right eye of all of them and there was no one to save Israel. There did not remain an Israelite man who was beyond the Jordan whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not gouge out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the hand of the Ammonites and went to Jabesh. And they were there about a month. Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash king of Ammonites, “Make a covenant with us, and we will serve you.” (1 Samuel 11 from Scroll 4Q51)
The NIV version has thirty words (30) while the DSS 4Q version has 101 words (101) and the DSS narrative is much larger and more detailed narrative that explains much that the typical bible narrative leaves out. (An approximately 70 word difference in one verse.)
While I have simply pointed out the difference in a single verse, there are smaller (but relatively important) differences in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 in JUST the first chapter of Samuel. So, the DSS versions of certain narratives do NOT show the text is unchanged but some narratives are quite different while other narratives are well preserved.
An important point is that while individuals who are not really familiar with and have never read the Dead Sea Scroll Texts offer incorrect anecdotes that the Dead Sea Scrolls “confirm” the typical text, the scholars who are actually FAMILIAR WITH and have READ the scrolls point out the Scrolls have important differences in the narratives.
So, I agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm the text that is similar (which is much of the text), the Dead Sea Scrolls also point out many differences that are present in various versions of bibles.
3) REGARDING THE INTENTIONAL CHANGES THE JEWISH MASORETICS MADE TO THE BIBLE THEY CREATED IN THE MIDDLE AGES FOR RABBINIC JEWS
On the other hand, the Masoretics tell us (in the Masorah) that they intentionally changed certain texts in the bible they created.
Which is then to be considered the “original” text?
The text in it’s “original” form, or the texts they created in the Masoretic?
It is more complicated than to simply claim Christians “know” their bible is correct when the truth is that they “Believe” that their texts are correct. (and it goes without saying that "correct" is a relative term).
4) REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE LENINGRAD CODEX :
nPeace said : “While there are some variations in wording, the message remains the same.” (post #930)
I agree the message is, in the main, the same or similar, BUT, there are variations ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE of the Leningrad Codex and SOME of the variants in the text are important variants.
The variants in the Leningrad Codex cause the same textual problem as the variants seen in the Dead Sea Scroll.
Which of the variations represent the more original?
THIS is the problem.
5) REGARDING THE MANUSCRIPTS AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
nPeace said : “The original Bible manuscripts disappeared long ago. However, very old copies have been found, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls of books of the Hebrew Scriptures. “ (post #930)
I have already given examples of why this claim actually demonstrates problems with variations.
Having said this, I still agree that given the nature of ancient narratives, the sacred narratives are fairly remarkable in their transmission.
We have similar texts to the ancients, yes, but they are not the same as the original texts and some of the variations are important.
6) AN EXAMPLE OF A SINGLE VARIATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT NARRATIVE (JOHN 1:18)
A similar problem occurs with the New Testament Text. For example, John 1:18.
The picture below shows NA27 variants in New Testament John 1. (I highlighted verse 18 is used in my example)
While the english translation is typically like the kjv show below :
“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him..” (John 1:18 kjv)
Greek readers will see that the highlighted source text actually reads :
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God, [μονογενεσ θεσ] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (Greek source text, NA27, Greek New Testament)
The different between these two is theologically important.
The picture below shows a highlighted list of 5 variations in this single verse.
Which one is original?
Most scholars believe the “only Begotten God” is more original but this causes problems for some modern religionists.
Most Jewish and Christian religionists are simply unaware of the variations and errors.
So, they do NOT "know" their text is original, but they merely "believe" that their text is original.
Having said this, I think the text is, for the most part, wonderfully well preserved given the very, very difficult circumstances related to editing the vast early literature; deciding what to include in the various sacred texts from that source text; then creating an ancient narrative form and then transmitting that over centuries of time and undergoing multiple translations by various different religious movements (having their own translational biases) before the text could be better stabilized by the invention of printing.
7) TRANSLATIONS OF THE EARLY NARRATIVES ALSO CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR THE TEXT
For example , HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE TRANSLATIONAL PROBLEM OF GENESIS 1:1
One of the first translational difficulties translators run into is the problem with Genesis 1:1.
nPeace, how would YOU personally solve this translational problem?
8) HOW DOES ONE DECIDE THEIR PERSONAL CANON IS CORRECT AND OTHER CANONS ARE INCORRECT?
nPeace said : “The Bible's message running throughout the 66 books of its pages, is too perfect, to have not been divinely inspired, and preserved.” (post #930)
I agree that the texts are wonderfully preserved given the typical conditions of translation of ancient texts in general.
Do you apply this specific belief to the eastern bible with its modern 81 (or 84) book canon, or do you only apply it to your canon?
If not, why not?
Why is your personal, modern canon correct while the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus canon incorrect?
Why would the modern Eastern Canon be incorrect while your canon is correct?
9) PEOPLE ARE INSPIRED, NOT BOOKS.
nPeace said : “No translation can be said to be inspired. Bible writers were inspired by God.” (post #930)
I agree with this.
People are inspired, not books.
I think the phrase "Inspired text" is a metaphor for the fact that the words originated from revelatino/inspiration.
People who write can be inspired and people who read can be inspired.
10) ADDING TO AND TAKING AWAY FROM SACRED TEXTS
nPeace asked : “What do you think about translation that have either taken out completely, God's name from the pages of their translation, or are inconsistent in how they treat the divine name?” (post #930)
I think the prohibition regarding not adding nor taking away (Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:18-19) is important in treating sacred texts.
I think it is wrong to remove the name from sacred texts where we have evidence that it originally appeared and it is wrong to add it where we have no evidence that it appeared.
Again, I want to point out that your points seem well thought out and not merely argumentative. I LIKE the fact that you are able and willing to try to provide examples. Good job and thank you.
Clear
μνε εισε μ εισ καιρο
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Thank you.
I'll split this in parts, so as to preserve your quoted words.
If it's sounds like I am bragging, it's only because we are proud to be a privileged people - a people for God's name, taught by him.
nPeace, along with @Hockeycowboy, and over 8,500,000 individuals, are privileged to be well informed by the the most studious of Bible scholars, in the world.
What they have said, is that the message remains the same.
So, while they are aware that DSS is older, they are also aware that the DSS are not the originals. So, they expect to find additions, insertions, but the key point is, the message remains the same.
Sifting out the additions, is easy.
This lengthy reading is not in any other known Bible text...
Once that's done, what remains is the unadulterated word of God, and since the message is intact, we have the proof that it was divinely preserved.
Think of it this way.
They tell us that science gets closer and closer to the truth, when they discover new things that throw older theories on their head.
In the same way, as the years roll by, the truth becomes clearer, and clearer.
It's described this way, "the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight." Proverbs 4:1
For example, it was only in recent years that God's name was restored in some translations of the Bible.
That was a lightening of the path for God's people.
A lot of other things are being revealed too.
We have 53 persons confirmed in scripture, and some events that have been confirmed.
Who knows if God will drop the bomb on skeptics, verifying Noah's ark. Or maybe that might be too much to reveal. I don't know.
We aren't saying the event found in the DSS did not take place. We are saying it was not recorded in the Bible.
Someone inserted it at some point in time.
That's the beauty of having over 5,000 manuscripts.
According to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, VI, 79 [v, 3]), this Nahash was killed in the battle by Saul’s forces. If Josephus’ information is correct, then the Nahash that extended kindness to David some years later must have been a son and successor to the Nahash defeated by Saul. In such a case, the name Nahash may have been a title bestowed on a series of persons, like the titles “Abimelech,” “Pharaoh,” and “Jabin.”
See NAHASH.
I'll split this in parts, so as to preserve your quoted words.
"They", would not include nPeace.
nPeace said:
If it's sounds like I am bragging, it's only because we are proud to be a privileged people - a people for God's name, taught by him.
nPeace, along with @Hockeycowboy, and over 8,500,000 individuals, are privileged to be well informed by the the most studious of Bible scholars, in the world.
Here is what was said.
- The comparison showed that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy
- While there are some variations in wording, the message remains the same.
What they have said, is that the message remains the same.
So, while they are aware that DSS is older, they are also aware that the DSS are not the originals. So, they expect to find additions, insertions, but the key point is, the message remains the same.
Sifting out the additions, is easy.
This lengthy reading is not in any other known Bible text...
Once that's done, what remains is the unadulterated word of God, and since the message is intact, we have the proof that it was divinely preserved.
Think of it this way.
They tell us that science gets closer and closer to the truth, when they discover new things that throw older theories on their head.
In the same way, as the years roll by, the truth becomes clearer, and clearer.
It's described this way, "the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light That grows brighter and brighter until full daylight." Proverbs 4:1
For example, it was only in recent years that God's name was restored in some translations of the Bible.
That was a lightening of the path for God's people.
A lot of other things are being revealed too.
We have 53 persons confirmed in scripture, and some events that have been confirmed.
Who knows if God will drop the bomb on skeptics, verifying Noah's ark. Or maybe that might be too much to reveal. I don't know.
We aren't saying the event found in the DSS did not take place. We are saying it was not recorded in the Bible.
Someone inserted it at some point in time.
That's the beauty of having over 5,000 manuscripts.
According to Josephus (Jewish Antiquities, VI, 79 [v, 3]), this Nahash was killed in the battle by Saul’s forces. If Josephus’ information is correct, then the Nahash that extended kindness to David some years later must have been a son and successor to the Nahash defeated by Saul. In such a case, the name Nahash may have been a title bestowed on a series of persons, like the titles “Abimelech,” “Pharaoh,” and “Jabin.”
See NAHASH.
nPeace
Veteran Member
There are no original texts.
Comparing manuscripts helps to get the most accurate renderings.
Do you know the method involved?
I'll search for an example for you.
In the meantime, I don't know if this helps.
Westcott was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, England, and in time, he became a distinguished lecturer and scholar. He and Hort worked together for nearly 30 years, comparing existing Bible manuscripts and fragments to prepare the Greek text that they felt most closely reflected the original writings. They refined a method of textual research that included grouping ancient manuscripts into families. This method allowed for more effective comparison of the various manuscript readings. Since the time Westcott and Hort published their work, additional papyri have become available, as have other scholarly editions of the Greek text.
I guess it's more accurate to say, we believe, if we cannot prove something directly, and with 100% certainty.
Can you give just one example?
Let me get back to you later. This is quite a lot, and I wanted to address a post before I call it a day.
I'll get back to you. Take care.
nPeace
Veteran Member
What are the "original texts" you are referring to?
Have we not agreed there are no original texts?
So then, we should agree on two things based on this information.
- We have proof that the Bible has been preserved as remarkably accurate as possible, thus showing divine preservation.
- The NWT is the most accurate translation : (John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
There are no original texts.
Problem? What's the problem?
If you mention it, I could look at it.
That's a very good question. I'll give you that information in a moment. Just hold on.
Only, there is a difference between inspired, as in "God breathed", and inspired, as in "aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something".
The Bible writers alone, wrote under inspiration. That is, what they wrote, was "God breathed".
The apostle Paul stated at 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired of God.” The phrase “inspired of God” translates the compound Greek word the·oʹpneu·stos, meaning, literally, “God-breathed” or “breathed by God.”
I totally agree with you there.
So, what do you think about the NWT treatment of the Divine Name?
The Divine Name in the Hebrew Scriptures
The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures
My pleasure, on behalf of the worldwide brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses, who are, as the evidence shows, completely devoted to advocating the truth of God's word.
It is only through the faithful and discrete slave, that the Jehovah's Witnesses, on these forums, or anywhere else, are able to answer your every question with well thought out answers, and clearly presented information. Matthew 24:45
All the thanks, praise and glory, goes to Jehovah God, who teaches those who humbly submit to his Christ. John 6:44, 45
Thank you Clear.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The collection, or list, of books accepted as genuine and inspired Scripture is often referred to as the Bible canon. Originally, the reed (Hebrew, qa·nehʹ) served as a measuring rod if a piece of wood was not at hand. The apostle Paul applied the Greek word ka·nonʹ to a “rule of conduct” as well as to the “territory” measured out as his assignment. (Gal. 6:16, footnote; 2 Cor. 10:13) So canonical books are those that are true and inspired and worthy to be used as a straightedge in determining the right faith, doctrine, and conduct. If we use books that are not “straight” as a plumb line, our “building” will not be true, and it will fail the test of the Master Surveyor.
Determining Canonicity. What are some of the divine indications that have determined the canonicity of the 66 books of the Bible? First of all, the documents must deal with Jehovah’s affairs in the earth, turning men to his worship and stimulating deep respect for his name and for his work and purposes in the earth. They must give evidence of inspiration, that is, that they are products of holy spirit. (2 Pet. 1:21) There must be no appeal to superstition or creature worship but, rather, an appeal to love and service of God. There would have to be nothing in any of the individual writings that would conflict with the internal harmony of the whole, but, rather, each book must, by its unity with the others, support the one authorship, that of Jehovah God. We would also expect the writings to give evidence of accuracy down to the smallest details. In addition to these basic essentials, there are other specific indications of inspiration, and therefore of canonicity, according to the nature of each book’s contents, and these have been discussed herein in the introductory material to each of the Bible books. Also, there are special circumstances that apply to the Hebrew Scriptures and others to the Christian Greek Scriptures that help in establishing the Bible canon.
You can read more, here.
Hi @nPeace
I think your idea of breaking up the posts is wise and good. Working through small pieces is better.
1) DO INDIVIDUALS "KNOW" OR SIMPLY "BELIEVE" THEIR PERSONAL SCRIPTURES ARE AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE?
nPeace said : “Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.” (post #930)
Clear responded : I "sort of" agree that the texts we have are "pretty good" versions of the early texts.
However, Individuals do not “Know" how close they are to "originals" but instead, they “believe" they are close to the originals.
Let me explain regarding this principle of faith (but not knowledge)
They (and apparently you) simply (typically) are unaware of differences and variations that the scholars are aware of.
And they (and you apparently) believe and assume they are reading the “original text” when many times they are simply reading a variation of the original. (Post #931)
nPeace responded : “They", would not include nPeace.” (Post #932)
I can’t tell what you mean from your response.
Do you mean you do not “know” your scriptures are as close to the originals as one can get or are you claiming awareness of theologically important differences and variations but they are as close to the original as one can get?
In either case, you not “know” your texts are as close to the original as one can get and critical study is the process of correcting present biblical text to be closer to the original than what you currently read.
The texts are being corrected and improved all of the time (c.f. “old” King James of 1611 versus “New” King James of 1985). The translation of text is in process of change.
2) REGARDING BRAGGING ABOUT HAVING THE MOST STUDIOUS SCHOLARS IN THE WORLD
nPeace said : “If it's sounds like I am bragging, it's only because we are proud to be a privileged people - a people for God's name, taught by him.
nPeace, along with @Hockeycowboy, and over 8,500,000 individuals, are privileged to be well informed by the the most studious of Bible scholars, in the world.” (POST #932)
I agree that it sounds like you ARE bragging and are proud.
However, I think the pride is undeserved.
Your bible scholars have no claim to be "the most studious of Bible Scholars in the world.”
There are Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Scholars that are incredibly gifted and have sacrificed much of their lives in the study of the biblical text and have contributed much, much, MUCH, more to biblical knowledge than your religious movement has.
As an example as to why your bragging and pride is undeserved : Frederick Franz, the man most responsible for creating the Jehovahs Witnesses New World Bible had only a 3 semester hour course in introductory biblical Greek and the Bible he created often contains incredibly poor translations that are much more commentary rather than translations.
Franz, in terms of Koine Greek language capability was not in the same class as true language capable scholars who FAR exceed his language and historical abilities.
Additionally he was not a good translator in that he clearly allowed his own theology to change the sacred text in improper ways. (An important example follows)
In doing so, he placed the sacred text at the mercy of his personal bias and as the text itself tells us, it is improper to EITHER take away, OR add to the sacred text.
Additionally, there are many, many mistakes and mistranslations to the New World Translation so that it is often a commentary and not a translation.
So, to brag as you have about scholarship is misguided and undeserved and feels self-serving.
So yes, the Hebrew bible in its various historical iterations has been translated with “relatively” good accuracy given the nature of transmission of and translation of ancient texts that originated as oral stories.
This does not mean you are reading accurate text, especially given the fact that the Jews who created the Masoretic bible TELL US that they changed the text in creating their bible and give us multiple examples of changes they made.
While there are variations, some of the variations are both inaccurate AND they are frequently important theologically. Just as the Jehovahs Witness Franz created a New Testament to suite his theology, so did the Jews. And, all individuals (including translators) have bias. AND, bias affects the resulting translation.
3) APPLYING nPEACE RULE OF "SIFTING OUT THE ADDITIONS" - WHEN TEXT DOESN’T APPEAR IN OTHER KNOWN BIBLICAL TEXT
nPeace said : “Sifting out the additions, is easy.
This lengthy reading is not in any other known Bible text...” (post #932)
Applying this rule to the Bible the Jehovahs Witnesses created. - "improper additions are revealed by absence in other texts "-
Lets apply this rule to the Jehovahs Witness Bible as an example :
Matthew 1:20 in The Jehovahs Witness Bible reads “But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream,…”
However, there is not a single Greek text that supports the addition of the name Jehovah out of THOUSANDS of important ancient greek manuscripts of matthew that exist and it is a departure from this only known text.
Therefore it is an improper addition to the translation.
Matthew 1:22 in the Jehovahs Witness Bible reads : “All of this actually came about to fulfill what was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet..."
Again, there is not a single ancient Greek text of first or second order that supports the addition of the name Jehovah out of THOUSANDS that exist and it is a departure from the only known text.
Therefore it is an improper addition to the translation.
There are hundreds of similar improper additions and changes made by the Jehovahs Witnesses” to the New Testament text that are not supported by any known Greek text. ALL of these changes to the text are improper additions and subtractions and translational changes.
The command from God is clear : “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut 4:2)
It makes no sense to say you are “proud” of these individuals when they are changing the sacred texts to support their religious bias.
The sacred texts should drive religious conclusions rather than religious conclusions changing the text.
Even IF translators want to create an accurate translation, it is not easy to do so. For example :
4) Clear asked : HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE TRANSLATIONAL PROBLEM OF GENESIS 1:1
One of the first translational difficulties translators run into is the problem with Genesis 1:1.
nPeace, how would YOU personally solve this translational problem? (post #931)
Again I ask, How would you solve the first translational problem that we run in to in the sacred text in Genesis 1:1?
It has been discussed since the middle ages and it is very, very important theologically.
The Jehovahs Witness bible makes the same error as the others.
Since your New World translation is incorrect in this simple sentence, why didn’t your “scholars” correct the text.
What do your scholars say about the text in Genesis 1:1?
5) THE PROBLEM OF EVOLVING CLAIMS REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
nPeace said : “The comparison showed that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy” (post #930)
Clear responded : “The problem is not where the ancient DSS texts agree with the modern texts, the problem is with the comparisons that disagree in their readings and variations.
Consider for example, the difference between 1 Samuel 11:1 narratives of the Dead Sea Scroll and the NIV below.
The NIV narrative reads “Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.” (NIV 1 Sam 11:1)
The same Dead Sea Scroll narrative reads : "Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites severely. He gouged out the right eye of all of them and there was no one to save Israel. There did not remain an Israelite man who was beyond the Jordan whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not gouge out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the hand of the Ammonites and went to Jabesh. And they were there about a month. Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash king of Ammonites, “Make a covenant with us, and we will serve you.” (1 Samuel 11 from Scroll 4Q51)
The NIV version has thirty words (30) while the DSS 4Q version has 101 words (101) and the DSS narrative is much larger and more detailed narrative that explains much that the typical bible narrative leaves out. (An approximately 70 word difference in one verse.)
While I have simply pointed out the difference in a single verse, there are smaller (but relatively important) differences in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 in JUST the first chapter of Samuel. So, the DSS versions of certain narratives do NOT show the text is unchanged but some narratives are quite different while other narratives are well preserved.
An important point is that while individuals who are not really familiar with and have never read the Dead Sea Scroll Texts offer incorrect anecdotes that the Dead Sea Scrolls “confirm” the typical text, the scholars who are actually FAMILIAR WITH and have READ the scrolls point out the Scrolls have important differences in the narratives.
So, I agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm the text that is similar (which is much of the text), the Dead Sea Scrolls also point out many differences that are present in various versions of bibles.” (post #931)
nPeace responded : “So, while they are aware that DSS is older, they are also aware that the DSS are not the originals. So, they expect to find additions, insertions, but the key point is, the message remains the same.” (post #932)
Did you read the differences?
The message is NOT the same in the text.
Your original claim was that comparing our text with the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that “the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy”. (post #930)
A comparison shows no such thing.
Your claim has also shifted from “a comparison with DSS demonstrates accuracy” to “the dead sea are wrong” when they actually demonstrate they texts are different.
Modern texts are NOT the same versions as the DSS and they often do not demonstrate our versions of the text are the best that can be had. Versions of text are improving all of the time.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful.
I will be gone until tomorrow and so will respond to the other points later.
Clear
I think your idea of breaking up the posts is wise and good. Working through small pieces is better.
1) DO INDIVIDUALS "KNOW" OR SIMPLY "BELIEVE" THEIR PERSONAL SCRIPTURES ARE AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE?
nPeace said : “Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.” (post #930)
Clear responded : I "sort of" agree that the texts we have are "pretty good" versions of the early texts.
However, Individuals do not “Know" how close they are to "originals" but instead, they “believe" they are close to the originals.
Let me explain regarding this principle of faith (but not knowledge)
They (and apparently you) simply (typically) are unaware of differences and variations that the scholars are aware of.
And they (and you apparently) believe and assume they are reading the “original text” when many times they are simply reading a variation of the original. (Post #931)
nPeace responded : “They", would not include nPeace.” (Post #932)
I can’t tell what you mean from your response.
Do you mean you do not “know” your scriptures are as close to the originals as one can get or are you claiming awareness of theologically important differences and variations but they are as close to the original as one can get?
In either case, you not “know” your texts are as close to the original as one can get and critical study is the process of correcting present biblical text to be closer to the original than what you currently read.
The texts are being corrected and improved all of the time (c.f. “old” King James of 1611 versus “New” King James of 1985). The translation of text is in process of change.
2) REGARDING BRAGGING ABOUT HAVING THE MOST STUDIOUS SCHOLARS IN THE WORLD
nPeace said : “If it's sounds like I am bragging, it's only because we are proud to be a privileged people - a people for God's name, taught by him.
nPeace, along with @Hockeycowboy, and over 8,500,000 individuals, are privileged to be well informed by the the most studious of Bible scholars, in the world.” (POST #932)
I agree that it sounds like you ARE bragging and are proud.
However, I think the pride is undeserved.
Your bible scholars have no claim to be "the most studious of Bible Scholars in the world.”
There are Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Scholars that are incredibly gifted and have sacrificed much of their lives in the study of the biblical text and have contributed much, much, MUCH, more to biblical knowledge than your religious movement has.
As an example as to why your bragging and pride is undeserved : Frederick Franz, the man most responsible for creating the Jehovahs Witnesses New World Bible had only a 3 semester hour course in introductory biblical Greek and the Bible he created often contains incredibly poor translations that are much more commentary rather than translations.
Franz, in terms of Koine Greek language capability was not in the same class as true language capable scholars who FAR exceed his language and historical abilities.
Additionally he was not a good translator in that he clearly allowed his own theology to change the sacred text in improper ways. (An important example follows)
In doing so, he placed the sacred text at the mercy of his personal bias and as the text itself tells us, it is improper to EITHER take away, OR add to the sacred text.
Additionally, there are many, many mistakes and mistranslations to the New World Translation so that it is often a commentary and not a translation.
So, to brag as you have about scholarship is misguided and undeserved and feels self-serving.
So yes, the Hebrew bible in its various historical iterations has been translated with “relatively” good accuracy given the nature of transmission of and translation of ancient texts that originated as oral stories.
This does not mean you are reading accurate text, especially given the fact that the Jews who created the Masoretic bible TELL US that they changed the text in creating their bible and give us multiple examples of changes they made.
While there are variations, some of the variations are both inaccurate AND they are frequently important theologically. Just as the Jehovahs Witness Franz created a New Testament to suite his theology, so did the Jews. And, all individuals (including translators) have bias. AND, bias affects the resulting translation.
3) APPLYING nPEACE RULE OF "SIFTING OUT THE ADDITIONS" - WHEN TEXT DOESN’T APPEAR IN OTHER KNOWN BIBLICAL TEXT
nPeace said : “Sifting out the additions, is easy.
This lengthy reading is not in any other known Bible text...” (post #932)
Applying this rule to the Bible the Jehovahs Witnesses created. - "improper additions are revealed by absence in other texts "-
Lets apply this rule to the Jehovahs Witness Bible as an example :
Matthew 1:20 in The Jehovahs Witness Bible reads “But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream,…”
However, there is not a single Greek text that supports the addition of the name Jehovah out of THOUSANDS of important ancient greek manuscripts of matthew that exist and it is a departure from this only known text.
Therefore it is an improper addition to the translation.
Matthew 1:22 in the Jehovahs Witness Bible reads : “All of this actually came about to fulfill what was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet..."
Again, there is not a single ancient Greek text of first or second order that supports the addition of the name Jehovah out of THOUSANDS that exist and it is a departure from the only known text.
Therefore it is an improper addition to the translation.
There are hundreds of similar improper additions and changes made by the Jehovahs Witnesses” to the New Testament text that are not supported by any known Greek text. ALL of these changes to the text are improper additions and subtractions and translational changes.
The command from God is clear : “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut 4:2)
It makes no sense to say you are “proud” of these individuals when they are changing the sacred texts to support their religious bias.
The sacred texts should drive religious conclusions rather than religious conclusions changing the text.
Even IF translators want to create an accurate translation, it is not easy to do so. For example :
4) Clear asked : HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE TRANSLATIONAL PROBLEM OF GENESIS 1:1
One of the first translational difficulties translators run into is the problem with Genesis 1:1.
nPeace, how would YOU personally solve this translational problem? (post #931)
Again I ask, How would you solve the first translational problem that we run in to in the sacred text in Genesis 1:1?
It has been discussed since the middle ages and it is very, very important theologically.
The Jehovahs Witness bible makes the same error as the others.
Since your New World translation is incorrect in this simple sentence, why didn’t your “scholars” correct the text.
What do your scholars say about the text in Genesis 1:1?
5) THE PROBLEM OF EVOLVING CLAIMS REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
nPeace said : “The comparison showed that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy” (post #930)
Clear responded : “The problem is not where the ancient DSS texts agree with the modern texts, the problem is with the comparisons that disagree in their readings and variations.
Consider for example, the difference between 1 Samuel 11:1 narratives of the Dead Sea Scroll and the NIV below.
The NIV narrative reads “Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.” (NIV 1 Sam 11:1)
The same Dead Sea Scroll narrative reads : "Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites severely. He gouged out the right eye of all of them and there was no one to save Israel. There did not remain an Israelite man who was beyond the Jordan whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not gouge out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the hand of the Ammonites and went to Jabesh. And they were there about a month. Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash king of Ammonites, “Make a covenant with us, and we will serve you.” (1 Samuel 11 from Scroll 4Q51)
The NIV version has thirty words (30) while the DSS 4Q version has 101 words (101) and the DSS narrative is much larger and more detailed narrative that explains much that the typical bible narrative leaves out. (An approximately 70 word difference in one verse.)
While I have simply pointed out the difference in a single verse, there are smaller (but relatively important) differences in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 in JUST the first chapter of Samuel. So, the DSS versions of certain narratives do NOT show the text is unchanged but some narratives are quite different while other narratives are well preserved.
An important point is that while individuals who are not really familiar with and have never read the Dead Sea Scroll Texts offer incorrect anecdotes that the Dead Sea Scrolls “confirm” the typical text, the scholars who are actually FAMILIAR WITH and have READ the scrolls point out the Scrolls have important differences in the narratives.
So, I agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm the text that is similar (which is much of the text), the Dead Sea Scrolls also point out many differences that are present in various versions of bibles.” (post #931)
nPeace responded : “So, while they are aware that DSS is older, they are also aware that the DSS are not the originals. So, they expect to find additions, insertions, but the key point is, the message remains the same.” (post #932)
Did you read the differences?
The message is NOT the same in the text.
Your original claim was that comparing our text with the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that “the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy”. (post #930)
A comparison shows no such thing.
Your claim has also shifted from “a comparison with DSS demonstrates accuracy” to “the dead sea are wrong” when they actually demonstrate they texts are different.
Modern texts are NOT the same versions as the DSS and they often do not demonstrate our versions of the text are the best that can be had. Versions of text are improving all of the time.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful.
I will be gone until tomorrow and so will respond to the other points later.
Clear
Last edited:
Hi @nPeace
1) REGARDING THE INTENTIONAL CHANGES THE JEWISH MASORETICS MADE TO THE BIBLE THEY CREATED IN THE MIDDLE AGES FOR RABBINIC JEWS
Clear said : On the other hand, the Masoretics tell us (in the Masorah) that they intentionally changed certain texts in the bible they created.
Which is then to be considered the “original” text?
The text in it’s “original” form, or the texts they created in the Masoretic?
It is more complicated than to simply claim Christians “know” their bible is correct when the truth is that they “Believe” that their texts are correct. (and it goes without saying that "correct" is a relative term). (post #931)
nPeace replied : “Do you know the method involved?” (post #933)
Yes, the Masoretics describe their rules upon which they changed the text.
However, since you claim the Jehovahs Witnesses are (as you say) “privileged to be well informed by the most studious of Bible scholars, in the world.” Then you should already know the answer to your question.
Your question also does not tell us why you believe the text is the most original that can be had when the very people who created the bible for you TELL YOU they made changes to the texts. This goes against logic and rational thinking.
2) REGARDING WHETHER CHRISTIANS “KNOW” OR DO THEY “BELIEVE” THEIR TEXTS ARE ACCURATE?
1)nPeace said : “Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.” (post #930)
As I pointed out, Christians do not KNOW any such thing.
They may BELIEVE this, but IF they believe this, it is partly because they are unaware of errors and variants and translational problems.
Transmission of ancient narratives is not a 100% proposition and the sacred texts and their translations are, on the level of critical textual discoveries, improving and changing.
Genesis 1:1 as an example of ignorance of the textual translation
For example, I asked you about what you (and hockeycowboy) would do with the translational dilemma of Genesis 1:1.
Your response was :
“Problem? What's the problem? If you mention it, I could look at it.” (nPeace in post #934)
ANY Hebrew reader who knows nuances of their language will see the problem, while you do not see the problem in Genesis 1:1 (and you claim Jehovahs Witnesses are informed by the “most studious of Bible scholars, in the world”). The evidence for textual ignorance is in your response.
Your response is perfect evidence that most Christians simply do not know the problems with their text but do BELIEVE it is the best they can get from versions of ancient narratives. Their faith is not a bad thing, but it is still FAITH, not KNOWLEDGE. Their faith is Partly right, partly wrong.
3) REGARDING THE CLAIM TO HAVE "PROOF" THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PRESERVED AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE
nPeace claimed : "We have proof that the Bible has been preserved as remarkably accurate as possible, thus showing divine preservation. (Post #934)
Of course you don’t have “proof” of this.
I think making such claims are unwise since anti-religonists use such silly claims against the biblical text.
Since anti religionists have actual proof (not pretend proof or bragging) the text is not as accurate as possible, they use your same claim as evidence the bible is not divinely preserved.
While I also believe in divine intervention involving texts, It is not the transmission of ancient textual narratives that is the problem but rather the silly claims made by both proponents and antagonists of the text.
4) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS NEW WORLD BIBLE IS THE MOST ACCURATE TRANSLATION
nPeace claimed : "The NWT is the most accurate translation : (John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (post #934)
Of course the NWT is not “the most accurate translation”.
This is simply another silly bragging point.
You can’t even prove that the phrase “the only-begotten god” should be the phrase to include in your bible.
Or, if you can prove it, you will be the first person in the world to do so.
5) REGARDING ADDING TO AND TAKING AWAY FROM SACRED TEXTS
nPeace asked : “What do you think about translation that have either taken out completely, God's name from the pages of their translation, or are inconsistent in how they treat the divine name?” (post #930)
Clear responded : "I think the prohibition regarding not adding nor taking away (Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:18-19) is important in treating sacred texts.
I think it is wrong to remove the name from sacred texts where we have evidence that it originally appeared and it is wrong to add it where we have no evidence that it appeared. (POST #931)
nPeace responded : “I totally agree with you there. So, what do you think about the NWT treatment of the Divine Name? (post #934)
I answered this question from post #934 in my last post #936 above, under the heading : 3) APPLYING nPEACE RULE OF "SIFTING OUT THE ADDITIONS (Clear post #936)
However, IF the Jehovahs Witnesses REALLY believe the current text is the most original we can get from ancient copies and if they REALLY believe in God’s prohibition Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it…” (a prohibition in Deuteronomy and repeated again in Revelations) then they should NOT have added the name “Jehovah” to the New Testament Text where it never existed.
I understand the desire to honor God and support your beliefs (and I honor anyone who honors God) and I don’t mean to offend you. I like you.
(And I like HockeyCowboy).
BUT, to change the text to try to support your theology while claiming to honor the text and claiming that it is the closest we can get to the copies seems improper, even somewhat hypocritical to me.
6) HOW DOES ONE DECIDE THEIR PERSONAL CANON IS CORRECT AND OTHER CANONS ARE INCORRECT?
Clear asked : "Why is your personal, modern canon correct while the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus canon incorrect?
Why would the modern Eastern Canon be incorrect while your canon is correct? (post #931)
nPeace responded with a cut and past from JW.ORG regarding the rules of their sect for "Determining Canonicity" in post #934
I appreciate your information on why the Jehovahs Witnesses think their canon is correct.
However, this does not tell me why Jehovahs Witnesses think OTHER Christians who feel the same way about their canon were wrong.
CODEX SINAITICUS AND 4TH CENTURY CHRISTIANS AS A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
Why do Jehovahs Witnesses believe the Christians who only had the 4th century canon of Codex Sinaiticus were incorrect to feel the same way about their ancient canon as Jehovahs Witnesses do about their modern canon?
Clear
καιρο ειΣΙ μ
1) REGARDING THE INTENTIONAL CHANGES THE JEWISH MASORETICS MADE TO THE BIBLE THEY CREATED IN THE MIDDLE AGES FOR RABBINIC JEWS
Clear said : On the other hand, the Masoretics tell us (in the Masorah) that they intentionally changed certain texts in the bible they created.
Which is then to be considered the “original” text?
The text in it’s “original” form, or the texts they created in the Masoretic?
It is more complicated than to simply claim Christians “know” their bible is correct when the truth is that they “Believe” that their texts are correct. (and it goes without saying that "correct" is a relative term). (post #931)
nPeace replied : “Do you know the method involved?” (post #933)
Yes, the Masoretics describe their rules upon which they changed the text.
However, since you claim the Jehovahs Witnesses are (as you say) “privileged to be well informed by the most studious of Bible scholars, in the world.” Then you should already know the answer to your question.
Your question also does not tell us why you believe the text is the most original that can be had when the very people who created the bible for you TELL YOU they made changes to the texts. This goes against logic and rational thinking.
2) REGARDING WHETHER CHRISTIANS “KNOW” OR DO THEY “BELIEVE” THEIR TEXTS ARE ACCURATE?
1)nPeace said : “Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.” (post #930)
As I pointed out, Christians do not KNOW any such thing.
They may BELIEVE this, but IF they believe this, it is partly because they are unaware of errors and variants and translational problems.
Transmission of ancient narratives is not a 100% proposition and the sacred texts and their translations are, on the level of critical textual discoveries, improving and changing.
Genesis 1:1 as an example of ignorance of the textual translation
For example, I asked you about what you (and hockeycowboy) would do with the translational dilemma of Genesis 1:1.
Your response was :
“Problem? What's the problem? If you mention it, I could look at it.” (nPeace in post #934)
ANY Hebrew reader who knows nuances of their language will see the problem, while you do not see the problem in Genesis 1:1 (and you claim Jehovahs Witnesses are informed by the “most studious of Bible scholars, in the world”). The evidence for textual ignorance is in your response.
Your response is perfect evidence that most Christians simply do not know the problems with their text but do BELIEVE it is the best they can get from versions of ancient narratives. Their faith is not a bad thing, but it is still FAITH, not KNOWLEDGE. Their faith is Partly right, partly wrong.
3) REGARDING THE CLAIM TO HAVE "PROOF" THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN PRESERVED AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE
nPeace claimed : "We have proof that the Bible has been preserved as remarkably accurate as possible, thus showing divine preservation. (Post #934)
Of course you don’t have “proof” of this.
I think making such claims are unwise since anti-religonists use such silly claims against the biblical text.
Since anti religionists have actual proof (not pretend proof or bragging) the text is not as accurate as possible, they use your same claim as evidence the bible is not divinely preserved.
While I also believe in divine intervention involving texts, It is not the transmission of ancient textual narratives that is the problem but rather the silly claims made by both proponents and antagonists of the text.
4) REGARDING THE CLAIM THAT THE JEHOVAHS WITNESS NEW WORLD BIBLE IS THE MOST ACCURATE TRANSLATION
nPeace claimed : "The NWT is the most accurate translation : (John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (post #934)
Of course the NWT is not “the most accurate translation”.
This is simply another silly bragging point.
You can’t even prove that the phrase “the only-begotten god” should be the phrase to include in your bible.
Or, if you can prove it, you will be the first person in the world to do so.
5) REGARDING ADDING TO AND TAKING AWAY FROM SACRED TEXTS
nPeace asked : “What do you think about translation that have either taken out completely, God's name from the pages of their translation, or are inconsistent in how they treat the divine name?” (post #930)
Clear responded : "I think the prohibition regarding not adding nor taking away (Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:18-19) is important in treating sacred texts.
I think it is wrong to remove the name from sacred texts where we have evidence that it originally appeared and it is wrong to add it where we have no evidence that it appeared. (POST #931)
nPeace responded : “I totally agree with you there. So, what do you think about the NWT treatment of the Divine Name? (post #934)
I answered this question from post #934 in my last post #936 above, under the heading : 3) APPLYING nPEACE RULE OF "SIFTING OUT THE ADDITIONS (Clear post #936)
However, IF the Jehovahs Witnesses REALLY believe the current text is the most original we can get from ancient copies and if they REALLY believe in God’s prohibition Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it…” (a prohibition in Deuteronomy and repeated again in Revelations) then they should NOT have added the name “Jehovah” to the New Testament Text where it never existed.
I understand the desire to honor God and support your beliefs (and I honor anyone who honors God) and I don’t mean to offend you. I like you.
(And I like HockeyCowboy).
BUT, to change the text to try to support your theology while claiming to honor the text and claiming that it is the closest we can get to the copies seems improper, even somewhat hypocritical to me.
6) HOW DOES ONE DECIDE THEIR PERSONAL CANON IS CORRECT AND OTHER CANONS ARE INCORRECT?
Clear asked : "Why is your personal, modern canon correct while the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus canon incorrect?
Why would the modern Eastern Canon be incorrect while your canon is correct? (post #931)
nPeace responded with a cut and past from JW.ORG regarding the rules of their sect for "Determining Canonicity" in post #934
I appreciate your information on why the Jehovahs Witnesses think their canon is correct.
However, this does not tell me why Jehovahs Witnesses think OTHER Christians who feel the same way about their canon were wrong.
CODEX SINAITICUS AND 4TH CENTURY CHRISTIANS AS A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
Why do Jehovahs Witnesses believe the Christians who only had the 4th century canon of Codex Sinaiticus were incorrect to feel the same way about their ancient canon as Jehovahs Witnesses do about their modern canon?
Clear
καιρο ειΣΙ μ
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
It looks like you prefer not to use the quote feature.
Neither.
It's a fact the the faithful and discrete slave is aware of differences and variations.
The message of the Bible has not changed.
What I said, was in response to this -
However, Individuals do not “Know" how close they are to "originals" but instead, they “believe" they are close to the originals.
Let me explain regarding this principle of faith (but not knowledge)
They (and apparently you) simply (typically) are unaware of differences and variations that the scholars are aware of.
And they (and you apparently) believe and assume they are reading the “original text” when many times they are simply reading a variation of the original. (Post #931)
I'm saying that everyone besides the other individuals that you excluded from "They (and apparently you)", are not unaware of what the other individuals you excluded are aware of - namely, that there are variations.
Also, I do not know of anyone who believes and assumes they are reading the “original text”.
Why do you keep referring to the “original text”? Whom do you know of, that believes they are reading the “original text”?
Why do you say, we do not know?
Why do you think you know what we do not know?
Being corrected and changed by whom?
Why do you believe that's up to those persons, and others have not already recognized any later additions, and produced a copy that is accurate?
This is what you believe, or know?
If the latter, how do you know this?
It's an easy to read translation, which seeks to preserve the text as accurately as possible.
Why do you refer to them as mistakes and mistranslations?
I understand this is what you believe, but that doesn't change what I know, and I know you don't know.
Too many manuscripts exist for one to need to stick to, or use changed texts.
I gave you an example of where the NWT does not incorporate changes. They have also identified, and excluded spurious texts, found in many translations, including KJV.
I had to look twice. For a moment I thought the text changed.
You meant Matthew 1:24, don't you.Where do you see an addition? The name of God, is not an addition.
You admitted, didn't you "they changed the text in creating their bible and give us multiple examples of changes they made."
So, whereas, it is a known fact that the Divine name was removed and replaced with the title Lord, it cannot be accurate to say, restoring the divine name, is an addition.
How do you figure that?
Did you get a chance to look at the links I posted?
I'll just quote an excerpt from one.
Bible scholars acknowledge that God’s personal name, as represented by the Tetragrammaton (יהוה), appears almost 7,000 times in the original text of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, many feel that it did not appear in the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. For this reason, most modern English Bibles do not use the name Jehovah when translating the so-called New Testament. Even when translating quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures in which the Tetragrammaton appears, most translators use “Lord” rather than God’s personal name.
The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures does not follow this common practice. It uses the name Jehovah a total of 237 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. In deciding to do this, the translators took into consideration two important factors: (1) The Greek manuscripts we possess today are not the originals. Of the thousands of copies in existence today, most were made at least two centuries after the originals were composed. (2) By that time, those copying the manuscripts either replaced the Tetragrammaton with Kyʹri·os, the Greek word for “Lord,” or they copied from manuscripts where this had already been done.
The divine name in the Greek scriptures are not an addition.
It's a restoring of the text - correcting obvious changes by people who deliberately changed the texts from the original.
The scripture you used here is one good example. Isaiah 7:14 reads, Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman* will become pregnant and will give birth to a son,+ and she will name him Immanuel.
The source of those words, is identified by name, by one of the prophets,
In Matthew 1:22, the source of the message is identified by name.
This is keeping with the consistency of Biblical texts - it's message; it's author.
Jehovah's angel
The divine name is not an addition.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Tell me something Clear.
You admitted the text was deliberately changed right?
Why then are you accusing Jehovah's Witnesses of changing the text.
Tell me this also.
You said, "The texts are being corrected and improved all of the time..."
Who gets to correct the text, and why?
The answer is actually in the Bible.
Perhaps your answer is, the scholars you deem "incredibly gifted and have sacrificed much of their lives in the study of the biblical text and have contributed much, much, MUCH, more to biblical knowledge than your religious movement has."
(1 Corinthians 3:19) . . .the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. . .
(1 Corinthians 3:20) . . .And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.”
In these two verses, Paul quotes a Psalm.
(Job 5:13) . . .He catches the wise in their own cunning, So that the plans of the shrewd are thwarted.
(Psalm 94:11) . . .Jehovah knows the thoughts of men, That they are but a mere breath.
Notice the use of the divine name.
Yes, the author of the Bible - the one who preserves his great name, is the one who get's to decide that.
It's not the wise and intellectual of this world.
Not only does God and his people consider such wisdom as foolish, but it's also inferior.
(1 Corinthians 2:6-16) 6 Now we speak wisdom among those who are mature, but not the wisdom of this system of things nor that of the rulers of this system of things, who are to come to nothing. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom in a sacred secret, the hidden wisdom, which God foreordained before the systems of things for our glory. 8 This [wisdom] not one of the rulers of this system of things came to know, for if they had known [it] they would not have impaled the glorious Lord. 9 But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, neither have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 10 For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the spirit of man that is in him? So, too, no one has come to know the things of God, except the spirit of God. 12 Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by [the] spirit, as we combine spiritual [matters] with spiritual [words]. 14 But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines indeed all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.
If you are familiar with the scriptues, you would know that God give understanding and wisdom to his humble people.
(Matthew 11:25, 26) 25 At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. 26 Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved.
Matthew 13:10-16
So, Clear, really, I know whom God has used to omit the addition, and correct the changes. It's not the "incredibly gifted".
It's the humble meek ones of the earth whom God deliberately uses to preserve his message as accurately as possible... and understand it too.
(Acts 4:13) . . .Now when they saw the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were astonished. And they began to realize that they had been with Jesus.
Problem? Again, I ask, what problem? You haven't mentioned any.
What problem are you seeing?
nPeace
Veteran Member
I don't understand.
Did you not say the text was changed?
So why would someone consider what is clearly a later insertion to be part of the text?
When comparing, don't we have to take into account, what has been added? Why would that be important?