1. 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!

Featured Which Bible is inerrant and inspired?

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Wandering Monk, Nov 15, 2019.

  1. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    19,176
    Ratings:
    +9,765
    Religion:
    None
    Evasive response. It is not lying to say you caught
    a four pound bass, but nobody thinks it was exactly
    four lbs. The number is approximate. "True" and "exact"
    are not the same-that is why there are two different words.

    Now, are any of the numbers in the bible approximate,
    or, exact to the trillion decimal places?
     
  2. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +301
    Religion:
    Christian
    No numbers in the Bible are approximate. They are exact in according to what God is doing with them. Numerology in Scripture is just like any other study in Scripture. It's goal is to present a truth concerning redemption. It's goal is not to teach a math class.

    So, do I need to say it any plainer. The numbers in Scripture are exactly correct, and true, and what God wanted in the Bible.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
  3. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    19,176
    Ratings:
    +9,765
    Religion:
    None
    Good, you are willing to commit yourself.
    So, in Kings we have the number "30 cubits".

    I take it you are not an engineer. :D

    Ifn you were you would know.
    There was no standard cubit, nor a way to
    determine anyone's cubit length with any
    precision- maybe an eight of an inch.

    Lets make it a 64th of an inch. A 128th or 256th!

    That level of precision would assure the immediate destruction
    of a jet engine.

    Now stretch (how many lbs force? must be
    to a trillion decimals,) a line precisely (trillion
    decimals) at the circumference, then measure
    it to said precision, again pulled taught to that
    same number of lbs, and the ends of the line,
    found to another trillion.

    The "sea" had to have been cast to a trillion decimal
    places, and of course, due to thermal expansion /
    contraction, the measurement would have to be
    made at the right temp, to the trillion decimals.

    Are you seeing a prob?
    And I was making it easy, for lo, the number
    "30" is 30.0000000000000 to an infinite number
    of decimals, not merely a trillion.

    Now, if you are satified that the ancients were
    capable and inclined to such godly perfection
    in bronze casting and measurements, then plz
    so state.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    19,176
    Ratings:
    +9,765
    Religion:
    None
    Are you saying that a falsehood is true ifn it gets
    you to heaven?
     
  5. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,521
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    POST ONE OF TWO

    Hi @Good-Ole-Rebel

    To have you project “inerrancy” or “perfection” onto their imperfect work that has errors is akin to idolatry in that it ascribes religious and spiritual qualities to an inanimate object (the bible) which the object does not have. As I pointed out, the very translators who created your English bible will tell you that there are mistakes in the text. For example, the very first printing of the New English Bible describes this problem of errors in the Masoretic (MT) Jewish translation is summarized in it’s prologue /commentary, saying :

    "The Hebrew text as thus handed down [by the massoretes] is full of errors of every kind due to defective archetypes and successive copyists’ errors, confusion of letters, omissions and insertions, displacements of words and even whole sentences or paragraphs; and copyists’ unhappy attempts to rectify mistakes have only increased the confusion"

    It is irrational and illogical then, to inflate a claim to “inerrancy” or perfection to an object when it’s creators describe the errors they know are in it. And, it is not just the creators of your English bible that describe errors in English, the creators of the base texts themselves, describe the errors in the Hebrew and the Greek text which were used to create the English bible. Your original quote came from a Masoretic based bible. Consider then the base text and just of few errors of the Masoretic that the translators of your text were describing.

    For example, consider the variations caused simply by the peculiar use of the letter He ( ה )among some example variants.

    The Massorah catalogues lists of words which ought to have he (ה) at the beginning, and other words which have a superfluous He (ה) in the text, but, according to the Massorah, should have been omitted, and other lists of words having an extra He (ה) in the middle. These simple sorts of error create different words. The mechanism is like adding an “e” to the english word “bad”, to create an entirely new words such as “bade”, or “bead”, or a nonsensical “ebad” out of the original word. It’s not just the variant uses of “He”, but often this letter is interchanged with Aleph, or Vav, etc.

    For examples :

    A simple example is 2 Samuel 7:9 where the reading is “and I have cast off (ואכרתה) all thine enemies", whereas in the parallel passage in I Chronicles 17:8 the same quote is “and I have cut off (ואכרית) all thine enemies”. As Ginsberg explained, the editor/redactor of the text in Samuel added He (ה) and the editor/redactor of Chronicles resolved it into it’s present form by inserting a yod in the middle of the word. This is a simple variant / conflict since "cast off" and "cut off" are fairly similar. Other conflicts cause more problems.

    For example : Such additions of He to the earlier text explains some of the unusual variations between the different versions of the Hebrew text. For example, In 2 Samuel 24:13 the text reads “or wilt thou flee (נסד ) three months before thine enemies?”, whereas in 1 Chronicles 21:12 the quote is “or wilt thou be destroyed (נספה ) three months before thine enemies”. The massoretes tell us that the original text in both passages was נסד without the He (ה) and this was introduced into Chronicles by the editor/redactor of that base text. The copyist in a later period, simply mistook נ for a פ. The fact that the earlier Jewish Septuagint and the Vulgate will have נסד confirms this error.

    These sorts of instances of change of letters occurred so often that the Massorah directs us to read certain words WITH a Vav. This is similar to the directions that we are to read the ketiv and not the Qere readings in the Hebrew text (which are very different).

    To show visually how such a mistake is so easy to make, I have pasted a text from Joshua 1 below. I have circled (in yellow) three letters that all appear as Tavs ( ת ) except, when I first read the middle "tav", the word simply does not make sense. Finally, it only made sense when I realized the middle letter in the example was not a tav at all, but was a final nun followed by a less well formed beginning nun of the following word that were written so close that there was no space so as to separate them.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    I will have to place this image in a image hosting site before you can see visually the problem with the hebrew (I will do it later)

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

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

    For example, in 2 Kings 7:17, the later form of the text read המלכ "the King" without the aleph of המלאכ "the messenger" (my computer doesn’t write a final Kaf form….). The primitive form that reads, “the messenger” (with aleph) appears correctly in the Septuagint and the Syriac Jewish versions, but not in the massoretic. Thus, it is not “the king” who came down in this sentence, but it should read that “the messenger” came down. The preceding chapter has it in it's correct form (6:33).

    In 2 Samuel 11:1 the opposite type of error is created when an aleph is inserted into the very same word, making “the messengers” (המלאכימ) out of “the Kings” (המלכימ) (my computer doesn’t convert to final mem’s either…)

    The point is, we have only discussed one, very, very simple type of error and there are LISTS of texts given to use by the massoretes themselves, telling us of the many errors they either know about or created (for reasons they thought justifiable) in the biblical text they created.

    @Good-Ole-Rebel. You read neither Greek nor Hebrew nor are you educated regarding textual history of the biblical text. To then have you theorize that the text is actually inerrant and perfect despite the witness and admission of the texts creators is simply bizarre. This is an illogical and irrational claim you are trying to create.

    THERE ARE MANY TYPES OF ERRORS OF VARYING IMPORTANCE (SOME SIMPLE AND OTHERS ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT)

    I’ve only spoke of one type of error. There are many, many types of errors.

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

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

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

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

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

    The differing rules between the school regarding hebrew “yod” and pluralization resulted in multiple conflicting versions of stories. For example, In 2 Sam 5:6 says the inhabitantof the land (singular) while 1 Chron 11:4 renders the Jebusites as “the inhabitants” of the land (plural) despite the primitive spelling being the same. One school inserted a “vav” while the another school inserted a “yod” to create their different and conflicting words. The same principle is involved in 2 Kings 18:28 and Isa. 34:13 where the same description is rendered differently (i.e. Hear the word” -singular versus “hear the words” - plural).
     
    #85 Clear, Jan 4, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  6. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,521
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    POST TWO OF TWO

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

    We have not even touched upon the more complicated and more significant changes, but we can speak of them if it becomes important to do so.

    Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the St. Petersburg Codex of 916 a.d. had been the oldest dated Manuscript (MS) known. Though it’s Massoretic List gives examples of passages emended, the list does not tell us what the original text was which were altered by the Jewish Sopherim.

    The Mechilta is the oldest partial list of a few alterations and there are multiple other lists.

    For example, the list in the Midrash Tanchuma is quite important to any discussion of the specific alterations done by the Jewish Sopherim. This list contains more examples than the Mechilta, but also tell us what the original text was in at least eleven out of the seventeen passages which it adduced and it claims that primitive readings were altered by the Members of the Great Synagogue or the Spiritual Authorities who created one of the various Canons of the Hebrew Scriptures.

    The Massorah also provides a List of Sopheric alterations (with original readings). For examples, the Manuscripts Orient 1397 and Orient 2349 not only ascribed the changes to the Sopherim, but declared that according to the opinion of some Schools the changes were made by Ezra Himself. Whether Ezra actually did make the changes or this claim simply represents a mechanism to increase credibility that the changes were authorized can’t really be proven.

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


    SOME CHANGES ARE VERY IMPORTANT

    Example of changes to the text :

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

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

    The greatest scholar on the Massorah, Ginsberg himself tells us : “With such an emphatic declaration before us, both in the ancient post-biblical records and in the Massorah itself, it seems almost superfluous to point out that it would be most incomprehensible for the redactors of the text to state that they have here altered the text and also to give the original reading when they had in fact done no such thing.” The context, and the logical continuity of the original narrative is more logical and reasonable and smoothly transitions in the original as compared to the textual change. It was the Lord who came down to see and tell Abraham whether the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had acted in accordance with the bitter cry which went up to heaven;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    My point in offering examples of intentional changes made and the justification which motivated intentional changes is simply to show a different TYPE of change that was made to the text. It should be kept in mind that the Sopherim and Massoretes and others who made changes to the text were not attempting to contaminate stories, but, to alter the text to fit their own religious values. This is not unlike the many interpretations and theories of Christians who did similar things for similar reasons. It did not occur to them that the original readings may have fit perfectly, religious worldviews other than their own.

    We could go on and on and on in describing errors in the various versions of the early texts. My point is NOT that the bible is not a good witness for the existence of God, his nature and his relationship to us, but simply that the biblical text in any version of any significant size, contains errors.

    In any case, the point in discussing errors is NOT to say the biblical text is not a good witness for spiritual truths. It is. BUT, it the text is NOT "perfect" nor is it "Inerrant". We do not need to ascribe to it any characteristics it does not have. There is nothing to fear from education regarding the text.

    I hope your journey in life is good and insightful and wonderful Good-Ole-Rebel.

    Clear
    ειειφιακω
     
    #86 Clear, Jan 4, 2020
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2020
  7. Dan From Smithville

    Dan From Smithville Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2017
    Messages:
    12,300
    Ratings:
    +8,203
    Religion:
    Christian (Methodist)
    I completely understand that there is no point at attempting a rational discussion with you. No need to keep supplying evidence.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    48,753
    Ratings:
    +13,054
    Clever back peddle you did here.
    But it is still a back peddle.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  9. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +301
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, I am satisfied.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
  10. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +301
    Religion:
    Christian
    Where did I say that?

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
  11. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +301
    Religion:
    Christian
    Back peddle from what? What a stupid response.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
  12. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    48,753
    Ratings:
    +13,054
    Thank you for the compliment.
    I shall cherish it for as long I can remember it.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +301
    Religion:
    Christian
    @Clear

    If I wanted to read a book, I would just get one. I am not interested in your voluminous smoke screen. If you want a book to read, get (The Canon Of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, IVP,). When you're finished reading it, let me know how you like it. It is short, only 334 pages. But it is direct and to the point.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +301
    Religion:
    Christian
    You're quite welcome.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
  15. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    19,176
    Ratings:
    +9,765
    Religion:
    None
    You are satisfied that the ancients could build
    and measure precisely to an infinite number of
    decimal places.

    To quote Bob Dylan...”get a couch, the boy’s
    insane!”
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,870
    Ratings:
    +5,472
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    The contradictions are there and they’re real.
    Except that many of the letters were written before the Gospels.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,870
    Ratings:
    +5,472
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    There are also contradictions in the Tanakh.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,870
    Ratings:
    +5,472
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    In what way is it “correct?” What are the agreed-upon standards? Who sets them?
     
  19. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,870
    Ratings:
    +5,472
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    Not quite. The canon was never meant to be “the last word in inspiration.” It was intended to be a baseline for “stuff that’s ok to read in church.”
    According to what Apostolic authority?

    How do you know? Proof, please.

    How? And how do you know?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. sojourner

    sojourner Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36,870
    Ratings:
    +5,472
    Religion:
    Christian/Shamanic
    I don’t think God “intended” anything where canon is concerned.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...