Can you explain this to me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chuck1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chuck1

Guest
Hi what does this mean I don’t get before the 600ad bit because they believe it was inspired they just think its a bit corrupt that’s why they admonish it so I don’t get what this Information is saying ?

The question they cannot adequately answer is: “When was the Bible corrupted?” If they say before 600 A.D. then how can the Quran admonish believers to read it? If they claim it was after 600 A.D., then they have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, for we have absolutely no doubt as to the accuracy of biblical manuscripts from at least the 3rd century forward.

Because if it was corrupt there word have been other Christians and orthodox Christians to say no this is wrong since word spread and it was practiced amount the early church… Is this Right ?
Thanks in advance 🙂
 
Well ill let other people more knowledgeable on this fact answer your question. But it may help you to know how we got the bible. So ill post this link here:

youtube.com/watch?v=Q9p5s8b04dI

Its called: “History of the Bible and the Catholic Church”
 
No it wasn’t but other people claim it was so I am trying to refute this by saying it couldn’t because if it was corrupt there would have been other Christians and orthodox Christians to say no this is wrong since word spread and it was practiced amount the early church…
so can someone tell me if i am right in saying this ?

So am I right ? Anyone ?

Please reply someone so I can move on from this please 🙂
I know I am right I just like to double check
All you need to do is post ‘yes’
Thank you:)
 
Chuck1 said:
Hi what does this mean I don’t get before the 600ad bit becuase they believe it was inspired they just think its a bit corrupt thats why they admoish it so I don’t get what this Infomation is saying ?

The question they cannot adequately answer is: “When was the Bible corrupted?” If they say before 600 A.D. then how can the Quran admonish believers to read it? If they claim it was after 600 A.D., then they have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, for we have absolutely no doubt as to the accuracy of biblical manuscripts from at least the 3rd century forward.
Click to expand...
hmmm…I would like to attemp to answer your question…but I cannot understand your question or the point of your question.

Who is “they” you are referring to? Please re-phrase your query…and more info…and can you explain more the claim of “they”…
 
Chuck1 said:
Hi what does this mean I don’t get before the 600ad bit becuase they believe it was inspired they just think its a bit corrupt thats why they admoish it so I don’t get what this Infomation is saying ?

The question they cannot adequately answer is: “When was the Bible corrupted?” If they say before 600 A.D. then how can the Quran admonish believers to read it? If they claim it was after 600 A.D., then they have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, for we have absolutely no doubt as to the accuracy of biblical manuscripts from at least the 3rd century forward.
Click to expand...
Chuck, there is no single, complete or original copy of the New Testament writings.
Our 5 earliest, main copies (which are in varying degrees incomplete and not perfectly identical) derive from the 300s at the earliest. This does not mean the Bible is “corrupt”.
 
Hi I was wondering if we only have a portion of the orginal manuscript for the gospels then how did we get the rest of it ?

Thanks chuck
 
Let’s say that the original manuscript for Moby Dick was destroyed in… say, 1902.

How on earth would we have the text of Moby Dick?

Well, obviously we’d have any and all book editions of Moby Dick. We could compare them against each other to see if there were any differences (spelling errors, typos, revisions by the author, cuts and additions by an editor). We could also see any copies of portions of Moby Dick, like schoolbooks that print the chapter on the sermon about Jonah at the Seaman’s Chapel. If any critics had made comments about particular quotes, or if anybody quoted Moby Dick in their letters, or if anybody had made photographic copies of the Moby Dick manuscript, all these things would be factored in. You could make critical editions this way, and it might be useful if you were doing research on the book or its author.

But really, most people would trust their copy of the book editions, unless they were marked as being abridged or expurgated. No reason not to trust them; they were copied with reasonable care.
 
Chuck1 said:
Hi I was wondering if we only have a portion of the orginal manuscript for the gospels then how did we get the rest of it ?

Thanks chuck
Click to expand...
Chuck, as mentioned above, there is not even a fragment left of the “original.”
All we have are copies of copies. The earliest 4 main ones are about the closest we can ever get to the lost “original”. have a look here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_uncial_codices

Keep in mind that we are not Protestants - i.e. the Bible is but one expression (and an important one) of “the Deposit of Faith”, of Church Tradition. Afterall, of the many gospels written, it was Church Tradition which decided which ones went into the New testament and which one’s were rejected.

Don’t worry too much that we may not have word-perfect copies of the “originals”. The “originals” in turn, were translated/edited jottings of oral stories held in the collective memories of Jesus’s witnesses - thus put to paper 30-80 years after the events they narrate. Even the “original” probably had inaccuracies and mis-hearings from the oral stories which themselves may have got a bit distorted over years of retelling etc. It doesn’t matter. It is the fact that a believing community has handed down these oral stories/writings/copies with consistent assent/approval/commentary that matters most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top