M
Montalban
Guest
Indeed. We could simply *trade *experts. I cited someone who’s critical of Ehrman
- Status
D
De_Maria
Guest
Yes, indeed. On all counts. Excellent message!That is why the Roman Catholic Church did not burn the original codices. Yes, the bible were translated to many languages (including arabic), but the original codices, which the bible came from, are still there. All people who want to study in depth about the scriptures, first will have to learn either the Greek and/or the Ibranian/Jewish language (the original language of the codices), and also its literature. Interpretations can not be made just by direct translation, without regards the literature and the culture of the language behind. You may see the oldest codices preserved in the Vatican Library, I believe.
The codices were hand rewritten from the original writing, because there was no other way of making copies. There was no Xerox machine at that time. That is also why until the 4th century, all of those codices were canonized into the bible we know today. It took about 300 years for the experts to verify all those codices to make sure no variations, and more importantly, no refutals. During that time frame, it was demonstrated that the teaching contained in those codices yield fruits, in a form of changing behavior from more and more early christians into better humanity and moral standard.
Yes, the earliest gospel were written about 30 years after Jesus died, risen, and ascended into heaven. But, the audience in which the gospel were addressed to were definitely the persons who may experienced and had close encounters to Jesus himself. Any wrong saying, would be refuted far before the gospel ever been canonized.
I do not believe that De Maria ever meant that only 99% of the wording of the bible is correct. If he did, then he is wrong. You may have misunderstood his point. (By the way, I know that De Maria is not female, am I correct sir?)
Sincerely,
De Maria
L
lukewarm
Guest
That’s exactly the point, the codices you cite don’t actually match, nor do we have the originals, or the original copies, or the original copies of the copies.That is why the Roman Catholic Church did not burn the original codices. Yes, the bible were translated to many languages (including arabic), but the original codices, which the bible came from, are still there. All people who want to study in depth about the scriptures, first will have to learn either the Greek and/or the Ibranian/Jewish language (the original language of the codices), and also its literature. Interpretations can not be made just by direct translation, without regards the literature and the culture of the language behind. You may see the oldest codices preserved in the Vatican Library, I believe.
The codices were hand rewritten from the original writing, because there was no other way of making copies. There was no Xerox machine at that time. That is also why until the 4th century, all of those codices were canonized into the bible we know today. It took about 300 years for the experts to verify all those codices to make sure no variations, and more importantly, no refutals. During that time frame, it was demonstrated that the teaching contained in those codices yield fruits, in a form of changing behavior from more and more early christians into better humanity and moral standard.
Yes, the earliest gospel were written about 30 years after Jesus died, risen, and ascended into heaven. But, the audience in which the gospel were addressed to were definitely the persons who may experienced and had close encounters to Jesus himself. Any wrong saying, would be refuted far before the gospel ever been canonized.
I do not believe that De Maria ever meant that only 99% of the wording of the bible is correct. If he did, then he is wrong. You may have misunderstood his point. (By the way, I know that De Maria is not female, am I correct sir?
In one 4th Century manuscript reads to the side “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!”. In fact changing the manuscripts was so widespread you are hard pressed to find two alike these days unless they are part of the same copy. In the copies we do have there are over 400,000 differences between them.
M
Montalban
Guest
D
dolphinlove
Guest
do you smell a muslim dressed up in catholic clothes???
M
Montalban
Guest
Detail of a fourth-century Codex Vaticanus, a Latin version of the New Testament. The note in the center margin reads, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!” Ehrman says that the author, a medieval scribe, was impugning a previous scribe for altering the manuscript. But scholars say that the first scribe actually made a proper correction. The scribe who wrote this note was wrong, and later, the text was changed back.
research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2006/feature_05.php
research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr2006/feature_05.php
L
lukewarm
Guest
Even if true that just means that later scribes were changing the copies of the copies of the copies. The point actually doesn’t change at all, it’s just reveresed.
I’m not a Bible only Christian so it doesn’t kill my faith. But to claim the Bible is a reliable text today as it was in the 2nd century I believe has been proven false by countless textual critics.
In my quest for faith I refuse to lie to myself, if we have thousands of ancient manuscripts and there are tens of thousands of changes and alterations between the texts, even entire stories completely omited from earlier copies, I can’t say to myself “the Bible we have today is a perfect copy”. That would be lying to myself.
Same reason why I couldn’t accept the BofM with all the KJV errors and plagiarizations in it but it was supposed to be an ancient record, yet contained exact phrases (even grammatical mistakes) of a 16th century Old English manuscript. Same way the Qu’ran to me is bunk because they refuted Christianity on grounds that didn’t even exist like Mary as part of the Trinity. Considering that was never a belief of Chrsitianity it’s obvious the author was not God, but an ignorant arab who knew little about actual Christianity.
M
Montalban
Guest
Which is off-topic. This thread’s about the Koran.
B
Booklover
Guest
Better watch out, Dolph, or Dr. Edwin (Contarini) Freud will be accusing you of insanity as per G.K. Chesterton as he did me!
:whacky:Vickie
D
dolphinlove
Guest
Its too late, im already insane anywayBetter watch out, Dolph, or Dr. Edwin (Contarini) Freud will be accusing you of insanity as per G.K. Chesterton as he did me!
Vickie
I actually read some of Paars stuff, so what does that tell you about my mental state
D
De_Maria
Guest
You paint with broad strokes. What do you mean they don’t actually match? Do you mean the message of Jesus Christ was altered?
How do you know? The fact is, we don’t know that we don’t have the originals. Nor can we prove that the copies we have weren’t copied from originals. Those are all assumptions.
But what we do have substantially corroborrates itself from copy to copy.
Do those differences change the meaning of the text? Do they change the doctrine and teaching of the faith?
What percentage of those differences are simple variations in the same phrase such as the difference between “Bless you” and “May you be blessed”?
The fact is that the variations comprise less than a 1% difference in text and even less than that in meaning.
Sincerely,
De Maria
B
Booklover
Guest
Also see here.
From the third chapter of the Mishkat we learn that for some time after the death of the prophet, the Quran continued to be preserved in the memories of the people, and was still recited in various conflicting ways; but in the famous battle of Yamamah a great number of the Quran reciters were slain.
and
This valuable tradition of Al-Bukhari makes it clear that Abu-Bakr, for the first time, collected the whole Quran into one book; but he apparently made no critical study of the text with a view to reducing the various readings to one uniform standard. On the contrary we learn from Al-Bukhari that within a short period the discrepancies and contradictions which existed in the various readings of the Quran became of a still graver nature; until at last the Khalif 'Usman took steps to allay the doubts which began to arise in the minds of the people.
This comment was made by Hamba:
" The isnad is part of the religion: had it not been for the isnad, whoever wished to would have said whatever he liked "
Does anyone notice anything strange in that statement? Sounds like what was recorded was not necessarily what was originally said.
Kudos to you De Maria, for your excellent posts! Darn! I wish I could debate that well.
Vickie
B
Booklover
Guest
Well that makes two of us! :whacky: :whacky:Its too late, im already insane anyway
I actually read some of Paars stuff, so what does that tell you about my mental state
Vickie
L
lukewarm
Guest
De Maria you are just shooting from the hip and not actually providing an argument to refute anything I’ve written you’re making up statistics and answering with questions.
You said you would discet anything Bart Ehrman said, I said start with you analysis of the Jahannine Comma and you come with with your 1% idea again… And I would say the Johannine Comma goes a long way to altering and changing the meaning of a text. And this is just one example, we’ll be here until next year going over every one that exists.
If you’re just going to respond with noise and ad-hominem’s on the source that I used then I won’t bother. I’ve read a bit on textual criticism, enough to know the New Testament today cannot be considered an unaltered manuscript, the original is lost long ago.
You said you would discet anything Bart Ehrman said, I said start with you analysis of the Jahannine Comma and you come with with your 1% idea again… And I would say the Johannine Comma goes a long way to altering and changing the meaning of a text. And this is just one example, we’ll be here until next year going over every one that exists.
If you’re just going to respond with noise and ad-hominem’s on the source that I used then I won’t bother. I’ve read a bit on textual criticism, enough to know the New Testament today cannot be considered an unaltered manuscript, the original is lost long ago.
D
De_Maria
Guest
I thought I was doing pretty well.
Actually, the Johanine Comma did not alter the meaning of the text. It crystallized it. However, the Johanine comma was absent from all previous known bibles so it should be removed until and when it can be proven that it was actually there.
Now, why do I say that the Johanine comma crystallized the meaning of the Scriptures? Because the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was understood from the beginning of Christianity and formalized in the Third Century even though we can’t prove that the Johanine comma was present in those verses.
What does that prove? It proves that the Catholic formula of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium is excellent in keeping the message of Jesus Christ intact.
Ad-hominems? Whats his name did become atheist as a result of his studies. Thats the worst name I called anyone.
And his conclusions are erroneous. We can prove that in discussing them.
So where’s the ad-hominem? Point to it.
The paper is lost but the message is preserved. We can prove that. Which do you consider more important?
Sincerely,
De Maria
L
lukewarm
Guest
So you unequivocally admit that scribes were altering the texts of manuscripts to fit their view of Christianity? In this case the case for the Trinity. I am glad we got that out of the way as that was really my only point. The scary thing is you seem to think it is O.K. to change the text of scripture as long as it “crystalizes” Christianity, which I find plain wrong. Don’t feel bad though apparently many New Testament scribes held the same belief. And it happened A LOT, all throughout the entire New Testament. No one book is without changes and alterations. Either someone added the Johannine Comma, or present Bibles are wrong for removing it, either way the text is thus corrupted there.
You clearly used and ad-hominem when you stated "Bart Ehrman the atheist that is your “expert”? Nevermind the guy has a doctorate from Princeton and is noted as an expert in the field of textual criticism.
No you can’t because what he wrote is not really debateable, you can debate his personal faith being affected but the changes in texts and reliance on Textus Receptus for nearly all modern translations of the Bible even though they only cross referenced a very limited amount of Greek New Testament manuscripts are facts. The Johannine Comma is a fact, the changes he documents are facts. You may choose to minmialize these facts or elevate them, but his facts are still facts.
I already did you dismissed him as a valid source because he is an atheist, that’s an ad-hominem.
The message we have today is there, but that can never be proven that it is the same message that exists 2,000 years ago. That is presonal belief and faith and little else.
T
tacitus
Guest
tectual criticism is not all its cracked up to be. and is this thread about the accuracy of a heresy islam as opposed to the word of god ie the old and new testements which due to the error of man have been mistranslated?
well then i guess islam is a more accurate heresy—sure. indeed. but ill stick with the vulgate hands down not to be vulgure though–realy.
well then i guess islam is a more accurate heresy—sure. indeed. but ill stick with the vulgate hands down not to be vulgure though–realy.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Did I? Where? Please quote me.
I guess you misunderstood my entire message. Or perhaps I wasn’t clear. Let me explain myself:
I said and I quote:
Actually, the Johanine Comma did not alter the meaning of the text.
It didn’t. This is in rebuttal to your statement where you said:
And I would say the Johannine Comma goes a long way to altering and changing the meaning of a text.
And so I continue quoting my statement:
It crystallized it.
In other words, the teaching which we normally seek and find implied in the Scriptures is made explicit in that statement. But, the meaning is not changed because we believe that teaching whether the Johanine Comma is in the text or not.
I continued:
*However, the Johanine comma was absent from all previous known bibles so it should be removed until and when it can be proven that it was actually there.
*
Note that I carefully worded my statement to state that it is possible that we might find an older text which contains this verse within it. There is no suggestion of tampering or adulterating the text because I don’t believe there was any.
The rest of my statement follows logically with the first part:
*Now, why do I say that the Johanine comma crystallized the meaning of the Scriptures? Because the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was understood from the beginning of Christianity and formalized in the Third Century even though we can’t prove that the Johanine comma was present in those verses.
What does that prove? It proves that the Catholic formula of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium is excellent in keeping the message of Jesus Christ intact.*
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
I don’t feel bad at all.
No, it didn’t.
False, there is another alternative which you aren’t considering. Someone may have copied the text correctly from a codice which is now missing:
americanpresbyterianchurch.org/the_johannine_comma.htm
The history of the Johanine comma is lengthy and complex, but here’s a concise and informative summary:
**forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1816684&mode=threaded#post1816684
**
A question as to someone’s expertise is an ad-hominem?
Clearly you must be a hyper sensitive individual.
I guess I don’t have the faith in doctorates and degrees that you do. This fellow doesn’t even know how to evaluate evidence nor what constitutes evidence. But like I’ve said, if you’d like to take a crack at defending his statements, be my guest.
No, as has been said by the fellow whom Montalban referenced, they are his observations. And a minority view at that.
The Johanine Comma is a fact. I never disputed that fact. I dispute YOUR and HIS interpretation or should I call it “spin” on that fact.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I already did you dismissed him as a valid source because he is an atheist, that’s an ad-hominem.
The message we have today is there, but that can never be proven that it is the same message that exists 2,000 years ago. That is presonal belief and faith and little else.
L
lukewarm
Guest
Hmmmm I’m not buying it read my post again De Maria nothing I said was wrong you clearly admitted that the Johannine Comma was removed because it wasn’t found in “the originals” (which don’t even exist). Therefore you agree with me that texts were altered. But again aparently that doesn’t matter because it “crystalizes the message”.
We’re going in circles here and you’ve already admitted in this topic that there were manuscript changes which was my main point which for some reason you objected to.
And stop saying you’ll debate me, you haven’t debated a thing except yourself into a corner.
And let’s refrain from calling me “hyper-sensitve” I know you love ad-hominems and all, but keep it on the level.
We’re going in circles here and you’ve already admitted in this topic that there were manuscript changes which was my main point which for some reason you objected to.
And stop saying you’ll debate me, you haven’t debated a thing except yourself into a corner.
And let’s refrain from calling me “hyper-sensitve” I know you love ad-hominems and all, but keep it on the level.
D
De_Maria
Guest
You mean you don’t have an answer.
I’ve explained that I didn’t agree.
Sounds more like you are going in circles.
I admitted there are differences. Not changes. The difference is that you insinuate those changes were intentional adulterations of the text. I don’t.
If you say so.
Does anyone else here think that callling an atheist an atheist is an ad-hominem?
Sincerely,
De Maria
- Status