D
dbacks5439
Guest
Why was it necessary for Jesus to visit the Americas? Also, why the Americas, and not some other distant place like Australia?
- Status
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
T
truthsilence
Guest
Most of what I can find so far, on Raymundus Martini, are references to him in anti-Jehovah’s Witness sites. And then there’s this from Wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymundus_Martini
As far as scripture, it looks like the name Jehovah has been removed from most Bible translations, other than the King James, and a maybe a few others. Although there are still some references in the Topical Index, when you follow the link to them, the name Jehovah is not there. At least that’s what it looks like to me.
biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=jehovah&qs_version=31
For me, though, I don’t need a lot of those kinds of arguments. Those only confirm what I “feel” when I read out of the BoM… that it is as phony as a $3 bill.
I don’ t either, and I agree with you completely.
God bless!
ts
I
IAMLDS
Guest
Hi All,
After Allweathers response in post #235 I had a fun experience that made me chuckle. That night I watched Fiddler on the Roof with my family. I’ve never seen the movie or the play before. The movie starts out with Tevye, a Russian Jew, explaining the importance of tradition. I was then treated to a rousing few minutes of a song titled “Tradition”.
First to Yugnok:
You wrote, “The person you quoted above is correct in saying that the errors are relatively few. There are thousands of manuscripts and text fragments of the early church scriptures especially the gospels. No other historical document from that period comes even close to that in terms of manuscripts. We are able to reconstruct these fragments into an almost 96-99%(somewhere in that ballpark) complete text of what the Gospels would have looked like in the early church (maybe 2nd century). Any copyist errors were minimal to the point of insignificance. Modern scholarly editions of the Bible reflect any variances in early Greek manuscripts in their footnotes. This point is not a matter of faith which even many Christian hating atheistic scripture scholars accept.”
My response comes from an article in a book titled “How the New Testament Came to Be.” The author of the article states, “With the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of the over 5,700 New Testament manuscripts in the Greek language alone are exactly alike in all their particulars. No one knows how many variant readings occur among the surviving copies, but, in Ehrman’s view, they “must number in the hundreds of thousands.” Here the author is quoting from Bart D. Ehrman’s book, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,” Page 27.
The author also quotes Origin complaining about all the transcriptional errors showing up in his scriptures. He says, “The difference among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” Quoted from Ehrman’s book “Misquoting Jesus”, page 52.
I don’t know if Ehrman is a “Christian hating atheistic scripture scholar.” Now we could begin a fruitless debate of dueling Textual Critics, but to Yugnok I would state that there isn’t the uniformity of opinion among the scholarly world as you would lead us to believe. Christ’s teachings are subtle, sublime and at times veiled. To say that “Any copyist errors were minimal to the point of insignificance” is too claim that some words that came out of Christ’s mouth were insignificant. When the meaning of Chirst’s sayings can turn on the change of a comma I would say that any change is not insignificant.
The fact that “new and improved” versions of the Bible continue to be produced only proves that the Scholarly World feels it still doesn’t have it right. The professors are still claiming “Not Yet”. I for one don’t want to depend on the professors to get it right. After all, we don’t get our testimony, our belief, our credo from the professors. Ain’t that right, Allweather?
I am grateful that God provided and inspired a prophet to restore some of those lost or changed words of Christ. I don’t consider them insignificant.
Yugnok, you said, “What is a matter of faith for Christians, however, is the believe that these scriptures are the ones that are inspired.”
I’m with you there.
Now I hear someone singing something about tradition in the other room. I think my family started the movie without me. Got’a go. I’ll get to the rest of you later.
After Allweathers response in post #235 I had a fun experience that made me chuckle. That night I watched Fiddler on the Roof with my family. I’ve never seen the movie or the play before. The movie starts out with Tevye, a Russian Jew, explaining the importance of tradition. I was then treated to a rousing few minutes of a song titled “Tradition”.
First to Yugnok:
You wrote, “The person you quoted above is correct in saying that the errors are relatively few. There are thousands of manuscripts and text fragments of the early church scriptures especially the gospels. No other historical document from that period comes even close to that in terms of manuscripts. We are able to reconstruct these fragments into an almost 96-99%(somewhere in that ballpark) complete text of what the Gospels would have looked like in the early church (maybe 2nd century). Any copyist errors were minimal to the point of insignificance. Modern scholarly editions of the Bible reflect any variances in early Greek manuscripts in their footnotes. This point is not a matter of faith which even many Christian hating atheistic scripture scholars accept.”
My response comes from an article in a book titled “How the New Testament Came to Be.” The author of the article states, “With the exception of the smallest fragments, no two of the over 5,700 New Testament manuscripts in the Greek language alone are exactly alike in all their particulars. No one knows how many variant readings occur among the surviving copies, but, in Ehrman’s view, they “must number in the hundreds of thousands.” Here the author is quoting from Bart D. Ehrman’s book, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,” Page 27.
The author also quotes Origin complaining about all the transcriptional errors showing up in his scriptures. He says, “The difference among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” Quoted from Ehrman’s book “Misquoting Jesus”, page 52.
I don’t know if Ehrman is a “Christian hating atheistic scripture scholar.” Now we could begin a fruitless debate of dueling Textual Critics, but to Yugnok I would state that there isn’t the uniformity of opinion among the scholarly world as you would lead us to believe. Christ’s teachings are subtle, sublime and at times veiled. To say that “Any copyist errors were minimal to the point of insignificance” is too claim that some words that came out of Christ’s mouth were insignificant. When the meaning of Chirst’s sayings can turn on the change of a comma I would say that any change is not insignificant.
The fact that “new and improved” versions of the Bible continue to be produced only proves that the Scholarly World feels it still doesn’t have it right. The professors are still claiming “Not Yet”. I for one don’t want to depend on the professors to get it right. After all, we don’t get our testimony, our belief, our credo from the professors. Ain’t that right, Allweather?
I am grateful that God provided and inspired a prophet to restore some of those lost or changed words of Christ. I don’t consider them insignificant.
Yugnok, you said, “What is a matter of faith for Christians, however, is the believe that these scriptures are the ones that are inspired.”
I’m with you there.
Now I hear someone singing something about tradition in the other room. I think my family started the movie without me. Got’a go. I’ll get to the rest of you later.
A
Allweather
Guest
That is correct. We get it from the Church, the Catholic Church. Much of your argument, it seems to me, revolves around a diminishing body of Scripture. In order to raise Mormon “modern scripture” it is necessary to reduce the Bible to a questionable status. However, the Bible has withstood fierce criticisms for hundreds and thousands of years. It remains the supreme book(s) of all time. So we don’t diminish the Bible, but neither do we live according to it alone, as in sola scriptura. Jesus didn’t found a Bible, he founded a living, breathing, propagating, vibrant, magnificent Church upon human beings endowed with authority. The NT is an outgrowth of that Church.
As for the proliferation of new translations, much of this is an outgrowth of the Jesus movement of the 70’s, I think. It has more to do with the marketing and selling of books, than with scholarly thinking that the Bible hasn’t yet been properly rendered.
If only the teachings derived from those “restored” words had led to orthodox piety, and unity with God’s Church. Instead, they created further divisions, heresies, polygamies, theocracies, enmities, and other unsavory things. They led to the reduction of God to a created being, barely more omnicient than men. They led to a polygamous Jesus. They led to a Virgin Mary who was inseminated by a man-god. And more. These things can’t be accepted as Christian, because they go to the very heart of God’s revelation to us through Jesus, as passed down over two millenia by the Magisterium, and the Bible.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
J
Jerusha
Guest
He also had serious issues with sexual self-control. :tsktsk:
F
flameburns623
Guest
T
Tmaque
Guest
In response to IAMLDS claim that very few of the ancient NT scripture fragments were exactly the same.
“Exactly” the same isn’t necessary to verify the doctrine taught. If you have 1000 fragments, and 997 teach the same doctrine even though they aren’t exactly alike in every detail, you can be fairly sure that the 997 hold the true teachings of the author.
What I find fantastical about LDS claims is that whole sentences and paragraphs were “removed” from the early fragments yet not one fragment has the Joseph Smith translations.
It seems to me that ALL of the manuscripts are EXACTLY alike in that respect.
“Exactly” the same isn’t necessary to verify the doctrine taught. If you have 1000 fragments, and 997 teach the same doctrine even though they aren’t exactly alike in every detail, you can be fairly sure that the 997 hold the true teachings of the author.
What I find fantastical about LDS claims is that whole sentences and paragraphs were “removed” from the early fragments yet not one fragment has the Joseph Smith translations.
It seems to me that ALL of the manuscripts are EXACTLY alike in that respect.
M
majick275
Guest
i don’t buy the whole “i can’t tell you what was removed because it was lost”. Joseph Smith claimed to restore what was lost. the whole LDS religion today is based on the premise that they have what was lost. Okay so from the JST or the BoM show us. you can’t… that’s because it’s NOT a restoration. it’s either same old protestant song and dance or completely new doctrine. either way it looks like apostasy from the catholic side.
- Status