Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

urroner

Which version of the Bible is most infallible?

Recommended Posts

Brugsch wrote:
Which fourth century reading for Matthew 19:9 is the correct one? Sinaiticus or Vaticanus? Vaticanus says that the woman commits adultery and Sinaiticus says the man does? P25, also fourth century, reads differently from either of the other two.

If you compare it to Matt. 5:32, I think you'll find that the two ideas ("the woman commits adultery" and "the man commits adultery") aren't mutually exclusive.

But in one of the textual variants, the man is guilty the woman is innocent, in the other the man is innocent and the woman is guilty. This is a significant point with profound implications in how one should view divorce but on which the manuscripts are divided at the earliest stage. You appear to be arguing that both the man and the woman are guilty which is supported by no manuscript. It is possible that the original reading is the one that you gave, in which case it is not preserved among any of the manuscripts. But that nullifies your argument that the original reading is to be found among the manuscripts.

Do you really trust the editorial decisions for UBS4? Why?

I don't blindly trust them, if that's what you mean.

The best part of UBS 4 is that it gives "full disclosure", it gives the variant readings, so the individual can be made aware of the possibilities. And of course, none of the variants are doctrinally significant.

Full disclosure??? If that is the case then explain to me what the UBS4 editors did in Galatians 5:19. The vast majority of the manuscripts list the works of the flesh as "adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, etc." but the editors of UBS 3 and 4 have tacitly dropped the word "adultery" from the text of the Greek New Testament without so much as a hint that there is a manuscript variant there in spite of the fact that the majority of New Testament manuscripts contain the word.

So, according to UBS4, John 7:53-8:11 should be omitted from the New Testament. Do you agree? Why?

Yes, I think it's obvious that that passage is a later addition.

Do you have a problem with that, for some reason?

Only if we don't need to check our consciences before condemning others.

In Matthew 5:11 the USB4 committee was uncertain about whether "falsely" should appear in the text. They gave their adopted reading a "D" meaning that they were not certain at all what the reading should be.

Personally, I think that "falsely" is implied, even without the explicit term there.

Even so, it doesn't seem like something I need to be too concerned about, as God is the one collecting my blessings for me, not me. He knows what my blessings are, after all.

But then you are reading your opinion into a supposedly inerrant text. Is it the text that is inerrant or just your opinion of it. Without the word falsely, then the text is saying that it does not matter what evil others accuse you of even if it is true as long as you are Christian. With the word the text says that you will be blessed if men lie and accuse you of being evil when you are not if they are really doing it because you are Christian. The distinction seems to be too subtle for you, but I think it is an important distinction.

They gave their adopted reading a "D" meaning that they were not certain at all what the reading should be. Does this sound like 99.9999% certainty?

Well, since the bulk of the Bible contains readings of 100% certainty, then over all, even with a few "D" evaluations, yes, overal it sounds like 99.9999%.

(You did understand, I hope, that my 99.9999% number was about the Bible as a whole, not about each individual variant reading?)

I hope the misrepresentation wasn't intentional...

Theophilus

I gave one example. The editors say about the rating system on the variants:

The letter A signifies that the text is virtually certain, while B indicates that there is some degree of doubt. The letter C means that there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus contains the superior reading, while D shows that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text.

Lets take the ratings for the textual variants for Gospel of Luke as an indication of the general reliability for a whole book, which should be indicative of the Bible as a whole. I count the following:

A variants 7 = 4% (virtually certain)

B variants 46 = 26% (some doubt)

C variants 100 = 56% (considerable doubt)

D variants 25 = 14% (very high degree of doubt)

I am sorry 70% of the manuscript variants being at least in considerable doubt hardly sounds like the 99.9999% accuracy that you are claiming. In fact there is at least some doubt about 96% of the variants. Furthermore, this is not all the variants in Luke but only the 178 textual variants that the editors thought would be doctrinally signficant.

Share this post


Link to post
Stan wrote:
If the modifications were being done early on, as some early church fathers claimed, and all the surviving manuscripts descended from those early modified manuscripts there is nothing that the textual analysis is going to give you to point to what is really the original.

Yes, "if" that were true, you might have a point, but as it is, it appears to be nothing but speculation. I have faith in God to have preserved His word sufficiently.

...

Theophilus

And this seems to me to be the common response to Bible inerrancy claims. It's not that you can prove that 'it' has been tampered with but that you believe that God simply wouldn't allow that to happen. Evidence (a lot of it) indicates clearly that the Bible is not perfect. The only defense against this is faith that God just can't let that happen. Of course, if the LDS are right, he did. I find this interesting since Mormons are most often accused of putting feelings and presumed beliefs before facts and reason. Here's an example of the contrary.

Here's a question: what does "perfect" or "inerrant" refer to when we're talking Bible? Does it mean inclusive of all scripture ever written? Complete in the sense that nothing has been lost? Totally non-contradicting, including in the details? Maybe self-contradicting in details (numbers, names, etc) but not in doctrine? Imperfect yet beneficial to man?

Maybe... "perfect" because that's what God is and that's what he wants it to be? Hence it can't be anything BUT perfect?

Share this post


Link to post
But in one of the textual variants, the man is guilty the woman is innocent, in the other the man is innocent and the woman is guilty.

Please quote the Greek texts which (you claim) say "the woman is innocent", and "the man is innocent", respetively.

Only if we don't need to check our consciences before condemning others.

According to my reading of the Bible, we aren't to "condemn others" in the first place. I humbly suggest you spend more time reading the Bible in English, if you don't realize this.

A variants 7 = 4% (virtually certain)

B variants 46 = 26% (some doubt)

C variants 100 = 56% (considerable doubt)

D variants 25 = 14% (very high degree of doubt)

I am sorry 70% of the manuscript variants being at least in considerable doubt hardly sounds like the 99.9999% accuracy that you are claiming.

Ah, you're a statistician... I can tell by the way you are misrepresenting the facts, by not factoring the weights, and not including the passages which don't have any variants at all.

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not convinced that the text referred to in Ex. 24:7 isn't presently in the Bible.

You're not? Which book do you think contains it then?

What about the book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13), the book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), the book of Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, Gad the seer (1 Cor. 29:29), the other epistle Paul wrote to the Ephesians (Ephs. 3:3), the epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)...I could go on...do you think these, too, are contained somewhere within the Bible?

I'm not convinced that the "Book of the Wars" referred to in Num. 21:14 is "Scripture", that it even should be in the Bible.

Is this the infallability being referred to? <_<

Someone doesn't think it should be in the Bible, so its not? Are you telling me that the Lord saw it fit to be written, yet Man decided it wasn't to be included...that's being infallable? :P

Share this post


Link to post
A variants 7 = 4% (virtually certain)

B variants 46 = 26% (some doubt)

C variants 100 = 56% (considerable doubt)

D variants 25 = 14% (very high degree of doubt)

I am sorry 70% of the manuscript variants being at least in considerable doubt hardly sounds like the 99.9999% accuracy that you are claiming.

Ah, you're a statistician... I can tell by the way you are misrepresenting the facts, by not factoring the weights, and not including the passages which don't have any variants at all.

Sorry Theophilus, those are the weights, you cannot say that I did not factor them in. Furthermore, you have missed my point which is that UBS versions do not include all manuscript variants just the significant ones. I had the computer count the words in a version of Luke at 26125 words. Even if the 178 variants were only one word each (which is certainly not true) it still takes up 1% of the text, and 96% of that has some doubt. No, in 24 chapters in Luke there are 178 doctrinally significant variants averaging more than seven every chapter.

You still have not explained Galatians 5:19.

Share this post


Link to post
Those of you who are interested in surveying further examples of variant readings ought to get a copy of the UBS (The Greek New Testament). As mentioned previously, on the bottom of each page is the Textual Apparatus. Its design is to show the reader variant readings and the manuscripts/document relating to it.

Is this the same as the Complutensian Polyglot?

Share this post


Link to post
You're not? Which book do you think contains it then?

The Pentateuch, obviously.

What about the book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13), the book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), the book of Samuel the seer, Nathan the prophet, Gad the seer (1 Cor. 29:29),

What about them?

Why should I think they are "inspired Scripture", that they should be in the Bible? This is the assumption that LDS always always ALWAYS make, they assume these books are "inspired".

Why should I accept your assumption?!

the other epistle Paul wrote to the Ephesians (Ephs. 3:3),

That's not referring to an "other epistle", it's referring to Eph. 1:17.

the epistle to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)...

Please read more carefully... That's not a reference to an epistle "to" the Laodiceans, it's an epistle to be received from the Laodiceans, after they receive it from Ephesus. If you will note in Col. 4, Paul had his epistles circulated throughout the churches. We have the epistle referred to in Col. 4:16, it's called, "Ephesians".

I could go on...

As could I... I've seen the list hundreds of times argued by LDS.. And they've never been able to explain to me why I should blindly believe that these are all allegedly "inspired" works. They simply demand that I assume they're inspired, like they do, and get all made and upset when I refuse to blindly accept assumptions...

I'm not convinced that the "Book of the Wars" referred to in Num. 21:14 is "Scripture", that it even should be in the Bible.

Is this the infallability being referred to? <_<

I've never claimed infallibility for myself, only for God's word, the Bible.

And since you haven't even begun to convince me that the "book of the Wars" is inspired, that it should allegedly be in the Bible, I obviously have no reason to miss it, do I?

Someone doesn't think it should be in the Bible, so its not?

Forgive me for caring about God's word, but I don't think we have the right to throw everything ever written by man into it, just on the off "chance" that it might be "inspired".

Are you telling me that the Lord saw it fit to be written, yet Man decided it wasn't to be included...that's being infallable? :P

The Lord saw fit that "Fun with **** and Jane" be written as well, should we put that in the Bible too?!?!?! I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that I don't understand your argument that we should blindly throw all works in the Bible, simply because God "allowed them to be written".

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post

If I'm not mistaken, Joseph Smith expressed the opinion that the German tanslation of the Bible by Martin Luther was the most accurate. Anyone have a reference?

Share this post


Link to post

Theophilus,

I am still waiting for your explanation of Galatians 5:19.

H. Brugsch

Share this post


Link to post
The Pentateuch, obviously.

Rather vague. Which book of the five contains it, and wherein?

Why should I think they are "inspired Scripture", that they should be in the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Why do you think some books, written by prophets, are not inspired, while other books, by prophets, are?

Because I have no reason to believe otherwise?!

Why would inspired scriptures specifically refer to these books if they were not inspired themselves?

Well, that depends on the instance, doesn't it? But I see you continue to give me no reason to believe that these other "books" are inspired. I'm sorry, but I have no intention to answer your rhetorical-sounding questions which seem to be designed to assume that they are inspired, since I reject such assumptions. If you can't give assertions (rather than questions) which convincingly demonstrate that all these books are "inspired", then I guess we have nothing further to discuss.

That's not referring to an "other epistle", it's referring to Eph. 1:17.

Why would Paul refer to words, contained in his current letter, as words written afore?

The obvious answer is that he wrote Eph. 1:17 before writing Eph. 3:3.

Can you really not follow that? Think, "As I wrote you earlier (in this letter)".

"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."

Are you trying to suggest that the epistle to the Ephesians is to be read, sent to Laodicea to be read by them, then returned to be read again? :P

I'm sorry that you're apparently having such trouble understanding a very simple statement. Paul is instructing the church at Colossae to pass their epistle on to Laodocea, to be read in their church, and continue to Ephesus. From the other side, the epistle to the Ephesians was to be read in their church, and then passed on to Laodicea, and eventually to Colossae. Perhaps if you look at a Biblical map this will be easier for you to understand.

You do claim infallibility, if it is you, or any other man, that decides what should or shouldn't be contained within an infallable Bible.

Well, aside from the fact that you are misrepresenting me (should I report you? I wonder), it seems that by your own logic, you must be claiming "infallibility" for yourself as well, since you seem to be "deciding" that these works "should" be contained in the Bible.

I think you have the larger task of explaining to me why this book is specifically referenced within inspired scriptures, yet is not inspired itself?

Not at all.

You were one who barged in claiming that they should be included in the Bible.

Therefore, you need to demonstrate (based on more than mere assumption on your part) that they are allegedly "inspired".

I'm not talking about 'everything ever written by man', I'm talking about writtings of inspired prophets of G-d, themselves...unless, of course, you think these prophets were prophets, but not inspired...

Why should I believe that everything said or written by a "prophet" is "inspired"?! How about when he makes a shopping list? Is that inspired? How about when he talks to his wife... Is that inspired too?

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post
Theophilus,

I am still waiting for your explanation of Galatians 5:19.

H. Brugsch

And I'm still waiting for you to post the Greek that has variants reading "the man is innocent", and "the woman is innocent".

Have a nice day...

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post

In response to the original question, there is no such thing as a perfect translation. All translations have merit, but as usual, something always gets lost in translation.

Share this post


Link to post
I vote for the New World Translation...since they attempted to have the most literal translation.
I hope you will research that MM. Definitely don't go there Urroner. BTW MM, welcome to FAIR. I met you on another forum not too long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Because I have no reason to believe otherwise?!

You have no reason to explain why the writings of inspired prophets are not inspired? :P

Well, that depends on the instance, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
I vote for the New World Translation...since they attempted to have the most literal translation.
I hope you will research that MM. Definitely don't go there Urroner.

I wasn't being serious.

BTW MM, welcome to FAIR.

Thanks. :P

I met you on another forum not too long ago.

Not likely, since I have never posted on another board with this moniker. Unless, you find something familiar about my writing style or something.

Share this post


Link to post

Θεοφιλε

Εις Κατα Μαθθαιον 19:9 αναγιγνωσκομεν

Share this post


Link to post
Εις Κατα Μαθθαιον 19:9 αναγιγνωσκομεν

Share this post


Link to post

Theophilus, you have made a big deal about Greek. Unfortunately, some of us are aquainted with Greek. Why in the world would we go through the apparatus to hand deliver variants to you? Get out your Metzger Commentary and we will go through them together. You do have it...right?

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently when he finally has to confront something he has no more time for this foolishness.

Share this post


Link to post
Apparently when he finally has to confront something he has no more time for this foolishness.

Your bias is plain, Stan...

Brugsch made a claim, he couldn't support it, Juliann comes and blusters, again without demonstrating the claim, and in fact having the audacity to ask why they have to provide the evidence for their own claim, as if I'm responsible for going on wild goose chases.

If they could support their claim, they would/should have done so by now. But the silence is deafening, except for the hollow grandstanding and phantom claims of "victory".

Unfortunately, such tends to be the fare here in message boards, where "arguments" are "won" or "lost" based on nothing more than name-dropping pet scholars, or offering links to questionable web-sites, or simply claiming "evidence" that one isn't able to offer.

Because for the natural man, the man not interested in God's truth, the man who only wants to tickle his pride, such fare is good enough for his ego.

Fine.

I was asked questions about why I believe as I do, and I answered. People can attack my beliefs all they want, but the truth will prevail. God has preserved His word in the Bible. You don't have to believe it if you don't want to, but one day you will know it to be true. In the meantime, if you choose to buy into the empty claims of brugsch and Juliann, then that's what you will do.

So go ahead, join the multitudes, claim "victory" based on nothing, stroke your own egos. That's fine with me. I'm not hear for my ego. I'm hear to preach the gospel of God.

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post

I could've done that...

Unfortunately, the above doesn't say what you claimed, namely "the man is innocent", and "the woman is innocent".

How on earth does your response deal with my post? If you can't deal with Greek don't make a fuss about it.

On Matthew 19:9 you made the claim that both parties were guilty but there is nothing to support your claim. It is your turn to put up your evidence but you have not.

I am sorry if you do not want to deal with the fact that UBS 4 is not only not inerrant but that its editors were in some places (like Galatians 5:19) not even honest, that is your problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Theophilus said: But I see you continue to give me no reason to believe that these other "books" are inspired.

How's this for a reason: If a prophet is inspired, then his writings should be included in the Bible since they would be considered the Word of God. (If a prophet is not inspired then, in the minds of many, he isn't really a prophet and none of his writings should therefore be included in the Bible.)

Theophilus said: I'm sorry, but I have no intention to answer your rhetorical-sounding questions which seem to be designed to assume that they are inspired, since I reject such assumptions.

You are making the assumption they are non-inspired without evidence, unless you happen to have the missing prophets' writings in your den. Why should your assumption of non-inspiration hold any more weight than an assumption of inspiration, given both assumptions are made without evidence?

Theophilus said: If you can't give assertions (rather than questions) which convincingly demonstrate that all these books are "inspired", then I guess we have nothing further to discuss.

Touchy, huh? You demand convincing evidence to counter a position that you hold without convincing evidence of your own. (The assumption that "God wouldn't allow the important stuff to be left out and would make sure the essential stuff was included despite all odds" is not evidence; it is faith.)

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post
How's this for a reason: If a prophet is inspired, then his writings should be included in the Bible since they would be considered the Word of God. (If a prophet is not inspired then, in the minds of many, he isn't really a prophet and none of his writings should therefore be included in the Bible.)

But here is the problem... You are arguing a false "all or nothing" dichotomy, of either everything the prophet utters/writes is inspired, or else nothing is and he is not a prophet.

I reject your false dichotomy.

And I have to wonder where all the LDS are at the moment (are you LDS, btw?), since all LDS would be on my side, for they are constantly arguing that "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such", or "only when he says, 'thus saith the Lord'". Indeed, that's the reason so many LDS reject Young's and Hyde's teachings in the JoD, ("Uh, he wasn't speaking as a prophet").

You are making the assumption they are non-inspired without evidence, unless you happen to have the missing prophets' writings in your den.

I am making no such "assumption", of course, and I reject your attempts to try to shift the burden of proof onto me. The original assertion is that these books are "inspired", and should therefore "be included in the Bible. I take no position on whether they are inspired or not, since I do not know, and I reject either assumption (that they are inspired, or that they aren't), until proof can be given.

If they can be proved to be "inspired", then they belong in the Bible.

LDS have not yet demonstated that they are "inspired", that they should be in the Bible.

I refuse to allow you to shift the burden of proof.

Why should your assumption of non-inspiration hold any more weight than an assumption of inspiration, given both assumptions are made without evidence?

If that's truly the argument, then we have no problem. Since (as you admit) there is no evidence that these writings are inspired, there is therefore no basis for accusatsions that "they should be in the Bible".

Problem solved.

Theophilus said: If you can't give assertions (rather than questions) which convincingly demonstrate that all these books are "inspired", then I guess we have nothing further to discuss.

Touchy, huh?

Not at all.

I simply refuse to allow LDS to "sneak" in their assumptions in the form of rhetorical questions, where they try to get their beliefs a "solid ground" without offering any evidence of their own for doing so. It's fallacious argumentation.

You demand convincing evidence to counter a position that you hold without convincing evidence of your own. (The assumption that "God wouldn't allow the important stuff to be left out and would make sure the essential stuff was included despite all odds" is not evidence; it is faith.)

The proffered position is that "since these lost works are inspired" (an unfounded assumption), "they should be in the Bible".

When those who hold that position can demonstrate conclusively that they are in fact "inspired" (as they unfoundedly claim), then I will agree with them.

Until then, I see no reason to.

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post

Ah man this thread has been thoroughly enjoyable!

Mr. Theo"i've-never-lost-a-debate-with-a-mormon"Pompous Pants has been thoroughly refuted. And whats even better... its by his own Champion... Metzger! Apparently he has not read as much Metzger as he leads us to beleive.

ROFL

Lets check the score shall we?

Theo: 99.9999% accurate, No Doctrinal Changes.

Justin Martyr: Accuses the Jews of De-Christ-ifying the Bible by removing scriptures from the OT.

NOTE: You would think that the Knowledge that the Jews did infact remove scriptures that PROVED Christ was the messiah would be welcomed with open arms by all Christians. But Theo's hate for Mormons and the need to be right seems to be much greater.

Rhinomelon, while for different reasons, because I know he doesn't hate Mormons like Theo does, seems to have followed in his foot step by saying Justin "Made a Mistake".

Lets see exactly what it is Justin said in his debate with the Trypho:

Here Trypho [the Jew] remarked, "We ask you first of all to tell us some of the Scriptures which you allege have been completely cancelled." [Justin quotes some passages which the Jews evidently removed from Esdras and Jeremiah] "And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: 'The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.' "Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 71-72, in ANF 1:234-235

Ok so now we have the OT saying that the Lord decends into Hades to "preach the gospel of salvation" to those who had died without a Knowledge of the Gospel. In the OT.

We also have Justin and Peter from the NT era.

D&C 138

6 I opened the Bible and read the third and fourth chapters of the first epistle of Peter, and as I read I was greatly impressed, more than I had ever been before, with the following passages:

7

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...