Jump to content

Archived

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

ElfLord

Is our current Bible corrupted?

Recommended Posts

The Isaiah scroll uses the exact same word as MT: ???.

Heres the translators notes on the verse...

1. But there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: Verse 11:1 The Branch of David: [ve-yatsa' choter migezar yishshay ve-natser mishsharashayv yiphrah].yatsnats.gif

There are two Hebrew words translated "branch" which are used in the "Branch" prophesies. The word Nazar (natser)nazar.jpg is used here in this verse. This is a key messianic verse which shows that the "Tsemach" (tsemach.gif) Branch prophecies and the "Nazer" Branch prophecies are linked and are one and the same because both forms of the Branch prophecies teach that He is the son of David. Here, the coming Nazarene is to be of the family of Jesse who was the father of David. This verse makes it plain that the word Nazer is to be linked to the Branch prophecies and that other occasions of its use should be investigated. Just as every use of the word "branch" translated from Tsemach" in the Bible is not in a messianic context and is therefore not a revelation about the coming of the Messiah so also the use of "Nazar" will only have such mystical connection in contexts that are clearly messianic like this one. In some of them, as here, the connection is perfectly clear. Jesus, whose name is the "Branch," is just so because Nazarene means "The Branch." See the chapter <A href="http://www.moellerhaus.com/nazer2.htm">"Excursus on "the Nazarene" in this book for a more detailed review of this word and its use by Isaiah. The Aramaic Targum of Isaiah of the inter testament period substitutes the word "Messiah" for "Nazar" in the commentary-paraphrase of this verse where it makes this a long range prophecy. It says a "king messiah" will come from Jesse's son's sons. Thus the scribes of the inter-testament period were convinced that the Messiah would be a "Nazar." The same idea and words are inserted in the Targum of 14:29 with less apparent reason.

http://www.moellerhaus.com/1-2.htm

This is intresting too... what if the Nazar Prophecies and the "Tsemach" prophecies AREN'T the same. Two different branches from the root of Jesse in other words?

One to serve as the 'Messiah' and one to serve as "Ben Joseph" of the resoration?

Share this post


Link to post

Heres the translators notes on the verse...

http://www.moellerhaus.com/1-2.htm

This is intresting too... what if the Nazar Prophecies and the "Tsemach" prophecies AREN'T the same. Two different branches from the root of Jesse in other words?

One to serve as the 'Messiah' and one to serve as "Ben Joseph" of the resoration?

The author of that page insists the word is vocalized differently from the MT, but I see no real argument as to why that should be understood to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post

Elf,

I don't know you personally, but it is hard not to view your earlier reference to the author of the book you were reading as an "Evangelical Scholar" as anything but dishonest. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and skeptic; he is a notorious critic of evangelicalism. Calling Ehrman an evangelical is like calling Ed Decker a Mormon. You couldn't read past the first chapter of any of his popular books without knowing this.

Yes I was having trouble...

The Evangelical Scholar (Bart D. Ehrman) is the author the book I am reading. I am not sure who he was using as sources for his conjecture.

As for your last question:

Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it will not happen. We believe that there will be more records uncovered and translated as we grow closer to the Second Coming of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post

Lehi,

You wrote:

CFR that Joseph claimed either, much less both, of the following as implied by your queries:
  1. That all his amendments were "corrections" to or "restorations" of the original texts.
  2. That he had entirely completed his translation of the Bible (the JST).

Neither of the above assumptions is grounded in fact.

I made no such claims and implied no such assumptions. I simply maintain that at least some of Joseph's changes to the Bible were intended to be corrections that restored lost or corrupted text. Furthermore, I pointed out that the Book of Mormon also quotes Isaiah 11:1. Would you care to argue that Joseph didn't entirely complete his translation of the Book of Mormon?

Share this post


Link to post

Elf,

I don't know you personally, but it is hard not to view your earlier reference to the author of the book you were reading as an "Evangelical Scholar" as anything but dishonest. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and skeptic; he is a notorious critic of evangelicalism. Calling Ehrman an evangelical is like calling Ed Decker a Mormon. You couldn't read past the first chapter of any of his popular books without knowing this.

Bart Erhman not an Evangelical? :P

Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973.

He began studying the Bible and its original languages at the Moody Bible Institute and is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.

<snip>

Ehrman became an Evangelical Christian as a teen. His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages and to textual criticism, to which he attributes the inspiration for an ongoing critical exploration of the basis of his own religious beliefs, which in turn gradually led to the questioning of his faith in the Bible as the inerrant, unchanging word of God.

http://en.wikipedia..../Bart_D._Ehrman

Share this post


Link to post

Bart Erhman not an Evangelical? :P

http://en.wikipedia..../Bart_D._Ehrman

Rob Bowman is the self appointed guardian of who is and is not "Evangelical".

So off and under the Rob Bowman evangelical bus with Bart.

Share this post


Link to post

Bart Ehrman began his studies as an Evangelical, but considers himself agnostic at this point.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob Bowman is the self appointed guardian of who is and is not "Evangelical".

So off and under the Rob Bowman evangelical bus with Bart.

So much for all his credentials from Evangelical paper mills!

Share this post


Link to post
Would you care to argue that Joseph didn't entirely complete his translation of the Book of Mormon?

Well, yes, actually. You see, there are the two thirds of the plates that he did not translate.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973.

That's awesome! I also lived in Lawrence Kansas from age 3-7, and was on the Utah state champion debate team in 1972! I'll bet we went to the same school in Lawrence! (I probably beat him up in the hallway and stole his lunch money.)

Share this post


Link to post

Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973.

That's awesome! I also lived in Lawrence Kansas from age 3-7, and was on the Utah state champion debate team in 1972! I'll bet we went to the same school in Lawrence! (I probably beat him up in the hallway and stole his lunch money.)

Share this post


Link to post

Bart Erhman not an Evangelical? ;)

http://en.wikipedia..../Bart_D._Ehrman

Even your link says he's not an evangelical. :P

He remained a Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic because of the problem of suffering, or theodicy.

Share this post


Link to post

Bart Erhman not an Evangelical? :P

http://en.wikipedia..../Bart_D._Ehrman

Rob is right on this note. Saying someone once being an Evangelical is always an Evangelical is the same as saying because Ed Decker was a Mormon, his books must represent a Mormon point of view.

Share this post


Link to post

Rob is right on this note. Saying someone once being an Evangelical is always an Evangelical is the same as saying because Ed Decker was a Mormon, his books must represent a Mormon point of view.

But I have heard that once somebody is saved, they are always saved. I wonder if Ehrman thought he was saved and even told other that he was saved while he was Evangelical?

Share this post


Link to post

But I have heard that once somebody is saved, they are always saved. I wonder if Ehrman thought he was saved and even told other that he was saved while he was Evangelical?

'Once Saved Always Saved' is not an around-the-board Evangelical teaching. I was raised in an evangelical denomination that did not believe that. I knew many other baptists, however, who did. You misunderstand what 'Evangelical' means.

Share this post


Link to post

'Once Saved Always Saved' is not an around-the-board Evangelical teaching. I was raised in an evangelical denomination that did not believe that. I knew many other baptists, however, who did. You misunderstand what 'Evangelical' means.

Evangelicals, from what I understand, believe that their beliefs and faith are supported and defended by the four fortresses of

  1. Conversionism
  2. Activism
  3. Biblicism
  4. Crucicentrism

Share this post


Link to post

Evangelicals, from what I understand, believe that their beliefs and faith are supported and defended by the four fortresses of

  1. Conversionism
  2. Activism
  3. Biblicism
  4. Crucicentrism

And seeing as Ehrman is now a skeptical agnostic, what does that have anything to do with him?

Share this post


Link to post

And seeing as Ehrman is now a skeptical agnostic, what does that have anything to do with him?

It has nothing to do with him. Ehrman believes what he believes. I've seen better men than him lost their testimony of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post

But I have heard that once somebody is saved, they are always saved. I wonder if Ehrman thought he was saved and even told other that he was saved while he was Evangelical?

But dontcha know Urroner. All them years Bart was defending the inerrancy of the Bible and the 5 points of Calvanism he wasn't really saved at all.

Share this post


Link to post

But dontcha know Urroner. All them years Bart was defending the inerrancy of the Bible and the 5 points of Calvanism he wasn't really saved at all.

Zak, I have found out that a person, even an Evangelical, saying and totally believing that he is saved and his really being saved are two different things, but that is for a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Elf,

I don't know you personally, but it is hard not to view your earlier reference to the author of the book you were reading as an "Evangelical Scholar" as anything but dishonest. Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and skeptic; he is a notorious critic of evangelicalism. Calling Ehrman an evangelical is like calling Ed Decker a Mormon. You couldn't read past the first chapter of any of his popular books without knowing this.

My mistake, I didn't read the entire Wiki article, I just down to the point where it said....

In his books, he recounts his youthful enthusiasm as a born-again evangelical Christian....

and then stopped.

Share this post


Link to post

maklelan,

You had stated that "conservative Christians" favored the view that the explanation for Matthew 2:23 is that Jews had altered the text of Isaiah 11:1 to obscure its reference to Jesus as a Nazarene. I asked you which conservative Christians took this view. You replied:

I don't know names, but you can find them here, here, here, here, and here, and in numerous other places.

This is a bit frustrating. I wasted time looking up all five of your references; not one of them supports the textual corruption claim. What gives?

Share this post


Link to post

Elf,

You wrote:

My mistake, I didn't read the entire Wiki article, I just down to the point where it said.... and then stopped.

Okay. So, you weren't actually reading any of his books. Is that correct? How did you come across Ehrman's views?

Share this post


Link to post

Vance,

You wrote:

Rob Bowman is the self appointed guardian of who is and is not "Evangelical".

So off and under the Rob Bowman evangelical bus with Bart.

This is ridiculous. Ehrman doesn't consider himself an evangelical. He considers himself an ex-evangelical. In fact, he trumpets this self-identification, because it has been a key factor in catapulting him to stardom and making his popular books bestsellers. I'm not throwing Bart off the bus; Bart chose to get off the bus and is proud of it.

ElfLord wrote:

So much for all his credentials from Evangelical paper mills!

ElfLord, are you referring to me or to Bart Ehrman?

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.

×