Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is our current Bible corrupted?


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 ElfLord

ElfLord

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 01:40 PM

We read of a prophecy in Matthew but Scholars can't fint it in our Old Testament. Could this perhaps be a documented example of scribal tampering by the Jews to thwart the new Christian movement that the Christians have preserved for our Knowledge?

Matt 2
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.


The first Christians show us exactly where the prophecy was!

Once more it is written in the pages of the same evangelist, “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” Let these word fanciers and nice critics of all composition tell us where they have read the words; and if they cannot, let me tell them that they are in Isaiah. For in the place where we read and translate, “There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots,” in the Hebrew idiom it is written thus, “There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse and a Nazarene shall grow from his root.” How can the Septuagint leave out the word ‘Nazarene,’ if it is unlawful to substitute one word for another? It is sacrilege either to conceal or to set at naught a mystery.

See NPNF2: Vol. 6, Epistle 57, To Pammachius.


The Translators substituted a word and made the prophecy VOID?! :P
  • 0


I've seen people morphined up at the hospital - never did they tell me they had visited hell. And I worked there a while.

You worked in hell for a while? What was it like? Was the pay good?


#2 ELF1024

ELF1024

    "Elvis Has Fled The Building"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 01:48 PM

I've been reading a book that claims that part of 1st Corinthians was added after the fact, and that 1st Timothy is a fraudent letter from Paul written not by Paul, but by someone else.

1 COR 14: 34-35

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Here is a site that contains information on other books whose authenicity is questioned.
  • 0

#3 David T

David T

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,706 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:04 PM

[below]

Edited by nackhadlow, 06 December 2010 - 02:09 PM.

  • 0
Improvement Era: A Blog About Mormon History, Doctrine, Culture, and Scripture
David T was formerly known here at MD&D as nackhadlow

#4 ElfLord

ElfLord

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:05 PM

More primary sources that mention this.

Jerome wrote in his work Against Rufinus:

I composed recently the book De optimo genere interpretandi, in which I pointed out that the following passages taken from the Gospel are found in the books of the Hebrews: ‘I called my son out of Egypt’; and : ‘For he shall be called a Nazarene’; . . . See Fathers of the Church, Vol. 53, Saint Jerome: Dogmatic and Polemical Works, The Apology Against the Books of Rufinus, section 27 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1949), p. 151. Footnote 114 on this page reads: “Matt. 2.23. This is quoted from Isa. 11.1.”


Others have come to the same conclusion:

Nu 24:17 and Isa 11:1 together were already known to Matthew who refers to the latter at the end of his birth narrative (2:23): “In order to fulfill what was said through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene” (? ?????????? ???????????). Matthew here refers to the Hebrew text of Isa 11:1 which contains the term Ne?ser, translated in the LXX with ?????. See Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1990), p. 384.


Harrison likewise connects Matt. 2:23 with Is. 11:1, adding the predictions of Jer. 23:5, Zech. 3:8, and 6:12 as well (See Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprinted 1979), pp. 55-56.). Interestingly enough, in a recent Roman Catholic periodical, mention is made of the connection between Matthew 2:23 and Isaiah 11:1:

Qumran Covenanters and early Christians alike expected the fulfillment of OT predictions in their movements, which they believed were “in the last time.” Ne?ser, for its part means “sapling, scion” (Isa. 11:1). The Dead Sea Scrolls use this term for “the scion of David” in 2 Sam 7:11-14 (4qflor 1:10-12) and Gen 49:10 (4Q252 = the Genesis pesher), while the NT uses it of Jesus (Rom 15:12; Rev. 5:5; Matt 2:23). Jesus “the Nazarene” in Matt 2:23 and “the Nazarenes” in Acts 24:5 are intended to connect Jesus with the ne?ser in Isa 11:1. See Old Testament Abstracts, published by The Catholic Biblical Association, Vol. 22, No. 3, October 1999, pp. 501-502.


And earlier:

Matthew Henry
In this is said to be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Which may be looked upon, (1.) As a man of honour and dignity, though primarily it signifies no more than a man of Nazareth; there is an allusion or mystery in speaking it, speaking Christ to be, [1.] The Man, the Branch, spoken of, Isa. 11:1. The word there is Netzar, which signifies either a branch, or the city of Nazareth; in being denominated from that city, he is declared to be that Branch. [2.] It speaks him to be the great Nazarite; of whom the legal Nazarites were a type and figure (especially Samson, Jdg. 13:5), and Joseph, who is called a Nazarite among his brethren (Gen. 49:26), and to whom that which was prescribed concerning the Nazarites, has reference, Num. 6:2, etc. Not that Christ was, strictly, a Nazarite, for he drank wine, and touched dead bodies; but he was eminently so, both as he was singularly holy, and as he was by a solemn designation and dedication set apart to the honour of God in the work of our redemption, as Samson was to save Israel. And it is a name we have all reason to rejoice in, and to know him by. Or, (2.) As a name of reproach and contempt. To be called a Nazarene, was to be called a despicable man, a man from whom no good was to be expected, and to whom no respect was to be paid. The devil first fastened this name upon Christ, to render him mean, and prejudice people against him, and it stuck as a nickname to him and his followers. Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:2, 3), a Worm, and no man (Ps. 22:6, 7), that he should be an Alien to his brethren Ps. 69:7, 8. Let no name of reproach for religion’s sake seem hard to us, when our Master was himself called a Nazarene.


John Gill

Which was a city of Galilee, and where Joseph and Mary had both dwelt before, (Luke 1:26) (2:4) here they came and fixed their habitation,

that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.
This affair of going into Galilee, and settling at Nazareth, was brought about with this view, to accomplish what had been foretold by the prophets, or prophet, the plural number being used for the singular, as in (John 6:45) (Acts 13:40) . And indeed it is so rendered here in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions; and designs the prophet Isaiah, and respects that prophecy of his in (Isaiah 11:1) "and there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and (run) , "a branch shall grow out of his roots"; a prophecy owned by the Jews F5 themselves to belong to the Messiah, and which was now fulfilled in Jesus; who as he was descended from Jesse's family, so by dwelling at Nazareth, he would appear to be, and would be "called a Nazarene, or Netzer, the branch"; being an inhabitant of Natzareth, or Netzer, so called from the multitude of plants and trees that grew there.

A Nazarene,
as David de Pomis says F6,

``is one that is born in the city Netzer, which is said to be in the land of Galilee, three days journey distant from Jerusalem.''

Now though Christ was not born, yet because he dwelt at Nazareth, and was educated there; hence the Jews frequently call him (yruwnh ewvy) , "Jesus, the Nazarene F7"; and sometimes only (yruwnh) , "the Nazarene" F8. They also design him by (run Nb) , "Ben Netzer" F9, of whom they say a great many evil things: and that Christ is often called Jesus of Nazareth, or the Nazarene, and his followers Nazarenes, from the place of his habitation, is known to everyone. One of Christ's disciples is called Netzer in the Talmud F11, and made to plead for his life, because his name signified a branch, according to (Isaiah 11:1) . Surenhusius observes F12, that the form (rmanv hm Mwyql) "to fulfil what is said", used by the Talmudists, and which he takes to be the same with this here, is used by them, when they allege not the very words of Moses, or the prophets, but their sense, which is deduced as a certain axiom from them; and thinks it is applicable to the present case.

http://www.biblestud...tthew-2-23.html


John Calvin

23. He shall be called a Nazarene Matthew does not derive Nazarene from
Nazareth, as if this were its strict and proper etymology, but only
makes an allusion. The word N+Z+J+R+, or Nazarite, signifies holy and
devoted to God, and is derived from N+Z+R+, to separate. The noun
N+Z+R+, indeed, signifies a flower: [221] but Matthew refers, beyond
all doubt, to the former meaning. For we nowhere read that Nazarites
meant blooming or flourishing, but persons who were consecrated to God,
according to the directions given by the Law, (Numbers 6.) The meaning
is: though it was by fear that Joseph was driven into a corner of
Galilee, yet God had a higher design, and appointed the city of
Nazareth as the place of Christ's residence, that he might justly be
called a Nazarite But it is asked, who are the prophets that gave this
name to Christ? for there is no passage to be found that answers to the
quotation. Some think it a sufficient answer, that Scripture frequently
calls him Holy: but that is a very poor explanation. For Matthew, as we
perceive, makes an express reference to the very word, and to the
ancient Nazarites, whose holiness was of a peculiar character. He tells
us, that what was then shadowed out in the Nazarites, who were, in some
sense, selected as the first-fruits to God, must have been fulfilled in
the person of Christ.

But it remains to be seen, in what part of Scripture the prophets have
stated that this name would be given to Christ. Chrysostom, finding
himself unable to loose the knot, cuts it by saying, that many books of
the prophets have perished. But this answer has no probability: for,
though the Lord, in order to punish the indifference of his ancient
people, deprived them of some part of Scripture, or left out what was
less necessary, yet, since the coming of Christ, no part of it has been
lost. In support of that view, a strange blunder has been made, by
quoting a passage of Josephus, in which he states that Ezekiel left two
books: for Ezekiel's prophecy of a new temple and kingdom is manifestly
distinct from his other predictions, and may be said to form a new
work. But if all the books of Scripture which were extant in the time
of Matthew, remain entire to the present day, we must find somewhere
the passage quoted from the prophets.

Bucer [222] has explained it, I think, more correctly than any other
writer. He thinks that the reference is to a passage in the Book of
Judges: The child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb, (Judges
13:5.) These words, no doubt, were spoken with regard to Samson. But
Samson is called the "Redeemer" or "Deliverer" [223] of the people,
only because he was a figure of Christ, and because the salvation,
which was accomplished by his instrumentality, was a sort of prelude of
the full salvation, which was at length exhibited to the world by the
Son of God. [224] All that Scripture predicts, in a favorable manner,
about Samson, may justly be applied to Christ. To express it more
clearly, Christ is the original model: Samson is the inferior antitype.
[225] When he assumed the character of a Redeemer, [226] we ought to
understand, that none of the titles bestowed on that illustrious and
truly divine office apply so strictly to himself as to Christ: for the
fathers did but taste the grace of redemption, which we have been
permitted to receive fully in Christ.

Matthew uses the word prophets in the plural number. This may easily be
excused: for the Book of Judges was composed by many prophets. But I
think that what is here said about the prophets has a still wider
reference. For Joseph, who was a temporal Savior of the Church, and
was, in many respects, a figure, or rather a lively image of Christ, is
called a Nazarite of his brethren, [227] (Genesis 49:26; Deuteronomy
33:16.) God determined that the distinguished honor, of which he had
given a specimen in Joseph, should shine again in Samson, and gave him
the name of Nazarite, that believers, having received those early
instructions, might look more earnestly at the Redeemer who was to
come, who was to be separated from all,

"That he might be the first-born among many brethren,"
(Romans 8:29.)



John Collinges (in Matthew Poole's Annotations):


Matt 2:23. It appeareth by Luke 2:4, that Joseph dwelt in Nazareth before our Saviour was born; and, Luke 2:39, after Mary's purification it is said, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth; and, Luke 4:16, he was there brought up. Hence, John 1:45, he is called by Philip, Jesus of Nazareth. But the following words of this verse afford as great difficulties as any other in holy writ. 1. How Christ could be called a Nazarene, who apparently was born at Bethlehem. 2. How the evangelist saith that was fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, He shall be called a Nazarene; whereas there is no such saying in all the prophets. There is a strange variety of opinions as to these questions. Spanhemius acquiesceth in that which seemeth least liable to exception, viz. That Christ was to put a period to that order of Nazarites amongst the Jews, whose rules we have Num 6:2-3; of which order Samson was, as appears by Judg 13:7, and Joseph was called ryzn Gen 49:26, the very same word which is used Judg 13:7. Both Joseph and Samson were eminent types of Christ. And it was spoken of Christ by the prophets, (the holy men of God who wrote the Scriptures,) that Christ should be called ryzn Nezir, as it is in the Hebrew, in that it was spoken of those that were his types; who are both expressly so called. The word signifieth a holy person, one separated to God, and from ordinary converse with men. Christ was to be such a Nazarite, separated to God, for the accomplishment of our redemption, and, like Joseph, separated from his brethren: Isa 53:3, he was rejected of men:—we hid as it were our faces from him, and we esteemed him not. God by his singular providence so ordered it, that he who was the antitype to all the Nazarites, and the true Nezir, or person separated, should be educated at Nazareth, a poor contemptible town: John 1:46, Nathanael said, Can there any good come out of Nazareth? That while his education there gave the Jews an occasion to reproach him, as a Nazarene, because born at Nazareth, believers amongst the Jews might understand him to be the true Nazarite, understood in Joseph and Samson called by this name, as types and figures of him who was to come, separated by God to a more excellent end, and from men in a more eminent manner. So that what the prophets spake of this nature concerning Christ, they spake of those who were the true types of Christ. Those who will read Spanhemius, and Poli Critica, will find large discourses about the difficulties of this text, but this seemeth to be Spanhemius's opinion, improving the notion of Mr. Calvin.


Edited by ElfLord, 06 December 2010 - 02:14 PM.

  • 0


I've seen people morphined up at the hospital - never did they tell me they had visited hell. And I worked there a while.

You worked in hell for a while? What was it like? Was the pay good?


#5 David T

David T

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,706 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:09 PM

We read of a prophecy in Matthew but Scholars can't fint it in our Old Testament. Could this perhaps be a documented example of scribal tampering by the Jews to thwart the new Christian movement that the Christians have preserved for our Knowledge?



The first Christians show us exactly where the prophecy was!



The Translators substituted a word and made the prophecy VOID?! :P




No, the word is netzer, which means Branch - a Messianic (and Temple-themed) title. It appears that, if this is even the text being referred to, that because Jesus did come from Nazareth and was a Nazarene (notzri), additional meaning may have been read into the text by his disciples, and applied to present circumstances and understanding.

Matthew was very...liberal with his scriptural interpretation and application.

The texts you quote appears to be playing apologetics, and making an (unsubstantiated) accusation. While there are Ante-Nicene Fathers who did make some substantial claims as to altered scriptures by the contemporary Jewish Community, this does not appear to be one of them.

Edited by nackhadlow, 06 December 2010 - 02:41 PM.

  • 0
Improvement Era: A Blog About Mormon History, Doctrine, Culture, and Scripture
David T was formerly known here at MD&D as nackhadlow

#6 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:24 PM

ElfLord and Elf,

I have some questions for you (other than whether you are related!).

1. ElfLord, how would you explain the fact that the famous Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predates the coming of Jesus, does not have the word "Nazarene" in it? Doesn't this fact seem to undermine the theory that the text was altered by Jewish opponents of Christianity?

2. If the text of Isaiah originally used the word Nazarene, why didn't Joseph Smith restore it in the JST? After all, he made several inconsequential changes to the immediately preceding verse (Matt. 2:22) and other sizable changes to the same passage.

3. Also, ElfLord, do you think that a writing of a church father ca. 400 is a reliable source of information about such matters? After all, from your point of view the church fathers of that era were apostates, right?

Elf,

4. Is it your opinion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is really something added to the text later, or is this just grist for the claim that the Bible was corrupted? If it should be omitted, why did Joseph Smith fail to do so in the JST, but instead simply reworded verse 34 somewhat?

5. Is it your claim that 1 Timothy is indeed pseudonymous? If so, should it be stricken from the canon of Scripture? If so, why did Joseph Smith not do so in the JST, instead of making various mostly minor edits to it?

And here's a question for both of you (and anyone else who cares to answer):

6. Why is it that the many discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts over the past 160+ years since the death of Joseph Smith have failed to corroborate the Bible's alleged corruption in the places where Joseph claimed to have received revelation to that effect? Why haven't archaeologists found manuscripts of Genesis with the additions about Melchizedek or Joseph (Gen. 14, 50), or any of the other theologically significant "corrections" that Joseph Smith made to the Bible in the JST?
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#7 ElfLord

ElfLord

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:29 PM

ElfLord and Elf,

I have some questions for you (other than whether you are related!).

Nope.

1. ElfLord, how would you explain the fact that the famous Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predates the coming of Jesus, does not have the word "Nazarene" in it? Doesn't this fact seem to undermine the theory that the text was altered by Jewish opponents of Christianity?

I would take John calvines take on the verse...

23. He shall be called a Nazarene Matthew does not derive Nazarene from
Nazareth, as if this were its strict and proper etymology, but only
makes an allusion. The word N+Z+J+R+, or Nazarite, signifies holy and
devoted to God, and is derived from N+Z+R+, to separate. The noun
N+Z+R+, indeed, signifies a flower: [221
] but Matthew refers, beyond
all doubt, to the former meaning. For we nowhere read that Nazarites
meant blooming or flourishing, but persons who were consecrated to God,
according to the directions given by the Law, (Numbers 6.) The meaning
is: though it was by fear that Joseph was driven into a corner of
Galilee, yet God had a higher design, and appointed the city of
Nazareth as the place of Christ's residence, that he might justly be
called a Nazarite But it is asked, who are the prophets that gave this
name to Christ? for there is no passage to be found that answers to the
quotation. Some think it a sufficient answer, that Scripture frequently
calls him Holy: but that is a very poor explanation. For Matthew, as we
perceive, makes an express reference to the very word, and to the
ancient Nazarites, whose holiness was of a peculiar character. He tells
us, that what was then shadowed out in the Nazarites, who were, in some
sense, selected as the first-fruits to God, must have been fulfilled in
the person of Christ.


2. If the text of Isaiah originally used the word Nazarene, why didn't Joseph Smith restore it in the JST? After all, he made several inconsequential changes to the immediately preceding verse (Matt. 2:22) and other sizable changes to the same passage.

Which shows he knew something was a miss.

3. Also, ElfLord, do you think that a writing of a church father ca. 400 is a reliable source of information about such matters? After all, from your point of view the church fathers of that era were apostates, right?

They would have a better prespective of what the original NT church taught and looked like than we would 2000 years later, would you not agree?

Edited by ElfLord, 06 December 2010 - 02:31 PM.

  • 0


I've seen people morphined up at the hospital - never did they tell me they had visited hell. And I worked there a while.

You worked in hell for a while? What was it like? Was the pay good?


#8 maklelan

maklelan

    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,083 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:33 PM

We read of a prophecy in Matthew but Scholars can't fint it in our Old Testament. Could this perhaps be a documented example of scribal tampering by the Jews to thwart the new Christian movement that the Christians have preserved for our Knowledge?

The first Christians show us exactly where the prophecy was!

The Translators substituted a word and made the prophecy VOID?! :P


This is a common defense among conservative Christians today of the prophecy in Matthew, but it hardly holds water. The Hebrew of Isa 11:1 reads as follows:

???????? ?????? ????????? ??????? ???????? ?????????????? ????????

?And a shoot shall come out from the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall sprout from its root


??? (netzer) means "shoot," "sprout," or "branch." It does not mean "Nazarene." It would have a yod on the end if that were the case, and that would ruin the parallelism of the verse. The most likely explanation of the prophecy in Matthew is either that Matthew refers to some missing text. "A Nazarene shall grow from its root" is quite distinct from "He shall be called a Nazarene," as well.

Edited by maklelan, 06 December 2010 - 02:34 PM.

  • 0

#9 David T

David T

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,706 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:36 PM

6. Why is it that the many discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts over the past 160+ years since the death of Joseph Smith have failed to corroborate the Bible's alleged corruption in the places where Joseph claimed to have received revelation to that effect? Why haven't archaeologists found manuscripts of Genesis with the additions about Melchizedek or Joseph (Gen. 14, 50), or any of the other theologically significant "corrections" that Joseph Smith made to the Bible in the JST?


Because the JST isn't a restoration of original text. Whatever Joseph may have thought was going on, it is clear that the text serves more as an 'updating' explanatory Midrash/Targum to make the text more relevant/applicable to the current saints in their present condition and and theological understanding.

To Joseph, there was no such thing as set-in-stone scripture. It was all fluid, the goal of scripture being to accurately express the mind and will of the Lord. If it was found that the way it was currently written (and this included his own earlier written explanations of his revelations) obscured a truth he understood, things were changed to more clearly express the mind and will of the Lord as he understood it. Additional vignettes were also added which practically served to illustrate a new revealed practice or concept. It's modern inspired pseudepigrapha.

Edited by nackhadlow, 06 December 2010 - 02:43 PM.

  • 0
Improvement Era: A Blog About Mormon History, Doctrine, Culture, and Scripture
David T was formerly known here at MD&D as nackhadlow

#10 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:42 PM

ElfLord,

You wrote:

I would take John calvines take on the verse...


But that is what you are not doing. Calvin accepted the texts of Isaiah and Matthew as reliably transmitted and offered an interpretation on that basis. You are proposing that we view the text of Isaiah as corrupt.

All of the sources you quoted in your earlier post -- Koester, Harrison, Henry, Gill, Calvin, et. al. -- agree on this point: there is nothing wrong with the wording of either Isaiah 11:1 or Matthew 2:23.

I asked why Joseph didn't fix Isaiah 11:1 if it was corrupt, and I pointed out that he made changes to Matthew 2:22, the verse immediately preceding Matthew 2:23 where the problem arises. You said only:

Which shows he knew something was a miss.


This doesn't answer the question. In fact, Joseph missed two opportunities to "fix" the problem. Isaiah 11:1 lacks the word Nazarene in the JST, and the word also does not appear in the Book of Mormon where it quotes Isaiah 11 (see 2 Ne. 21:1).

Regarding church fathers of the fourth or fifth centuries, you wrote:

They would have a better prespective of what the original NT church taught and looked like than we would 2000 years later, would you not agree?


That isn't the issue. The issue is the text of Isaiah 11:1. Jerome, though he was a brilliant scholar, did not have access to the manuscript evidence we have for the text of the Hebrew Bible. We're far better off today in our knowledge of Hebrew language, idiom, and of the Hebrew OT text, than Jerome could be.

As for them knowing what the original NT church taught better that people today would, there might be something to that -- but if so that would work against the LDS religion. In any case, the NT will have to be our final court of appeal for knowing what the NT church apostles taught.
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#11 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:43 PM

maklelan,

You wrote:

This is a common defense among conservative Christians today of the prophecy in Matthew, but it hardly holds water.


What conservative Christians would those be?
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#12 ElfLord

ElfLord

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:45 PM

ElfLord,

You wrote:


But that is what you are not doing. Calvin accepted the texts of Isaiah and Matthew as reliably transmitted and offered an interpretation on that basis. You are proposing that we view the text of Isaiah as corrupt.

All of the sources you quoted in your earlier post -- Koester, Harrison, Henry, Gill, Calvin, et. al. -- agree on this point: there is nothing wrong with the wording of either Isaiah 11:1 or Matthew 2:23.

I asked why Joseph didn't fix Isaiah 11:1 if it was corrupt, and I pointed out that he made changes to Matthew 2:22, the verse immediately preceding Matthew 2:23 where the problem arises. You said only:

This doesn't answer the question. In fact, Joseph missed two opportunities to "fix" the problem. Isaiah 11:1 lacks the word Nazarene in the JST, and the word also does not appear in the Book of Mormon where it quotes Isaiah 11 (see 2 Ne. 21:1).


See Nackhadlow.

Regarding church fathers of the fourth or fifth centuries, you wrote:


That isn't the issue. The issue is the text of Isaiah 11:1. Jerome, though he was a brilliant scholar, did not have access to the manuscript evidence we have for the text of the Hebrew Bible. We're far better off today in our knowledge of Hebrew language, idiom, and of the Hebrew OT text, than Jerome could be.

As for them knowing what the original NT church taught better that people today would, there might be something to that -- but if so that would work against the LDS religion. In any case, the NT will have to be our final court of appeal for knowing what the NT church apostles taught.

How so? They preserve a teaching of Baptism necessary for salvation. Baptism for the dead. a 3 tiered Heaven. And much more.
  • 0


I've seen people morphined up at the hospital - never did they tell me they had visited hell. And I worked there a while.

You worked in hell for a while? What was it like? Was the pay good?


#13 ELF1024

ELF1024

    "Elvis Has Fled The Building"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:46 PM

ElfLord and Elf,

Elf,

4. Is it your opinion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is really something added to the text later, or is this just grist for the claim that the Bible was corrupted? If it should be omitted, why did Joseph Smith fail to do so in the JST, but instead simply reworded verse 34 somewhat?

5. Is it your claim that 1 Timothy is indeed pseudonymous? If so, should it be stricken from the canon of Scripture? If so, why did Joseph Smith not do so in the JST, instead of making various mostly minor edits to it?

And here's a question for both of you (and anyone else who cares to answer):

6. Why is it that the many discoveries of ancient biblical manuscripts over the past 160+ years since the death of Joseph Smith have failed to corroborate the Bible's alleged corruption in the places where Joseph claimed to have received revelation to that effect? Why haven't archaeologists found manuscripts of Genesis with the additions about Melchizedek or Joseph (Gen. 14, 50), or any of the other theologically significant "corrections" that Joseph Smith made to the Bible in the JST?


The Evangelical Scholar (Bart D. Ehrman) in question was making the argument that these were additions and or false letters from Paul.

I'm not a Prophet, I don't play one on TV, and I don't play it one on MADB. The whole thing is out of my paygrade.

As for your last question:

(yes I was having trouble posting)

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.

Edited by ELF1024, 06 December 2010 - 03:24 PM.

  • 0

#14 ELF1024

ELF1024

    "Elvis Has Fled The Building"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,598 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:46 PM

Duplicate

Edited by ELF1024, 06 December 2010 - 03:22 PM.

  • 0

#15 Hughes

Hughes

    Separates Water & Dry Land

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,205 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:54 PM

One of the keys is what is meant by the word Nazarene?

http://www.apologeti...rg/articles/115
  • 0
"There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me." - Joseph Smith

"Not that we have power to save men. We have not; but we have power to show them how they can obtain salvation through obedience to the laws of God. We can show them how to walk in order to be saved, for we have the right to do that, we have knowledge and understanding as to how to do it, and it is our privilege to teach it … by example as well as by precept among our associates wherever we are in the world." [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph F. Smith, page 241]

#16 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:56 PM

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Because the JST isn't a restoration of original text. Whatever Joseph may have thought was going on, it is clear that the text serves more as an 'updating' explanatory Midrash/Targum to make the text more relevant/applicable to the current saints in their present condition and and theological understanding.

To Joseph, there was no such thing as set-in-stone scripture. It was all fluid, the goal of scripture being to accurately express the mind and will of the Lord. If it was found that the way it was currently written (and this included his own earlier written explanations of his revelations) obscured a truth he understood, things were changed to more clearly express the mind and will of the Lord as he understood it. Additional vignettes were also added which practically served to illustrate a new revealed practice or concept. It's modern inspired pseudepigrapha.


This sounds lovely, but it is not plausible as an explanation, for example, of Genesis 50:33 JST. The whole point of that addition is to retroject into the text of the OT a prophecy about Joseph Smith. There's no way to explain such an addition plausibly as merely a modern "updating" of the text or as a midrashic commentary on the text.
  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#17 Rob Bowman

Rob Bowman

    Boldly going where no evangelical apologist has gone before

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,663 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 02:58 PM

Elf,

Why don't you just tell us the name of this alleged evangelical scholar?

Was silence your intended answer to my last question, or are you having trouble posting? I know I was running into trouble a while ago.

The Evagelical Scholar in question was making the argument that these were additions and or false letters from Paul.

I'm not a Prophet, I don't play one on TV, and I don't play it one on MADB. The whole thing is out of my paygrade.

As for your last question:


  • 0
Rob Bowman
Director of Research, Institute for Religious Research
"BYU faculty members do not speak for the church."--Michael Purdy, LDS Church spokesman.

#18 ElfLord

ElfLord

    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 445 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 03:04 PM

This is a common defense among conservative Christians today of the prophecy in Matthew, but it hardly holds water. The Hebrew of Isa 11:1 reads as follows:



??? (netzer) means "shoot," "sprout," or "branch." It does not mean "Nazarene." It would have a yod on the end if that were the case, and that would ruin the parallelism of the verse. The most likely explanation of the prophecy in Matthew is either that Matthew refers to some missing text. "A Nazarene shall grow from its root" is quite distinct from "He shall be called a Nazarene," as well.


Could what Jerome is pointing at here be a missing YOD in the original text that was dropped by the LXX scribes / translators?

Edited by ElfLord, 06 December 2010 - 03:05 PM.

  • 0


I've seen people morphined up at the hospital - never did they tell me they had visited hell. And I worked there a while.

You worked in hell for a while? What was it like? Was the pay good?


#19 David T

David T

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,706 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 03:06 PM

nackhadlow,

You wrote:



This sounds lovely, but it is not plausible as an explanation, for example, of Genesis 50:33 JST. The whole point of that addition is to retroject into the text of the OT a prophecy about Joseph Smith. There's no way to explain such an addition plausibly as merely a modern "updating" of the text or as a midrashic commentary on the text.






This was an addition pasted directly from the Book of Mormon text - an attempt at harmonization. The Book of Mormon text does not place this element in this textual context in Genesis (although it is in the narrative context).

Whatever the original source is for the Josephite prophecy tradition (which appears to be testamentary-genre expansion), it was probably separate from, and not a remnant of, any original received institutional text of the Genesis narrative.

Edited by nackhadlow, 06 December 2010 - 03:09 PM.

  • 0
Improvement Era: A Blog About Mormon History, Doctrine, Culture, and Scripture
David T was formerly known here at MD&D as nackhadlow

#20 maklelan

maklelan

    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,083 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 03:07 PM

maklelan,

You wrote:

What conservative Christians would those be?


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

Also, I've posted a discussion of some issues with the New Testament's use of the Hebrew Bible here. I'm looking for critical commentary, and I'd appreciate your feedback.

Edited by maklelan, 06 December 2010 - 03:09 PM.

  • 0


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users