Will We Ever Know How Accurate Current Bibles Are
There is one thing we know absolutely: There is no surviving original copy of the Bible.
Even the oldest surviving material is a generation or two after the time some of the Bible was written. This means no one can claim he has, or ever will, compare the current Bible to the original Bible and find the two are 99% the same. We cannot claim either that it is not 99% accurate.
For the sake of discussion, however, assume the current Bible is 99% accurate. That would mean the one word out of every 100 was inaccurate. It could still mean an important misreading of the original text.
An example is the passage referring to punishment for a man who kills a fetus. In the oldest know material this was compared to a miscarriage. As time went along the reference became closer to a "baby" until that became common word. No where in the Bible is abortion condemned. Yet, claims are made the condemnation is there. This error can happen even with 99% accuracy to the original text.
It is often said Bible critics are hypocritical when they challenge the accuracy of the recopied-many-times Bible and don't hold other ancient literature to the same standard. This is silly. No other ancient writing is claimed to be "the word of God." If mistakes were made in the surviving literature attributed to Shakespeare it doesn't really matter. No one is trying to put the ideas of Shakespeare into our laws. Many are demanding we put certain parts of the Bible into our laws.
There are several thousand hand written copies of the Bible copied back before the printing press. These thousands of copies have differences. Those who have studied this say there are more differences than there are words in the Bible. Most of these are small and insignificant but not every one.
These differences are one of the reasons atheists are so skeptical of the "all powerful God" theory. If God were really all powerful he would have passed down exactly, not 99%, of what he was supposed to have written.
I think AG Barr was talking about, Jon - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ag-barr-blasts-militant-secularists-attacks-on-religious-freeom
ReplyDeleteAs for the Bible, one can rest assured that the Bible, specifically the Roman Catholic Bible, is authentic and complete. There is no need for worry. If you really want to understand how the Bible was developed and under what authority it exists you can find the answers online. But you would have to *want* to know and understand.
Matt; Are you including Jerome's Vulgate which has mis interpreted the "His to Her" in the protoevangelium in Genesis? With the resulting famous painting containing the same "error" Later RCC translations did correct it, yet the "T"radition remains. Must have been a dogmatic error.
DeleteThus making the first step in making Mary the "co-redemtrix". The idea was planted and remains to this day.
DeleteVulgate (common) declared official and free from error by Trent.
DeleteMatt--"...the Roman Catholic Bible is authentic and complete." It would be good to know why our calender begins when "Christ was born". When Christ was supposed to have been born is confusing. It says in Matthew and Luke he was born during the reign of King Harrod. Independent sources have established Harrod died four years before Jesus was supposed to have been born. Maybe your Catholic authorities can straighten out the independent sources who claim Harrod died 4 years "B.C" I know it makes you angry when I use BCE "before the common era" instead of "B.C." I do this because your expert sources know better than independent sources when Harrod died. As soon as you establish Harrod died later than four years BCE I will stop using "BC."
DeleteThe Catholic calendar starts with advent, some time in November. The BC/AD calendar starts with the best estimate when Jesus Christ was born. His birth is celebrated at about the time of the winter solstice; perhaps to provide a Christian holiday to coincide with the pagan winter solstice. In modern times, only a few pagans actually celebrate the winter solstice - Dec. 21 - but hundreds of millions celebrate Christmas.
DeleteKing Herod, distinct from Harrods department store in London, was certainly alive when Jesus was born some time in 6-4 BC. Herod died in 4 BC, as most agree. I'm sure you can research why the apparent discrepancy in dates for the demarcation of BC and AD. Nonetheless, BC is Before Christ. AD refers in Latin to the "In the Year of our Lord."
At least my "expert sources" know the correct spelling of Christ and Herod. You can stop using BCE now, according to your promise.
The Council of Trent itself is Deutercononical. And it is Dogma.
DeleteMatt --"Best estimate on when Jesus was born" and then you admit this is not the best estimate?? I'm surprised an engineer would be so poor in math. I'm glad you admit "BC" is inaccurate and should no longer be used.
DeleteJon 9:26 am: I'm sure some people will play your games with you. I am not one of those people. I'll match my poor Electrical Engineering math skills against an Econ professor, any Econ professor. Posting this message on October 15, in the Year of Our Lord, 2019.
Deletewhy all this fuss about AD and BC? It was introduced in the 6th century by a monk who tried to correlate Christ's birth year with the then extant Roman calendar (which was based on the supposed date of the founding of Rome, thought to be 753BC). unfortunately he was about seven years off in his calculations. so what? and unlike Matt I have no problem with BCE and CE. that method simply provides a uniform system of counting that can be accepted by Muslims, Hindus and the rest. it also benefits those engaged in trade, scientific work, whatever. I don't see it as anti-Christian. besides it reflects the fact that western ideas and systems have come to dominate the world.
DeleteMatt: “one can rest assured that the Bible, specifically the Roman Catholic Bible, is authentic and complete.” By “specifically” touting the RCC version of the Bible you make Jon’s point. Compared to which other versions? Can you name other versions of the Bible in the Christian tradition that are as authentic and complete. How about any of those used in Protestant churches? I know, I know, the 80+ takes on the Christian holy book are tautological. Different words, one message. Their spiritual and literary vitality lies in being mysteriously ambiguous with one possible meaning. No mean feat. People say we’re in a post-truth era of politics. The Bible has always been post-truth. It’s primary appeal is to emotion and belief verses objective facts. Following your lead Matt, we have Trump’s personal Attorney General and religious freedom evangelist William Barr meeting privately under cover of darkness with Trump confidant Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of Fox News, at Murdoch’s home in New York. The report of this meeting is surely fake news or folks, the fix is in.
ReplyDeleteYou can believe I made Jon's point if you wish. I refuted it.
DeleteThe Bible is made up of two halves; the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament was present at the time of Christ on earth. The New Testament was written during and after His time on earth. But many books not published in the Bible were written about that same time but were not used in the Bible. The Catholic Church - the only Church at the time - decided what books were valid. Hence, the Church decided which books should be used in the Bible.
Every Protestant Bible is missing books of the Catholic Bible because Luther rejected the theology of those books.
If you believe William Barr met "privately and under the cover of darkness" with Murdoch, then how did you get wind of it? Are you on the 'super secret friends of Barr' email list?
What's next? The book of Ebubari; one of the wine stewards at the Last Supper talking about how Jesus told the apostles how he would help Trump steal the 2016 election.
Matt; You are correct. "The Old Testament was present at the time of Christ on earth.", (The Hebrew Bible), which did not contain the apocrapha. Which were added to the book of seventy, (the Septuaguent) Because of the need of the Helenized (Greek speaking ) Jews. Which brought in Greek thought and traditions. All of which were of a spurious nature. Even the RCC acknowledges the "separate nature" by the name given: "deutercononical ". Included at Trent, a dogmatic declaration. Once dogma, always dogma.
DeleteIf all you read is RCC material you won't agree. I understand. How about that Jerome?
little helper 8:33 am: I am not a Bible expert by any means. I have not studied all the foreign language versions, the different meanings of those words, etc. I constantly see petra and petros being bandied about, etc. Yes, I understand the nature of the books omitted by Luther. I have read plenty of non-RCC material as it forces me to think and re-think certain aspects of the understanding of my faith. It has, nonetheless, emboldened my faith, not weakened it.
DeleteFor example, the sacraments of confession and eucharist are firmly established in scripture but Protestants dismiss them like a snowflake in a blizzard. Then there is the practical nature of difficult teachings such as contraception. Even some cultural Catholics know better but don't practice the Church teaching on this subject.
What about Jerome?
Re. Jerome; See my 7;31.
DeleteMatt; First off, Get an interlinear Bible of the Hebrew Bible, and New Testament. You don't have to know all the foreign languages. Dumb.
It is good to know you" know the nature" of the apocrypha./ deuterocanonical, I don't believe you. If you did, you wouldn't talk as you do.
re. "for example, the sacraments of confession and eucharist are firmly established in scripture but Protestants dismiss them like a snowflake in a blizzard." ---there you go. conflating protestants. DO YOU KNOW WHAT CONFLATION IS?. You clearly don't know what you are talking about by making false accusations, and that would be lying.
Best you do some comparative theology. In like manner, you do the same with contraception. I'm surprised you didn't include abortion.
Get back to me when you make a lesser fool of yourself.
Your understanding/ knowledge of anything other than catholic is "Light as a snowflake". One could say "Like a fart in a blizzard". You are not too heavy on everything Catholic for that matter.
Confession: Protestants don't believe a priest is needed, just God.
DeleteEucharist: Protestants don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the transubstantiated bread and wine.
Nonetheless, one will find different Protestant sects who believe as Catholics do in elements of confession and the eucharist. They will not believe in others such as the Pope as the Bishop of Rome and his infallibility, etc.
Have a blessed day!
Re. Confession; WRONGO Every Sunday during Divine service, at the very start, confession is conducted, followed with absolution by the Called and ordained minister. Private confession is available, and has never been eliminated.
Deletere. "don't believe in the real presence" in the Sacrament". WRONGO "In our church, we emphasize the "real Presence" in and with the elements. The words of institution clearly define the real presence; As said by the Christ at the first Lord's Supper in the upper room. "This is".--"This IS my body . This IS my blood".------ NOT This represents.---NOT this means. NOT This is a symbol.---NOT a spiritual presence. NOT a memorial meal. NOT an ordinance. But it is a Sacrament.
You have much to learn weed hopper.
re. Transubstantiation" ; A failed attempt to explain the unexplainable mechanics of the mystery of the Real Presence.
You are correct that we reject the infallibility of the pope and the magisterium, as explained in the "Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope" Contained in the Book of Concord. AD 1537 I suggest you study it.
Nor do we accept consubstantiation, or impanation, which the RCC has falsely accused us of, they not being able to go beyond the mechanics of "this is".
DeleteSo what exactly is your theology of the Eucharist. please enlighten us.
DeleteUnknown; See above.
DeleteUnknown; re. theology of the Eucharist; Just in case you cant see what it is , and what it isn't;
DeleteAlong with Baptism, the Eucharist is the means of Grace , (forgiveness) with visible means. Baptism/ water and the word of forgiveness,-----Eucharist/ bread and wine, body and blood, with the words of institution (forgiveness). There is another (third) sacrament without visible means, and that is confession with absolution. (forgiveness)
Any rite / ritual that does not contain forgiveness as it's sole purpose is not a sacrament.
transubstantiation? as I recall it was a doctrine that came out of the 1215 (?) Lateran Council. It used the then increasingly popular Aristotelian notion of accident and substance. it was accepted as a way of thinking about what, from the very early days of Christianity, had been thought of as a Great Mystery. As far as I know, the Orthodox don't accept TS. and as you know Luther hated Aristotle. still waiting for your explanation of the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist. I know that Lutherans avoid any notion of a Eucharistic sacrifice, claiming that we are unworthy to offer any sacrifice to God.
Deletedo you or do you not believe that Christ is really present at your communion service.
DeleteUnknowing; @ 8;19
DeleteWhat does "This((( is))) my blood shed for you----This (((is))) my body given for you for the remission of sin " mean? Of course, Christ((( is))) really really really really present.
See my 2;56, 2nd paragraph. How many times must I repeat?
"This Is" means this is. It's not Clinton's "depends on what is --is.
This is the same argument that Luther had with Zwingli at the colloquy of Marburg.
Zwingli said it "represented" Luther said "Is means is". Calvin took it another step farther with his "spiritually present".
Re. "eucharistic sacrifice". Aka "The sacrifice of the Mass' The sacrifice was done on the cross once for all. How many times do you need to kill Christ?
I have previously mentioned the RCC trying to explain the mechanics of something that can't be explained. Yet they continue to do so. Repetition does not make it so.
Unknown; re. 1215. Yes, that's true. That's one thousand two hundred and fifteen years after the fact. in the attempt to explain the mechanics of the unexplainable.
DeleteWhen did they invent the bell to notify when the change took place in transubstantiation?
Delete
Deletegot it, apparently you believe that Christ is REALLY there but that there is no rational way of explaining it. faith only? if you can find it (maybe out of print) there is a book by the Anglican monk Dom Gregory Dix, "The Shape of the Liturgy". exhaustive study of the history of the Eucharist/Eucharistic theology, BTW I don't think Catholics see the Mass as killing Christ over again.
Unknown; I agree they don't see the Mass as killing Christ over again, however, the sacrifice was done, once for all. No amount of gymnastics in ritual preformed by the priest can add to it, beyond enhancing the prestige of the priest. The Mass should be a celebration /ritual of thanksgiving for the sacrifice already done on the cross for us. Not that there is something we can do to receive it.
DeleteThe errors of the "sacrifice of the Mass" by which Christ's body is continually offered up in an unbloody manner for the sins of the living and the dead" That includes the adoration of the Host. Christ did the "offering up". There is nothing we can do to enhance what was done on the cross beyond thankfully accepting that vicarious atonement. Unless of course you want to ritually take some credit for it. A warm fuzzy.
Unknown; I do have the "cyclopedia of biblical theological and ecclesiastical literature" 12 large volumes fine print. On the subject of liturgy, too many pages to gloss over fully. There are the histories of early Christian liturgies, the primitive type, of the Eastern Churches, the Western Church, the Mass all broken down by segments, including charts and graphs, including a comparative table showing the structure of the four parent liturgies, Liturgies of the church of Rome, the Breviary, up to the current denominations. That should suffice. It is interesting to note that the Christian order of service somewhat follows that of Judaism.
DeleteUnknown @ 7;11; "No rational way of explaining it. Faith only? No. There the words spoken by Christ at the last supper, and repeated at every consecration; "Take eat, this IS my body; Drink from it, all of you; This IS my blood of the covenant which is to be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." That's all the "rational" explanation we need. No mechanics necessary.
DeleteBy the way, for you who withhold the cup, consider the words "Drink from it, {{{ALL OF YOU.}}} ALL MEANS ALL.
Just in case you want to get all fancy by claiming only the Apostles present were to participate, Christ did not qualify "ALL" And the words of institution are repeated to ALL of the entire congregation.
Matt; re. communion/ eucharist ; Anticipating your accusations of grape juice and crackers, Oreos and milk, or pretzels and beer. or some other combination, since it has been done by others. You would be wrong. We use Unleavened wheat bread / wafers and naturally fermented wine. Although I did an extensive study of the possibility of unleavened barley bread, as barley loves were common at the time. I found no reference of barley loaves not being used in the upper room. Yet we stay with wheat.
ReplyDelete