The Bible

[Slide]

As I understand it, the original manuscripts for the Bible have been lost. Consequently, the Bible has been pieced together from the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. There are gaps between the books of the Bible--sometimes gaps of decades or centuries. Furthermore, there are different canons as a result of different groups of religious leaders coming together to decide what books should be included and what books should be excluded.

The versions of the Bible have then been translated--such as the King James Version--by the decree of leaders, in order to address problems in previous versions.

Is my understanding correct? How can we trust that the Bible Christians bring on Sunday morning is anything close to the original "Word of God?" Furthermore, what evidence exists outside of the Bible that it is the infallible "Word of God," rather than the creation of men working from oral tradition to create a consistent collection? It seems feasible that one could write an account consistent with previous writings so as to seem "inspired."

 

[George-ananda]

Don't worry about infallibility. I say consider everything, think and follow your common sense.

 

[Politesse]

The "original Word of God" is not a book, it is Christ, who was with God in the beginning and wrote all things. This the Gospel of John itself tells us. Never does the bible, in any of its books and forms, claim to be the equal of the living Christ, and we should not elevate it to that status. Rather, we should take the edits and and the mistakes and the missing gospels sacrificed to politics in stride, understanding that since the living Word is also a living Person, he will guide us toward what we need to know, and what we don't. I do believe that all these books disappear and reappear for a reason; old knowledge is forgotten and revived again. Inventions are lost and rediscovered, or innovated anew. This is part of the pattern of life, and it doesn't have to be scary.

 

[Slide]

The "original Word of God" is not a book, it is Christ, who was with God in the beginning and wrote all things. This the Gospel of John itself tells us. Never does the bible, in any of its books and forms, claim to be the equal of the living Christ, and we should not elevate it to that status. Rather, we should take the edits and and the mistakes and the missing gospels sacrificed to politics in stride, understanding that since the living Word is also a living Person, he will guide us toward what we need to know, and what we don't. I do believe that all these books disappear and reappear for a reason; old knowledge is forgotten and revived again. Inventions are lost and rediscovered, or innovated anew. This is part of the pattern of life, and it doesn't have to be scary.

But the Bible is your source for Christ, as far as Him being the "Word of God." If you can't trust the Bible, how can you trust that Jesus is the Word of God?

 

[Politesse]

But the Bible is your source for Christ, as far as Him being the "Word of God." If you can't trust the Bible, how can you trust that Jesus is the Word of God?

No, Christ is a living reality, to whom we have been joined in community and sacrament. If my trust in him were based solely on the Scriptures, I probably would have abandoned him when I left the earthly church behind me. But you don't stop believing in a friend and mentor, just because the person who introduced the two of you turned out to be false.

And it's not as though applying a bit of healthy skepticism to the Bible means throwing all of it out. As, again, the Bible itself enjoins us: "Test everything. Hold on to what is good". Or in Jesus' teachings "A good tree is that which bears good fruit". When I see something in the Bible whose only fruit has been hatred and violence, I feel justified in throwing it out and burning it with the chaff, content that I am a disciple of Christ in doing so. But that does not by any means describe the whole of the Scriptures. You have to be pretty far gone already to read malicious intent into "Love thy neighbor as I loved thee." Similarly, the first chapter of John contains some of the most interesting theology in the whole of the NT, I see no reason not to consider its arguments.

 

[lovemuffin]

With regard to the manuscript evidence: I think your understanding is incomplete. While it's not comprehensive, the wiki page on textual criticism should point you in the right direction as far as what manuscripts exist from what periods, and if you follow the links you'll get more detail. For example you mention the septuagint and masoretic texts but you may want drill down further in terms of specific manuscript evidence: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the latin Vulgate manuscripts, and at least with the KJV the new testament translation doesn't depend on the masoretic text (which is for the hebrew scriptures) but on a large collection of fragmentary new testament sources, although modern translations tend to prefer the alexandrian manuscripts as in the NT portions of Sinaiticus, which are not properly versions of the septuagint.

As far as the reliability of translations, it's always the case that translation is difficult and not every nuance of a greek or hebrew text is going to come across in an english version. So there is that. But as far as the reliability of the Greek texts especially, the manuscript evidence suggests that we have a pretty good idea what the original authors actually wrote, at least. I'm less familiar with the textual criticism of the hebrew scriptures but you might look at what was learned from the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, as far as comparisons between those texts and the septuagint or masoretic.

 

[Slide]

No, Christ is a living reality, to whom we have been joined in community and sacrament. If my trust in him were based solely on the Scriptures, I probably would have abandoned him when I left the earthly church behind me. But you don't stop believing in a friend and mentor, just because the person who introduced the two of you turned out to be false.

And it's not as though applying a bit of healthy skepticism to the Bible means throwing all of it out. As, again, the Bible itself enjoins us: "Test everything. Hold on to what is good". Or in Jesus' teachings "A good tree is that which bears good fruit". When I see something in the Bible whose only fruit has been hatred and violence, I feel justified in throwing it out and burning it with the chaff, content that I am a disciple of Christ in doing so. But that does not by any means describe the whole of the Scriptures. You have to be pretty far gone already to read malicious intent into "Love thy neighbor as I loved thee." Similarly, the first chapter of John contains some of the most interesting theology in the whole of the NT, I see no reason not to consider its arguments.

You have answered my question. Since Jesus is the Father (John 10:30) and we're to only hold onto the good, I cannot hold to Christ because of the sins of the Father. The malice and contempt demonstrated by God in the Old Testament (as well as in Acts 5) shows he is not good. Furthermore, since the Bible is unreliable, there is no way to know if the connection to Christ you spoke of is authentic or just an emotional response to wishful thinking.

I'm not trying to bash Christians or Christianity. I'm making an assessment based on the information provided.

 

[Slide]

With regard to the manuscript evidence: I think your understanding is incomplete. While it's not comprehensive, the wiki page on textual criticism should point you in the right direction as far as what manuscripts exist from what periods, and if you follow the links you'll get more detail. For example you mention the septuagint and masoretic texts but you may want drill down further in terms of specific manuscript evidence: Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the latin Vulgate manuscripts, and at least with the KJV the new testament translation doesn't depend on the masoretic text (which is for the hebrew scriptures) but on a large collection of fragmentary new testament sources, although modern translations tend to prefer the alexandrian manuscripts as in the NT portions of Sinaiticus, which are not properly versions of the septuagint.

As far as the reliability of translations, it's always the case that translation is difficult and not every nuance of a greek or hebrew text is going to come across in an english version. So there is that. But as far as the reliability of the Greek texts especially, the manuscript evidence suggests that we have a pretty good idea what the original authors actually wrote, at least. I'm less familiar with the textual criticism of the hebrew scriptures but you might look at what was learned from the discovery of the dead sea scrolls, as far as comparisons between those texts and the septuagint or masoretic.

Thank you for the information. I'll continue my investigation, though I am less trusting of the Bible now than I was before I started this thread. From what you have said, you only have "a pretty good idea what the original authors actually wrote," meaning you cannot know for certain. Therefore you cannot know for certain if the Bible is infallible, and therefore you cannot know if Christ was truly the Son of God. Again, the experiences between a Christian and Christ could be the same emotional reaction that Christians ascribe to other religious beliefs, their followers, and their deities (the so-called "mob mentality").

When I was a Christian, I got caught up in that mentality, only to be left wondering why I never saw the promises of God come to fruition.

 

[Tarheeler]

I'm not trying to bash Christians or Christianity. I'm making an assessment based on the information provided.

That's good, since doing so in the Christianity DIR would be a violation of Rule 10. The DIRs are protected areas, and aren't open for debate.

 

[lovemuffin]

Thank you for the information. I'll continue my investigation, though I am less trusting of the Bible now than I was before I started this thread. From what you have said, you only have "a pretty good idea what the original authors actually wrote," meaning you cannot know for certain. Therefore you cannot know for certain if the Bible is infallible, and therefore you cannot know if Christ was truly the Son of God. Again, the experiences between a Christian and Christ could be the same emotional reaction that Christians ascribe to other religious beliefs, their followers, and their deities (the so-called "mob mentality").

When I was a Christian, I got caught up in that mentality, only to be left wondering why I never saw the promises of God come to fruition.

Technically, even if the evidence for the reliability of transmission of the biblical texts was completely certain, that would not demonstrate in an "infallible" way that "Christ was the Son of God". It would be a category error. Knowing for certain what was written isn't the same as knowing that what was written is true. My opinion is that certain views about the "infallibility" of the Bible are unsustainable for many reasons, and the complexity of the history of texts is only one of those reasons, but I think the approach you are suggesting for verifying the truth of biblical claims would fail regardless of the textual evidence.

This gets to what Politesse said, that "Christ is a living reality", from a Christian perspective. In that sense, to be Christian means to seek an experience of that reality in the present. The value of the texts isn't that they can prove that what they say is true in the way you're attempting, but that in conveying to us reliably enough the experiences and beliefs of the early church, they can point us towards that same experience.

 

[Slide]

That's good, since doing so in the Christianity DIR would be a violation of Rule 10. The DIRs are protected areas, and aren't open for debate.

Please don't misconstrue my intent. I am honestly seeking answers, and I only offer opposing observations because the answers I receive bring up more questions. However, I think my questions have been answered sufficiently.

Is there perhaps a better place on the forum for my questions? I'm relatively new to the forum, so I haven't been able to find what goes where, exactly.

 

[Tarheeler]

Please don't misconstrue my intent. I am honestly seeking answers, and I only offer opposing observations because the answers I receive bring up more questions. However, I think my questions have been answered sufficiently.

Is there perhaps a better place on the forum for my questions? I'm relatively new to the forum, so I haven't been able to find what goes where, exactly.

Any of the regular debate or discussion areas, such as Religious Debates or Comparative Religion, are fine.

The DIRs are for members of that specific group to discuss issues relating to that belief system, and non-members may only ask respectful questions.

 

[Slide]

Any of the regular debate or discussion areas, such as Religious Debates or Comparative Religion, are fine.

The DIRs are for members of that specific group to discuss issues relating to that belief system, and non-members may only ask respectful questions.

Understood. Thank you.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I noticed that too. Maybe you can move it to scriptural or religious debates? It sounds like a interesting topic for me to engage in.

That's good, since doing so in the Christianity DIR would be a violation of Rule 10. The DIRs are protected areas, and aren't open for debate.

 

[Tarheeler]

I noticed that too. Maybe you can move it to scriptural or religious debates? It sounds like a interesting topic for me to engage in.

We only move threads by the original author's request or if deemed needed by staff consensus. The questioned posed in the OP has been answered to the author's satisfaction.

But nothing is stopping you from creating a new thread in one of the debate areas to discuss the same or a similar issue there.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I thought it appropriate at the time of discussion. It is a formal request (similar to a 'report') with no interest in creating a separate thread for the same subject.

Thank you for informing me in your first paragraph. Since I am not a mod, I can only make honest suggestions.

Nothing important.

We only move threads by the original author's request or if deemed needed by staff consensus. The questioned posed in the OP has been answered to the author's satisfaction.

But nothing is stopping you from creating a new thread in one of the debate areas to discuss the same or a similar issue there.

 

[Starloop]

As I understand it, the original manuscripts for the Bible have been lost. Consequently, the Bible has been pieced together from the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. There are gaps between the books of the Bible--sometimes gaps of decades or centuries. Furthermore, there are different canons as a result of different groups of religious leaders coming together to decide what books should be included and what books should be excluded.

The versions of the Bible have then been translated--such as the King James Version--by the decree of leaders, in order to address problems in previous versions.

Is my understanding correct? How can we trust that the Bible Christians bring on Sunday morning is anything close to the original "Word of God?" Furthermore, what evidence exists outside of the Bible that it is the infallible "Word of God," rather than the creation of men working from oral tradition to create a consistent collection? It seems feasible that one could write an account consistent with previous writings so as to seem "inspired."

We can't trust the Bible.

 

[Kolibri]

Not all copies of ancient Bible manuscripts contain identical wording. How, then, can we know what the original text contained?

The situation could be likened to that of a teacher who asks 100 students to copy a chapter of a book. Even if the original chapter was later lost, a comparison of the 100 copies would still reveal the original text. While each student might make some errors, it is highly unlikely that all the students would make exactly the same ones. Similarly, when scholars compare the thousands of fragments and copies of ancient Bible books available to them, they can detect copyist error and determine the original wording.

That said, there are some Bibles that are more accurate in the translation process than others.

 

[atpollard]

Not all copies of ancient Bible manuscripts contain identical wording. How, then, can we know what the original text contained?

The situation could be likened to that of a teacher who asks 100 students to copy a chapter of a book. Even if the original chapter was later lost, a comparison of the 100 copies would still reveal the original text. While each student might make some errors, it is highly unlikely that all the students would make exactly the same ones. Similarly, when scholars compare the thousands of fragments and copies of ancient Bible books available to them, they can detect copyist error and determine the original wording.

That said, there are some Bibles that are more accurate in the translation process than others.

Agreed.
There are, however, two issues being conflated that should remain separate.

The first issue is: "How true is our current knowledge of the Greek texts (NT) to what the author originally wrote?"
Which as you point out ... very true to the original (to a high probability approaching certainty).

The second issue is: "How true is the English translation to the original Greek?"
Here is where the 'accuracy' varies ... but accuracy to the original wording may not be the intent.
I have read literal translations of the Greek words to English ... accurate, but much harder to read ... how well do you know ancient Greek idioms?
There are translations that are designed for fast, easy reading that conveys the broad intent of the original.
They are not the most 'accurate', but that was not their goal.
They are fun to read and allow one to quickly get the main points and see the big picture.
There are versions that fall in between these two extremes that I (personally) prefer for studying God's word.
Different tools for different jobs.