YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Some of us have. I haven't read all the posts so please excuse, have you expressed where you think the dead are?After 46 pages, have we figured out where the dead are?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Some of us have. I haven't read all the posts so please excuse, have you expressed where you think the dead are?After 46 pages, have we figured out where the dead are?
I do not believe Jesus says that….
Where?….and he does make a statement about reincarnation.
I’m sorry. I edited my reply… I meant the accepted 66-book Bible Canon.HI @Hockeycowboy
Hockeycowboy said : "I was wondering, do you believe the Apocryphal books are inspired?
As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we don’t. We feel that if they were from Jehovah God, He would have included them in the Bible Canon. (post #920)
First of all, let me point out that none of my quotes came from the apocrypha.
Thus I cannot be sure if you meant the apocrypha or are simply referring to early Judeo-Christian literature you are unfamiliar with.
The second point is that you referred to "the Bible Canon" but you did not say WHICH Bible Canon and from WHICH time period.
This is important historically since there are multiple Bible "Canons" a historian might refer to.
This is important since we are speaking of historical issues and not of any modern religious movements "canon".
Let me explain.
If you are a protestant in American using the King James Bible in the 20th century then your bible "canon" will typically have 66 books in it.
If you used the King James version in the 17th century, your bible "canon" had 80 books in it.
If you were Catholic in American then your "canon" (including deuterocanon), your bible "canon" typically had 73 books in it.
If you are an Eastern Orthodox Ethiopian then your bible "canon" will have either 81 books or 84 books depending upon which canon used. You will then have a book of Enoch in your modern bible; a book of Jubilees, Barnabas, etc.
If you are a 4th century Christian in the east and are using the Codex Sinaticus your canon will include the books of Barnabas and Hermas
If you are using the official Jewish Masoretic Bible then the text is not original in many cases as the Masoretics give us multiple examples of changes they made to the text.
If you are a First Century temple centric Jew at Qumran, we don't actually know what their canon was, though we know it was larger than the orthodox Jews and their text was, in certain cases much larger. (for example, In 1 Samuel, 11:1 the Deas Sea Samuel includes forty nine more words (49) which are missing in the Hebrew Bible as well as in other Jewish texts in this single verse. Missing text in the Jewish record is NOT a rare occurrence. There are also smaller, but significant additions in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 IN JUST THE FIRST CHAPTER OF SAMUEL.
We also know that parts of the Bible were edited text from other books such as the Book of Jasher. (Jasher is not a name but a hebrew reference to another "authentic" or "upright" or "correct" record.
The point is that if you are going to refer to your personal canon, you will need to have some reason why it is the inspired and correct one, rather than the many other canons that exist and have existed and are felt to be "inspired" and the correct one.
Thirdly, The historical issue in this case is not one of "canon", but of what the early Judeo-Christians believed and how they interpreted sacred text.
The historical issue is what the early Christians describe in their literature as their beliefs and how they interpreted sacred texts in certain time periods. For example, The diary of Perpetua purports to be the diary of a convert to Christianity approx 200 a.d. and Hebrew Enoch is Jewish literature from approx 300 b.c. and other lectionaries, personal letters, epigraphs and pseudoepigraphs may or may not have been scripture, they are a historical record which describes the beliefs of the various Judeo-Christians in different places and in different time periods.
IF a specific tradition is repeated over and over in multiple such texts over large periods of time and over large geographical space then such a doctrine represented the most common belief of the historical time period one is referring to.
There are thousands and thousands of such early Judeo-Christian documents describing early religious beliefs. For example, Charlesworth contains two volumes of almost one thousand pages each and they are ONLY the Jewish epigraphs, and ONLY those that have been discovered, and ONLY those deemed of significant historical religious import, and ONLY those which have been translated into english.
Fourthly, It is frequently difficult to separate some of this material from the biblical material since the bible sometimes sources from, refers to, and quotes from such literature.
For example, New Testament Jude directly quotes from Jewish Enoch and Lawrence found over 127 references in the New Testament to themes from Enoch. When you read the New Testament, you are reading sometimes, from Enoch. Unless the author actually reveals the source of the quote as Jude does, how does one separate what is "biblical" from the source the bible is quoting from?
Fifth. While I understand the tendency to simply read whatever bible version one has on hand and to apply an interpretation to that text, this method cannot tell us how the earliest Judeo-Christians interpreted the text.
So, if the Jehovahs Witnesses (or any other of the relatively modern Christian movements) simply read the text, interpret it to mean something, it still cannot tell them how the Early Christians interpreted that same specific text as there are multiple conflicting interpretations applied by the many different Christian movements who did the same thing. This method doesn't work in the historians world.
Sixth. Any of the various Bibles and canons do not exist in a historical vacuum.
The Historian MUST turn to outside historical data to make some sense of certain narratives in the biblical text.
For examples :
Before the Dead Sea Scrolls narratives, commentators often blamed Abraham for "lying" about sarah to the Egyptians (and to Abimelech) by saying she was his sister rather than admitting she was his wife in Genesis 12 and Genesis 20. Without the additional information from historical narratives such as the Dead Sea Scroll narratives, Abraham seems to simply have no justification, but with the additional historical information, Abraham remains justified.
Another example is The story of the silver cup in Genesis 44:5 where Joseph tells the servant to put his silver cup (or gold depending on the version you have) into Benjamins sack and when it is found, then say to his brothers : "Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination? This is a wicked thing you have done.’” (niv)
Another example is The story of Joseph pretending to divine by use of the cup does not exist in the bible, but one must turn to the historical records for the narrative of Joseph pretending to use the cup to divine, nor does the biblical narrative explain fully why the cup is important to the story. Such details as to what the ancients believed about Joseph in this specific case must come from the ancient historical narratives outside of the bible.
Another example from Numbers 12 when Moses is taken to task for having married an ethiopian woman (not Zipporah, the Midianite). Numbers 12:1 relates "Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cu****e wife, for he had married a Cu****e."
The biblical narrative does not tell us why he married this woman and so one must turn to the historical narratives to know why he did this. Without such information, Moses seems to have done something wrong, but with the additional ancient historical information, Moses is justified.
The world of the historian is more complicated than that of the typical Christian or Jew who reads their biblical text.
One cannot always accurately separate what is "inspired" from what is not inspired, (even in the mistakes in the biblical text one may ask if every thing in them is "inspired"), and because the biblical text and the historical narratives inter-relate so often.
The historian is often simply trying to understand what the ancients believed and how they interpreted the biblical texts they had. So whether the sacred texts are inspired (even given the errors in the texts) or not, the people who read such texts anciently and in modern times can feel inspiration from multiple texts.
In any case Hockeycowboy, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful.
Clear
Thank you.Hi @nPeace
I think your questions are thoughtful and good. Thanks for not simply arguing but for thinking about what is important to ask.
New bodies not only makes sense, but agree with what Paul stated.nPeace asked : “Why do persons believe dead bodies are raised up? Or rather, why do you believe that?” (post #927)
1) THE RESURRECTION DOESN'T SEEM TO SIMPLY BE A RISING AGAIN OF THE "ORIGINAL" MOLECULES OF THE ORIGINAL BODY IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, BUT INSTEAD, THE IMMORTAL RESURRECTED BODY SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT.
My current historical model is that think the ancient Judeo-Christian literature is not describing the original molecules and atoms of an original “dead body” of individuals being reconstructed in the resurrection.
But instead, as with the creation of Adams' body out of "dust" and as with Jesus’ resurrection, it is “types and images” that are being used to describe new and somehow different bodies in the resurrection.
If the resurrected bodies are immortal, then they must be different.
I think the reason the ancient Judeo-Christians believed in resurrection is that they saw in their teaching and texts the promise of a resurrection (a rising again “re” – “surrection”).
I think that the early Judeo-Christians and their teaching are the most correct because I have not seen (so far) any other interpretations and doctrines that, to me, seem as rational and as logical as their interpretations and teachings.
While the textural critic are guessing, Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.2) THERE ARE NO ORIGINAL TEXTS OF ANY OF THE BIBLICAL BOOKS.
nPeace said : “You mentioned. "original inspired words".
Where do we find those? We have manuscripts - copies, but no original text. Isn't that true? (post #98)
You are perfectly correct on this point.
We have NO originals (autographs) of any of the ancient biblical texts and can only guess what the original words were.
To try and discover what the most “original” words in the sacred texts were is what textual criticism tries to do.
I don’t believe this can actually be done but instead, I think their attempts will end up only being able to guess as to the closest version they “think” they have.
For example, In the Novum Testamentum Graece, the Nestle Aland group has attempted for decades to come up with criteria to at least “rate” verses for how close to the original they think the various texts are, but due to the number of variants, I do not think they will ever, really come to a determination as to what the original New Testament said.
The problems are worse for the Old Testament Septuagint and the Masoretics give us examples of entire lists of changes they themselves made to the the bible they created for orthodox rabbinic Judaism. In some cases they mention what the text they worked with said before they made changes, but not always. So the problem is much worse with their Old Testament as well.
I don't believe any translation has ever claimed to be “more inspired”.This is another reason I do not think anyone can provide good data as to why their personal bible with its’ canon of preference is “more inspired” than another bible with a different canon of preference.
Clear
"They", would not include nPeace.Hi @nPeace
Thank you for another thoughtful response.
Lets assume your theory regarding the biblical text and your 66 book canon are correct and see where that takes us and if this theory can answer important question.
1) DO INDIVIDUALS "KNOW" OR SIMPLY "BELIEVE" THEIR PERSONAL SCRIPTURES ARE AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE?
nPeace said : “Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.” (post #930)
I "sort of" agree that the texts we have are "pretty good" versions of the early texts.
However, Individuals do not “Know" how close they are to "originals" but instead, they “believe" they are close to the originals.
Let me explain regarding this principle of faith (but not knowledge)
They (and apparently you) simply (typically) are unaware of differences and variations that the scholars are aware of.
And they (and you apparently) believe and assume they are reading the “original text” when many times they are simply reading a variation of the original.
nPeace said:We have manuscripts - copies, but no original text.
Here is what was said.This is not to say the current texts are not well transmitted given the circumstances surrounding ancient texts.
Given the antiquity of, and the various editing of the texts, they are remarkably well transmitted.
However, your examples that you used to confirm the texts are the same examples used to demonstrate differences in the various versions.
For examples :
2) REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS (DSS) COMPARISON WITH CURRENT TEXTS :
nPeace said : “The comparison showed that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy” (post #930)
The problem is not where the ancient DSS texts agree with the modern texts, the problem is with the comparisons that disagree in their readings and variations.
Consider for example, the difference between 1 Samuel 11:1 narratives of the Dead Sea Scroll and the NIV below.
The NIV narrative reads “Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.” (NIV 1 Sam 11:1)
The same Dead Sea Scroll narrative reads : "Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites severely. He gouged out the right eye of all of them and there was no one to save Israel. There did not remain an Israelite man who was beyond the Jordan whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not gouge out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the hand of the Ammonites and went to Jabesh. And they were there about a month. Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash king of Ammonites, “Make a covenant with us, and we will serve you.” (1 Samuel 11 from Scroll 4Q51)
The NIV version has thirty words (30) while the DSS 4Q version has 101 words (101) and the DSS narrative is much larger and more detailed narrative that explains much that the typical bible narrative leaves out. (An approximately 70 word difference in one verse.)
While I have simply pointed out the difference in a single verse, there are smaller (but relatively important) differences in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 in JUST the first chapter of Samuel. So, the DSS versions of certain narratives do NOT show the text is unchanged but some narratives are quite different while other narratives are well preserved.
An important point is that while individuals who are not really familiar with and have never read the Dead Sea Scroll Texts offer incorrect anecdotes that the Dead Sea Scrolls “confirm” the typical text, the scholars who are actually FAMILIAR WITH and have READ the scrolls point out the Scrolls have important differences in the narratives.
So, I agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm the text that is similar (which is much of the text), the Dead Sea Scrolls also point out many differences that are present in various versions of bibles.
There are no original texts.3) REGARDING THE INTENTIONAL CHANGES THE JEWISH MASORETICS MADE TO THE BIBLE THEY CREATED IN THE MIDDLE AGES FOR RABBINIC JEWS
On the other hand, the Masoretics tell us (in the Masorah) that they intentionally changed certain texts in the bible they created.
Which is then to be considered the “original” text?
I guess it's more accurate to say, we believe, if we cannot prove something directly, and with 100% certainty.The text in it’s “original” form, or the texts they created in the Masoretic?
It is more complicated than to simply claim Christians “know” their bible is correct when the truth is that they “Believe” that their texts are correct. (and it goes without saying that "correct" is a relative term).
Can you give just one example?4) REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS AND THE LENINGRAD CODEX :
nPeace said : “While there are some variations in wording, the message remains the same.” (post #930)
I agree the message is, in the main, the same or similar, BUT, there are variations ON EVERY SINGLE PAGE of the Leningrad Codex and SOME of the variants in the text are important variants.
The variants in the Leningrad Codex cause the same textual problem as the variants seen in the Dead Sea Scroll.
Which of the variations represent the more original?
THIS is the problem.
What are the "original texts" you are referring to?5) REGARDING THE MANUSCRIPTS AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
nPeace said : “The original Bible manuscripts disappeared long ago. However, very old copies have been found, most notably the Dead Sea Scrolls of books of the Hebrew Scriptures. “ (post #930)
I have already given examples of why this claim actually demonstrates problems with variations.
Having said this, I still agree that given the nature of ancient narratives, the sacred narratives are fairly remarkable in their transmission.
We have similar texts to the ancients, yes, but they are not the same as the original texts and some of the variations are important.
So then, we should agree on two things based on this information.6) AN EXAMPLE OF A SINGLE VARIATION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT NARRATIVE (JOHN 1:18)
A similar problem occurs with the New Testament Text. For example, John 1:18.
The picture below shows NA27 variants in New Testament John 1. (I highlighted verse 18 is used in my example)
View attachment 83919
While the english translation is typically like the kjv show below :
“No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him..” (John 1:18 kjv)
Greek readers will see that the highlighted source text actually reads :
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God, [μονογενεσ θεσ] who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (Greek source text, NA27, Greek New Testament)
The different between these two is theologically important.
The picture below shows a highlighted list of 5 variations in this single verse.
View attachment 83920
Which one is original?
Most scholars believe the “only Begotten God” is more original but this causes problems for some modern religionists.
Most Jewish and Christian religionists are simply unaware of the variations and errors.
So, they do NOT "know" their text is original, but they merely "believe" that their text is original.
Having said this, I think the text is, for the most part, wonderfully well preserved given the very, very difficult circumstances related to editing the vast early literature; deciding what to include in the various sacred texts from that source text; then creating an ancient narrative form and then transmitting that over centuries of time and undergoing multiple translations by various different religious movements (having their own translational biases) before the text could be better stabilized by the invention of printing.
Problem? What's the problem?7) TRANSLATIONS OF THE EARLY NARRATIVES ALSO CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR THE TEXT
For example , HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE TRANSLATIONAL PROBLEM OF GENESIS 1:1
One of the first translational difficulties translators run into is the problem with Genesis 1:1.
nPeace, how would YOU personally solve this translational problem?
That's a very good question. I'll give you that information in a moment. Just hold on.8) HOW DOES ONE DECIDE THEIR PERSONAL CANON IS CORRECT AND OTHER CANONS ARE INCORRECT?
nPeace said : “The Bible's message running throughout the 66 books of its pages, is too perfect, to have not been divinely inspired, and preserved.” (post #930)
I agree that the texts are wonderfully preserved given the typical conditions of translation of ancient texts in general.
Do you apply this specific belief to the eastern bible with its modern 81 (or 84) book canon, or do you only apply it to your canon?
If not, why not?
Why is your personal, modern canon correct while the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus canon incorrect?
Why would the modern Eastern Canon be incorrect while your canon is correct?
Only, there is a difference between inspired, as in "God breathed", and inspired, as in "aroused, animated, or imbued with the spirit to do something".9) PEOPLE ARE INSPIRED, NOT BOOKS.
nPeace said : “No translation can be said to be inspired. Bible writers were inspired by God.” (post #930)
I agree with this.
People are inspired, not books.
I think the phrase "Inspired text" is a metaphor for the fact that the words originated from revelatino/inspiration.
People who write can be inspired and people who read can be inspired.
I totally agree with you there.10) ADDING TO AND TAKING AWAY FROM SACRED TEXTS
nPeace asked : “What do you think about translation that have either taken out completely, God's name from the pages of their translation, or are inconsistent in how they treat the divine name?” (post #930)
I think the prohibition regarding not adding nor taking away (Deut 4:2 and Rev 22:18-19) is important in treating sacred texts.
I think it is wrong to remove the name from sacred texts where we have evidence that it originally appeared and it is wrong to add it where we have no evidence that it appeared.
My pleasure, on behalf of the worldwide brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses, who are, as the evidence shows, completely devoted to advocating the truth of God's word.Again, I want to point out that your points seem well thought out and not merely argumentative. I LIKE the fact that you are able and willing to try to provide examples. Good job and thank you.
Thank you Clear.Clear
μνε εισε μ εισ καιρο
The collection, or list, of books accepted as genuine and inspired Scripture is often referred to as the Bible canon. Originally, the reed (Hebrew, qa·nehʹ) served as a measuring rod if a piece of wood was not at hand. The apostle Paul applied the Greek word ka·nonʹ to a “rule of conduct” as well as to the “territory” measured out as his assignment. (Gal. 6:16, footnote; 2 Cor. 10:13) So canonical books are those that are true and inspired and worthy to be used as a straightedge in determining the right faith, doctrine, and conduct. If we use books that are not “straight” as a plumb line, our “building” will not be true, and it will fail the test of the Master Surveyor.8) HOW DOES ONE DECIDE THEIR PERSONAL CANON IS CORRECT AND OTHER CANONS ARE INCORRECT?
Do you apply this specific belief to the eastern bible with its modern 81 (or 84) book canon, or do you only apply it to your canon?
If not, why not?
Why is your personal, modern canon correct while the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus canon incorrect?
Why would the modern Eastern Canon be incorrect while your canon is correct?
It looks like you prefer not to use the quote feature.Hi @nPeace
I think your idea of breaking up the posts is wise and good. Working through small pieces is better.
1) DO INDIVIDUALS "KNOW" OR SIMPLY "BELIEVE" THEIR PERSONAL SCRIPTURES ARE AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINALS AS POSSIBLE?
nPeace said : “Christians know they have, today, scriptures that are as close to the originals as one can get from copies.” (post #930)
Clear responded : I "sort of" agree that the texts we have are "pretty good" versions of the early texts.
However, Individuals do not “Know" how close they are to "originals" but instead, they “believe" they are close to the originals.
Let me explain regarding this principle of faith (but not knowledge)
They (and apparently you) simply (typically) are unaware of differences and variations that the scholars are aware of.
And they (and you apparently) believe and assume they are reading the “original text” when many times they are simply reading a variation of the original. (Post #931)
nPeace responded : “They", would not include nPeace.” (Post #932)
Neither.I can’t tell what you mean from your response.
Do you mean you do not “know” your scriptures are as close to the originals as one can get or are you claiming awareness of theologically important differences and variations but they are as close to the original as one can get?
Why do you say, we do not know?In either case, you not “know” your texts are as close to the original as one can get and critical study is the process of correcting present biblical text to be closer to the original than what you currently read.
Being corrected and changed by whom?The texts are being corrected and improved all of the time (c.f. “old” King James of 1611 versus “New” King James of 1985). The translation of text is in process of change.
This is what you believe, or know?2) REGARDING BRAGGING ABOUT HAVING THE MOST STUDIOUS SCHOLARS IN THE WORLD
nPeace said : “If it's sounds like I am bragging, it's only because we are proud to be a privileged people - a people for God's name, taught by him.
nPeace, along with @Hockeycowboy, and over 8,500,000 individuals, are privileged to be well informed by the the most studious of Bible scholars, in the world.” (POST #932)
I agree that it sounds like you ARE bragging and are proud.
However, I think the pride is undeserved.
Your bible scholars have no claim to be "the most studious of Bible Scholars in the world.”
There are Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Scholars that are incredibly gifted and have sacrificed much of their lives in the study of the biblical text and have contributed much, much, MUCH, more to biblical knowledge than your religious movement has.
As an example as to why your bragging and pride is undeserved : Frederick Franz, the man most responsible for creating the Jehovahs Witnesses New World Bible had only a 3 semester hour course in introductory biblical Greek and the Bible he created often contains incredibly poor translations that are much more commentary rather than translations.
Franz, in terms of Koine Greek language capability was not in the same class as true language capable scholars who FAR exceed his language and historical abilities.
Additionally he was not a good translator in that he clearly allowed his own theology to change the sacred text in improper ways. (An important example follows)
In doing so, he placed the sacred text at the mercy of his personal bias and as the text itself tells us, it is improper to EITHER take away, OR add to the sacred text.
It's an easy to read translation, which seeks to preserve the text as accurately as possible.Additionally, there are many, many mistakes and mistranslations to the New World Translation so that it is often a commentary and not a translation.
I understand this is what you believe, but that doesn't change what I know, and I know you don't know.So, to brag as you have about scholarship is misguided and undeserved and feels self-serving.
Too many manuscripts exist for one to need to stick to, or use changed texts.So yes, the Hebrew bible in its various historical iterations has been translated with “relatively” good accuracy given the nature of transmission of and translation of ancient texts that originated as oral stories.
This does not mean you are reading accurate text, especially given the fact that the Jews who created the Masoretic bible TELL US that they changed the text in creating their bible and give us multiple examples of changes they made.
While there are variations, some of the variations are both inaccurate AND they are frequently important theologically. Just as the Jehovahs Witness Franz created a New Testament to suite his theology, so did the Jews. And, all individuals (including translators) have bias. AND, bias affects the resulting translation.
3) APPLYING nPEACE RULE OF "SIFTING OUT THE ADDITIONS" - WHEN TEXT DOESN’T APPEAR IN OTHER KNOWN BIBLICAL TEXT
nPeace said : “Sifting out the additions, is easy.
This lengthy reading is not in any other known Bible text...” (post #932)
Applying this rule to the Bible the Jehovahs Witnesses created. - "improper additions are revealed by absence in other texts "-
Lets apply this rule to the Jehovahs Witness Bible as an example :
Matthew 1:20 in The Jehovahs Witness Bible reads “But after he had thought these things over, look! Jehovah’s angel appeared to him in a dream,…”
I had to look twice. For a moment I thought the text changed. You meant Matthew 1:24, don't you.However, there is not a single Greek text that supports the addition of the name Jehovah out of THOUSANDS of important ancient greek manuscripts of matthew that exist and it is a departure from this only known text.
Therefore it is an improper addition to the translation.
Did you get a chance to look at the links I posted?Matthew 1:22 in the Jehovahs Witness Bible reads : “All of this actually came about to fulfill what was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet..."
Again, there is not a single ancient Greek text of first or second order that supports the addition of the name Jehovah out of THOUSANDS that exist and it is a departure from the only known text.
Therefore it is an improper addition to the translation.
Tell me something Clear.There are hundreds of similar improper additions and changes made by the Jehovahs Witnesses” to the New Testament text that are not supported by any known Greek text. ALL of these changes to the text are improper additions and subtractions and translational changes.
The command from God is clear : “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut 4:2)
It makes no sense to say you are “proud” of these individuals when they are changing the sacred texts to support their religious bias.
The sacred texts should drive religious conclusions rather than religious conclusions changing the text.
Problem? Again, I ask, what problem? You haven't mentioned any.Even IF translators want to create an accurate translation, it is not easy to do so. For example :
4) Clear asked : HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE TRANSLATIONAL PROBLEM OF GENESIS 1:1
One of the first translational difficulties translators run into is the problem with Genesis 1:1.
nPeace, how would YOU personally solve this translational problem? (post #931)
Again I ask, How would you solve the first translational problem that we run in to in the sacred text in Genesis 1:1?
It has been discussed since the middle ages and it is very, very important theologically.
The Jehovahs Witness bible makes the same error as the others.
Since your New World translation is incorrect in this simple sentence, why didn’t your “scholars” correct the text.
What do your scholars say about the text in Genesis 1:1?
I don't understand.5) THE PROBLEM OF EVOLVING CLAIMS REGARDING THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
nPeace said : “The comparison showed that the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy” (post #930)
Clear responded : “The problem is not where the ancient DSS texts agree with the modern texts, the problem is with the comparisons that disagree in their readings and variations.
Consider for example, the difference between 1 Samuel 11:1 narratives of the Dead Sea Scroll and the NIV below.
The NIV narrative reads “Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.” (NIV 1 Sam 11:1)
The same Dead Sea Scroll narrative reads : "Now Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites severely. He gouged out the right eye of all of them and there was no one to save Israel. There did not remain an Israelite man who was beyond the Jordan whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not gouge out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the hand of the Ammonites and went to Jabesh. And they were there about a month. Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash king of Ammonites, “Make a covenant with us, and we will serve you.” (1 Samuel 11 from Scroll 4Q51)
The NIV version has thirty words (30) while the DSS 4Q version has 101 words (101) and the DSS narrative is much larger and more detailed narrative that explains much that the typical bible narrative leaves out. (An approximately 70 word difference in one verse.)
While I have simply pointed out the difference in a single verse, there are smaller (but relatively important) differences in verses 11, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 24 in JUST the first chapter of Samuel. So, the DSS versions of certain narratives do NOT show the text is unchanged but some narratives are quite different while other narratives are well preserved.
An important point is that while individuals who are not really familiar with and have never read the Dead Sea Scroll Texts offer incorrect anecdotes that the Dead Sea Scrolls “confirm” the typical text, the scholars who are actually FAMILIAR WITH and have READ the scrolls point out the Scrolls have important differences in the narratives.
So, I agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls can confirm the text that is similar (which is much of the text), the Dead Sea Scrolls also point out many differences that are present in various versions of bibles.” (post #931)
nPeace responded : “So, while they are aware that DSS is older, they are also aware that the DSS are not the originals. So, they expect to find additions, insertions, but the key point is, the message remains the same.” (post #932)
Did you read the differences?
The message is NOT the same in the text.
Your original claim was that comparing our text with the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that “the text of the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with extraordinary accuracy”. (post #930)
A comparison shows no such thing.
Your claim has also shifted from “a comparison with DSS demonstrates accuracy” to “the dead sea are wrong” when they actually demonstrate they texts are different.
Modern texts are NOT the same versions as the DSS and they often do not demonstrate our versions of the text are the best that can be had. Versions of text are improving all of the time.
In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey is insightful and wonderful.
I will be gone until tomorrow and so will respond to the other points later.
Clear