Well did you ever

[Kendhni]

I would disagree with you on this, if I get a chance I will try to locate some additional reading .. my understanding is that the KJ version came mainly from Hebrew, Greek and Latin translations of what may have been original texts or previous translations (not the Aramiaic originals which it is very likely the CofE would not have had full access to). The scholars also had reference to previous english translations and were working under a set of guidelines about how the final translation should read (which considering the 'scholars' used were all from the church meant there was always going to be a bias in the transalation ... PS: I don't think there were as many as 100 scholars, I thought it was much less but would need to check).

However we have to accept that translation technology and capability has advanced significantly since the 1600's which has highlighted many 'errors' ... which means that bible can not be construed as being an 'infallible' work.

[Mo2013]

A member of my family is a practising Christian, that is, she prays several times a day, fasts at appropriate times and reads the Bible every day. As I understand it, the Bible condemns homosexuality, and it is the natural order of life that it is a man and a woman who become joined in matrimony and generally go on to have children. People who are not religious have no business getting married in church. And, if you have regard for, and respect, the basic tenets of the Bible, then no man should marry a man, and no woman should marry a woman. You just can't pick bits out of the Bible to suit oneself whilst conveniently disregarding the rest.

[kaymar]

A member of my family is a practising Christian, that is, she prays several times a day, fasts at appropriate times and reads the Bible every day. As I understand it, the Bible condemns homosexuality, and it is the natural order of life that it is a man and a woman who become joined in matrimony and generally go on to have children. People who are not religious have no business getting married in church. And, if you have regard for, and respect, the basic tenets of the Bible, then no man should marry a man, and no woman should marry a woman. You just can't pick bits out of the Bible to suit oneself whilst conveniently disregarding the rest.

Spot on, Mo.

[Silver_Shiney]

I would disagree with you on this, if I get a chance I will try to locate some additional reading .. my understanding is that the KJ version came mainly from Hebrew, Greek and Latin translations of what may have been original texts or previous translations (not the Aramiaic originals which it is very likely the CofE would not have had full access to). The scholars also had reference to previous english translations and were working under a set of guidelines about how the final translation should read (which considering the 'scholars' used were all from the church meant there was always going to be a bias in the transalation ... PS: I don't think there were as many as 100 scholars, I thought it was much less but would need to check).

However we have to accept that translation technology and capability has advanced significantly since the 1600's which has highlighted many 'errors' ... which means that bible can not be construed as being an 'infallible' work.

Ken, in fairness to the others, I don't think we should not continue this discussion on this particular thread. If you want to debate this with me, please set up a new thread.

Kind regards

Alan

[The Tinker]

No need to start a new thread - it is interesting to read the background to the history of the bible - bit like parliament with you two debating!!!

[Silver_Shiney]

I don't mind staying here to debate it, as long as no-one else does.

The last thing I want to do, however, is appear as though I am forcing my views on anyone.

[The Tinker]

Shiney - most of us are responsible adults who can make our own minds up which 'view' we relate to.
I think this whole subject will cause repercussions and await the verdict from the House of Lords with interest.

[oldbluefox]

I have enjoyed reading the views expressed on both sides of the argument. As long as the issue is debated in the right spirit I see no problem. This is what debate is all about.
Although a confirmed Christian I have problems with the Church as an establishment so I am not as involved as I should be.

[Silver_Shiney]

Although a confirmed Christian I have problems with the Church as an establishment so I am not as involved as I should be.

I, too, have problems with the "high street" church as an establishment.

I wasn't keen on furthering the debate on this particular thread as I am aware that going "off topic" can be a no-no and some people (judging from other boards) can be offended, but as Tinker and OBF are happy for me to continue, I'll put some thoughts together.

Catch you later!

[Silver_Shiney]

As Ken, Tinker and OBF seem happy for me to debate on the Bible, I will have a stab at “setting out my stall”. In researching this, I compiled four pages of information I do not intend serving this all up in one go, so will split it into sections. Let’s see how we get on.

As a Christian, I find it disturbing that a great many people are very ignorant in regards to the Bible and spiritual matters generally. I was once addressing a group of schoolchildren about the work of George Müller, explaining that he achieved everything through prayer alone. One little boy asked “what is prayer?” I found that truly shocking.

From past discussions on other forums, I found a great many people who think that the Bible is a single book, jointly written by a bunch of ignorant shepherds. It is actually a library of books, written by a variety of people from very different backgrounds, over a long period of time, under the guidance (we believe) of a person we call the Holy Spirit.

I am not aware of any other “book” that has come under so much scrutiny and attack - and yet a growing number of people have come to trust it as the inerrant Word of God. Its detractors say it has been rewritten so many times that it bears little comparison to the original, that it was written too long after the events cited to be an accurate recollection, and that science and archaeology have since disproved it anyway.

So can it be trusted? How did it come into being?

One thing the Bible isn’t is a science book. But it is a history book - the Old Testament (OT) in particular, is the story of the nation of Israel: it should be noted, however, that the books of the OT are not published in chronological order after the five books (the Pentateuch). But it also tells us of man’s rebellion against God and how God moved to make a way back to Him.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati says “Scripture had supreme authority for the Old Testament saints, Christ and His apostles in all matters it touched upon. In particular, for Christ, what Scripture said, God said. Christ also directly affirmed many of the passages attacked by liberals. Objections to the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture are refuted. The charge that Christ was mistaken or merely accommodating to His hearers is impossible for a consistent Christian to hold. The charge of circular reasoning fails on several counts: the internal and external cross-checks, and the role that axioms play in all philosophical systems.”

[Silver_Shiney]

Turning to the second section of the library, do we have the original New Testament (NT)? This has to be answered by applying bibliographical tests for reliability, in the same that the Iliad or Caesar’s writings would be examined.

The NT was completely written by baptised Jews (Rom 3:2) during the first century AD. There are at least 24,000 manuscripts of the NT, the earliest of which are dated within 100 years or so of its actual composition. The earliest known is the John Rylands papyrus fragment of John’s Gospel known as P52, containing John 18:31–33, 37–38, dated to around AD 125. Compare this to other great works (MSS = manuscripts):

Author Date Written Earliest MSS Time Span No. MSS
Caesar 100–44 BC AD 900 1,000 yrs 10
Plato 427–347 BC AD 900 1,200 yrs 7
Thucydides 460–400 BC AD 900 1,300 yrs 8
Tacitus AD 100 AD 1100 1,000 yrs 20
Suetonius AD 75–160 AD 950 800 yrs 8
Homer (Iliad) 900 BC 400 BC 500 yrs 643
New Testament AD 40–100 AD 125 25–50 yrs >24,000!

No-one questions the authenticity of these classical authors, and if the NT was a secular work, that probably would be regarded as authentic without question too!

While we are certain that the copies are trustworthy, what about the original? Detractors argue that the gospels, in particular, were written a long time after the supposed events. Both Matthew and Luke record Jesus’ prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, but neither tell of the fulfilment. Matthew, in particular, would not have excluded those events had he written afterwards. Similarly, Luke wrote the book of Acts after his gospel but he doesn’t mention the fall, Nero’s persecutions or the martyrdoms of James, Paul and Peter, so this must have been written before the mid-60s AD.Although, incredibly, there are some who even claim that Jesus did not exist, there are non-Christian writers from the first century who confirm His life and execution: Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Flavius Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar-Serapion, together with references in the Talmud and other Jewish writings. Encyclopædia Britannica sums up the force of the data:

"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

[Silver_Shiney]

So how did the modern translations come into being?

The OT was mostly written in Hebrew, with some books in Aramaic. The entire library was translated into Aramaic around 400 BC and, then, into Greek around 250 BC by (it is believed) 70-72 scholars (hence the work is known as the Septuagint).

The NT was written in Greek between 45 - 95 AD. These began to be translated into Latin, Syriac and Coptic around 180 AD. The Latin Vulgate was translated by Jerome, using the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT. This became the Bible of the Western Church until the Protestant reformation of the 1500s and is, I believe, still in use by the Roman Catholic church today.

John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate - a translation of a translation because he didn’t understand Greek or Hebrew.

In 1514, Erasmus printed the Greek NT, based on five Greek MSS, the oldest of which dated only as far back as the twelfth century. With minor revisions, Erasmus' Greek New Testament came to be known as the Textus Receptus or the "received texts."

In 1522, the Polyglot Bible was published. The OT was in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin and the New Testament in Latin and Greek. Erasmus used the Polyglot to revise later editions of his New Testament. Tyndale made use of the Polyglot in his translation on the Old Testament into English which he did not complete because he was martyred in 1534.

The King James Version (KJV, or AV) arrived in 1611, translating the original Hebrew and Greek OT texts into English, and the Textus Receptus as the basis for the NT. It is believed that around 50 scholars were engaged in this work.

The New American Standard Version (NASV) arrived in 1971, having been translated with the use of Hebrew and Greek texts that predated the ones used for the KJV, which weren’t available in the 17th century.

The KJV was revised in 1971. It should be remembered that the original texts were written in the vernacular of the day - there were no “thees” and “thous” in Biblical times but it was how people spoke in the 1600s. The NKJV sought to update the style of language. For the OT, a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew scriptures were used, together with relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves.

In 1983, the New International Version (NIV) was published. This was translated by over 100 scholars using the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. The scholars came from across the denominational spectrum and from different nationalities.

[Silver_Shiney]

There are a number of books that some claim to be part of the Bible - for example, the “Gospel of Thomas”. Why were these excluded from the library? The early church used three criteria to determine what should be included and what should be excluded from the Canon of the New Testament.

Firstly, the books must have apostolic authority - in other words, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they recorded, or by their close associates.

Secondly, they had to conform to the “rule of faith”, that is, was the document congruent with the basis Christian tradition that church recognised as formative.

Lastly, the document had to have been in continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.

The book attributed to Thomas, for example, is not included because it fails the test of apostolic authority. None of the early church fathers from Clement to Irenaeus ever quoted from the gospel of Thomas. This indicates that they either did not know of it or that they rejected it as spurious. In either case, the early church fathers fail to support the gospel of Thomas' claim to have been written by the apostle. It was believed to by written around 140 AD. There is no evidence to support its purported claim to be written by the Apostle Thomas himself.

Neither does it conform to the “rule of faith”. It purports to contain 114 "secret sayings" of Jesus. Some of these are very similar to the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Four Gospels. For example the gospel of Thomas quotes Jesus as saying, "A city built on a high hill cannot be hidden." This reads the same as Matthew's Gospel except that high is added. But Thomas claims that Jesus said, "Split wood; I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there." That concept is pantheistic. Thomas ends with the following saying that denies women salvation unless they are some how changed into being a man. "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Jesus is quoted as saying, "Lo, I shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Lastly, it fails the test of continuous usage and acceptance. The lack of manuscript evidence plus the failure of the early church fathers to quote from it or recognise it shows that it was not used or accepted in the early Church. Only two manuscripts are known of this "gospel." Until 1945 only a single fifth-century copy translation in Coptic had been found. Then in 1945 a Greek manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas was found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt. This compares very poorly to the thousands of manuscripts that authenticate the Four Gospels.

[Silver_Shiney]

The leading authority on the Greek New Testament, the late Dr Bruce Metzger, pointed out (interviewed by Lee Strobel, L. in The Case for Christ, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998 [emphasis added]):

“What the synods and councils did in the fifth century and following was to ratify what already had been accepted by high and low Christians alike. It is not right to say that the Gospel of Thomas was excluded by some fiat on the part of a council; the right way to put it is, the Gospel of Thomas excluded itself! It did not harmonize with other testimony about Jesus that early Christians accepted as trustworthy. …

You have to understand that the canon was not the result of a series of contests involving church politics. The canon is rather the separation that came about because of the intuitive insight of Christian believers. They could hear the voice of the Good Shepherd in the gospel of John; they could hear it only in a muffled and distorted way in the Gospel of Thomas, mixed in with a lot of other things.

When the pronouncement was made about the canon, it merely ratified what the general sensitivity of the church had already determined. You see, the canon is a list of authoritative books more than it is an authoritative list of books. These documents didn't derive their authority from being selected; each one was authoritative before anyone gathered them together. The early church merely listened and sensed that these were authoritative accounts.

For somebody now to say that the canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, “Let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.” I would say, “Thank you for nothing! We knew that before the pronouncement was made.” We know it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the canon.”

[Kendhni]

hi SS, an awful lot to digest and a quick read looks like much of it would be taken from pieces I have also read. I will have a proper read of it later but the issue still is
1. despite the criteria listed many believe the church has been deliberately selective about what was included to ensure it painted the picture they wished to paint .. so add a 4th criteria that the book did not contradict doctrine
2. King James was very specific about how the bible should read ... and in those days the church pandered to the monarchy
3. There are translations of translations of translations and it is now well understood that there are many mistranslations in the bible

You consider the bible to be purely historical. On that one point alone I would disagree. I consider that elements of it are historical (quite possibly with various embellishments in them) but many elements are purely parables and stories passed down through several generations. It is this latter point that for some reason some religious groups can not accept .. the bible is not the word of god, it is the word of man ... it is not infallible, it contains many mistranslations and contradictions.

I would love to see the church release a new version of it using modern translation techniques to fix up many of the errors to see if that then sheds more light on human origins and progress ... but they won't do that because I think it will blow much of the current religious belief out of the water, and even I do not necessarily believe that, at this stage, that would be beneficial to mankind.

[Silver_Shiney]

Hi Ken

Yes, there are, indeed, many who would claim it was "doctored". However, I would ask if such a move would still record all the human failings of the main characters. If I was doing it, I'dat least gloss over the murders and adulteries, if not omit them altogether.

I have found nothing to indicate that King James directed its content.

I would disagree with you on your third point. As I indicated, the NIV started from scratch.

I didn't say the Bible is purely historical, it is much more than that. As for passing down stories through generations, contradictions etc - we'll leave for another time. I've got to get to the office!

Cheers!

Alan

[Meg 50]

not sure if you covered this....Last year I did a Lent course comparing the 4 Gospel versions of the Passion (Jesus last week of life) and the resurrection.

The differences were striking.

This was because each Gospel was written for a different audience - one for the Jews, one for the Romans, one for the layman and St John was very highbrow and defensive.
I can't find my notes, but if I remember correctly, St Luke is the oldest and most likely to be accurate

[Kendhni]

Hi Meg, I had thought Matthew was the oldest but there seems to be some discussion that maybe Mark is the oldest.

see link here

[Meg 50]

my apologies - I'll have to have another try to find the notes.


In days of yore, stuff was passed down by the oral tradition, but once people became more literate it was seen that t'would be better if there was a written version

[Meg 50]

I Posted this on another thread last week, but it shows the problems with copying copies/ translating translations.....


The Old Monk
A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand.

He notices, however, that they are copying copies, not the original books. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.

The head monk says "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son." So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.

Hours later, nobody has seen him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar, and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying. He asks what's wrong.

The old monk sobs, "The word is celebrate."

[Silver_Shiney]

The thought also occurs to me that, with access to these ancient documents and our advanced knowledge of ancient languages, given the vitriolic hatred in some quarters towards the Bible, it is surprising that the atheist lobby hasn't had a go at translating it themselves to see how accurate it is - they don't usually pass up an opportunity to try and discredit Christianity (they've yet to succeed)!.

Meg, you are right that the gospels were written for different audiences. I can't remember the detail about Mark and John, but Matthew was writing to the Jews, to show the paternal line from David, whilst Luke was addressing the Greeks, showing the blood line through David to Adam (which is why there is an apparent contradiction in who the Lord's "grandfather" was).

[Meg 50]

and one was 'nasty 'about the Jews in order to avoid upsetting the Romans!

[Kendhni]

The thought also occurs to me that, with access to these ancient documents and our advanced knowledge of ancient languages, given the vitriolic hatred in some quarters towards the Bible, it is surprising that the atheist lobby hasn't had a go at translating it themselves to see how accurate it is - they don't usually pass up an opportunity to try and discredit Christianity (they've yet to succeed)!.

I think there is a project that is doing that, however the problem they have is that the church (I believe primarily the Vatican) will not give access to many documents.

[Silver_Shiney]

Don't get me started on the Vatican!

[Mo2013]

Didn't England break away from Rome to do its own thing? I am not learned about these things but I do know that people cannot agree on religion, and who/what is the one true God and each faith preaches their own supremacy in the grand scheme of things. Christianity has also stolen from pagans. To my mind, the stories in the Bible are just that - stories which you either believe, or not. I cannot believe the stories. Some people become obsessed with their faith to the exclusion of real people, and it frightens me terribly when people mention that God has 'spoken' to them. I also abhor the crusade of a religion that would rid the world of those who do not subscribe to their way of life. No I cannot be doing with it because to me religion is the most divisive element in the world.