Did Constantine pervert the bibles?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by xdisciplex, Jun 12, 2006.

  1. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that Constantine gave the order to produce a certain number of bible. Actually I thought that this was good. But look what I found. Is this true? If this is true then how can we be sure that our bibles which we have today are not a result of perverted bibles and manuscripts!?

     
  2. bmerr

    bmerr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    xdisciplex,

    bmerr here. I think we can look at what our Bibles say about paganism, and false religions, for starters. Read Paul's sermon in Acts 17, or the numerous references to pagan idolatry in the OT, for example. If the Bible were mixed with paganism, would it condemn it so irrefutably? I think not.

    Remember 1 Thes 5:21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
  3. Chemnitz

    Chemnitz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pure and simple hearsay. The texts of the Bible have been verified by archeological finds. Personally, I wouldn't use Dan Brown as a reliable source for Textual Criticism and Canon studies.
     
  4. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    First time I've heard about it! One will have to be a scholar to know about these things specifically. Nevertheless, I regard Justin Martyr the first wilful perverter of the Scriptures, because I have discovered for myself the very specific falseties he initiated into Matthew 28:1.
     
  5. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heresy

    Chemnitz nailed it on the head. What Brown's referring to is the Council of Nicea. It's absolutely stupid to try and suggest that this council messed with the Word of God especially since we have found fragments dating back to before 325. Period.
     
  6. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    It isn't EZ to answer the question in a sentence or two. The short answer is NO, he didn't. He had nothing to do with the Canon of scripture. He ordered 50 bibles printed, which may have been a merger of two texts that someone like Origen, an official charged with preparing such items, was aware of. Those 50 bibles were not the only texts in circulation, of course. I won't go into detail about that, here.

    The Lord Jesus Christ promised to preserve all of His Words (Matthew 24:35) for every generation (John 12:48). Assurance in God's having inspired and preserved His Words does not come through writings about the Bible but by the faith that comes from hearing, hearing by the Word of God. Jesus said, "My sheep hear my voice" (John 10:27). It doesn't say "might" hear, or "sometimes" hear. How do we hear? 1 Corinthians 2:9-14. 2 Timothy 2:13-17. :thumbs:
     
    #6 genesis12, Jun 12, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 12, 2006
  7. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi!

    I realize how little I know about all these things, this makes me feel really dumb. Were those 50 bibles which Constantine ordered the first bibles which were ever made or did the christians back then already have their own new testament bibles collected in 1 book? Or did they only have the different manuscripts?

    The problem is that most christians today say that no bible which we have today is 100% accurate anymore but that they are still accurate enough to support the important things of christianity. But if they are not 100% accurate anymore then Jesus would not have been able to really preserve his word. I mean it doesn't really help us if 2000 years ago the christians had the 100% correct manuscripts but since these manuscripts are gone we only have 95% accurate bibles today. This wouldn't make much sense. But most scholars and people which really deal with the bible will say that our bible versions today are not 100% accurate anymore. :confused:
    100% accurate also means that not 1 single word could be translated wrong but there are also a lot of christians which say that the KJV has places where words are translated in a wrong way.
     
  8. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    More da Vinci Code bunkum.
     
  9. bmerr

    bmerr
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    0
    xdisciplex,

    bmerr here. Nate makes a good point. There have been numerous "councils" through the years, but only one council was attended by inspired men, who were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

    In Acts 15, we have an inspired account of the things discussed, and the decisions reached by these inspired men. In Acts 16:4-5, we find that the churches that received the word that came from this council were "...established in the faith, and increased in number daily".

    Every other "council" in the history of the church of Christ has only served to cloud Bible doctrine, and cause division among Christians. Pay them no mind. Stick to the Bible.

    In Christ,

    bmerr
     
  10. Dave

    Dave
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will give you my understanding, just keep in mind I am no expert on textual criticism.

    When speaking about the majority text, there are hundreds of manuscripts with small differences between them. Differences can be introduced by hand-copying which was the way the Bible text was propagated before the printing press was invented.

    The way the text is determined is by comparing the manuscripts. The correct text is based on the agreement, since the disagreements are not in the same place in all manuscripts, there is a large body of agreement on any given text. What comes out of this is a text that is complete based on the body of agreement of the various texts.

    Most of the modern versions are based on what is called the critical text, rather than the majority text. The critical text has many less copies to compare and precedence is given to the oldest (I think). This is based on archeological finds, not on transmission through the years.

    Any way you look at it, the differences between the underlying text, whether majority text or critical text are not large, but for accuracy I would look for an english translation of the majority text.

    Now we get into the problem of translation into other languages, such as english. Any time you translate into another language, there are choices made by the translators where there is not a strictly equivalent word for word translation. Also, phrasing is different in different languages. A direct word-for word translation of Hebrew might not be very readable in English.

    English Bibles fall into rough categories (most in between the extremes) of a literal translation or a dynamic equivalence translation. The NASB is pretty literal, the NIV is pretty much dynamic equivalence, most others fall in between. This is the translation philosophy.

    The differences in Bibles are generally because of the use of a different underlying text (MT or CT), or different choices by the translators. As Christ promised to preserve His word, we trust that He has guided the translation of the most reliable version of the english Bible. In any case, the argument is that no critical doctrines are affected by any of the differences.

    There are plenty of underlying manuscripts to go to if you wanted to validate the deeper meaning of a word or phrase. To say we don't have an accurate Bible available today shows a lack of understanding of what has gone into producing them. The diffences are what people are focusing on when they say we don't have an accurate Bible today. Don't focus on differences, but on agreement. You will find the same ideas conveyed in any mainstream Bible.
     
  11. genesis12

    genesis12
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Messages:
    799
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dave has done a good job of laying it out. Let me just add that the NT was canonized in the 1st century a.d. The apostles were still alive ~ they knew what was correct, what was a distortion, what was a counterfeit. Read these references: Luke 1:2; Acts 1:21-22; 1 John 2:3; John 14:25-26; 2 Peter 1:16-19. All 27 books of the NT were accepted by the brethren by the end of the 1st century. That didn't just happen. The various churches communicated about the matter; the Holy Spirit directed their oral and written conversations. Within one generation, the NT was proclaimed accurate. NO Roman Catholic council, NO Jehovah's Witness, LDS-Joseph Smith, Christian Science, Sun Yung Moon, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, or other heretical group or individual, can alter these facts. It is written that if all the letters going back and forth between the churches of that day were assembled, they would contain the whole of NT scripture in its earliest form. I don't need those letters to be convinced that what we have is sufficient ~~ but I'd love to read them all.

    Keep looking up, not out! Get the vertical right so that the horizontal can be taken care of, in His Name and timing! :thumbs:
     
  12. nate

    nate
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hullo,
    Don't feel dumb. When you see something you don't know just determine to learn more. That's what I've tried to do. There is still so much all of us have to learn.

    These people are just confused and should study the issue more. Many also need to bolster their faith by pray, study.


    There are errors in the KJV. Everyone who reads the text in several places know this. But this alone by no means prove that we do not have a 100% perfect Word of God.
     
  13. xdisciplex

    xdisciplex
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,766
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks everybody for the replies. :)

    The textus receptus is the majority text, right?
    And the critical text are these manuscripts which are supposed to be older than the TR, right?
    The christians also distinguish between Syrian manuscripts and Alexandrian manuscripts. This stuff is so complicated and basically everybody says something different. I think it's nearly impossible that know who's really correct unless you have studied this whole stuff but who has time to study all these things? And even if you study them you still have to decide which opinion you're going to believe. :(
     
  14. Dave

    Dave
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TR is not the Majority text, though I believe it was largely based on the Majority Text. Someone more familiar with this would need to opiine on this to be sure.

    You are correct as far as my understanding goes on what Critical Text refers to. Every discussion I have seen on this seems to refer to this as the Alexandrian textform. Majority Text is based on Byzantine textform.

    I agree there is a lot to this, but why let it bother you? Compare and contrast different English Bibles or better yet, get a copy of Strong's and refer to the underlying Greek and Hebrew word definitions when you want a clarification. There is not enough difference between the different Bibles to warrant large concern. No major doctrines are affected by the disagreements.

    What version do you like? KJV, NIV, NASB, or something else? If you stick to the mainstream Bibles you should do okay. Just avoid things like the Message, which is a paraphrase rather than a translation.
     
  15. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    TR is not necessarily majority text, but accepted text - at the time Rrasmus compiled the text used for the KJV.
    More importently though is the CLAIM that the critical text are older. Latest scholarship proves that claim highly debatable!
    Most importantly as far as I am concerned (for myself) is the modern 'Versions' and so called 'translations' - usually with the appendix, "from the original". These are the source for concern for sincere Christians. I don't compare translations - they cause confusion; I go to the Greek - of any whether TR or Aland or whichever (like Nestle). There are very little differences and none of major importance and none of any importance for faith.
     

Share This Page

Loading...