Scholars seek to correct 'mistakes' in Bible

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by freeatlast, Aug 12, 2011.

  1. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    How does that have anything to do with the article?
     
  4. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    To me it seems these folks interested in doing these things think they will stumble upon another truth contrary to the truth. To be fair, we are not certain if any of these scholars are lost or regenerate. At least I don't know what they claim.

    The Gospel is , to those who are perishing, foolishness (silliness and absurdity) but to those being saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor. 1:18

    Of course, I will be interested in their conclusions.
     
  5. beameup

    beameup
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    915
    Likes Received:
    2
    I would think that it would be hard to change the Masoretic text since it is so widely accepted by the Jewish community.
    It would be interesting to find the Hebrew text used for the Septuagint though.

    At any rate, we have the sure Word of God with the Textus Receptus and the King James. :thumbs:
     
  6. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    same way with Critical texts and 'sure word of God" as in Niv/Esv/Nasv!
     
  7. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just was saying doubt there would be many 'corrections" that modern versions would have missed!
     
  8. Chessic

    Chessic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    0
  9. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    From the article:
    Hopefully Jesus will have returned by then. :)
     
  10. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Copies of copies of copies tend to amplify additions (seldom deletions)

    No two manuscripts (all man-made copies) agree in every word, verse, detail.

    Two years ago I did my daily bible-reading/devotions using the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls . . and found they had some interesting omissions but mostly additions to the traditional tanakh (Hebrew Bible). Why? They had an agenda.

    Think of the Jehovah's Witness version. With their agenda they woofed and warped all sorts of phrases, verses, texts to support THEIR position. Same with the anti-Temple/anti-Jerusalem Essenes in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Same with Constantine's Byzantine scribes.
     
  12. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    Additions to the Masoretic Text in my opinion, present the strongest case for the acceptance of the textus receptus.

    Let me explain:
    These additions to the original text were present well before Jesus time.
    If Jesus accepted these changes to the original OT text then perhaps it’s our definition of original that needs to be adjusted.
    Perhaps we should accept the textus receptus even though it may not represent the original writing of the author.

    Now I've got to admit I've never heard this argument presented by an advocate of the TR.

    Rob
     
  13. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Old issues. That's all!
     
  14. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Jesus didn't use the Masoretic text
     
  15. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    0
    Havent read any of this thead yet, but the OP reminds me of the comical "Jesus Seminar" nonsense back in the early 80's, if I recall correctly
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,164
    Likes Received:
    322
    Scribes, typesetters and printers makes mistakes, not God.
    If scholars attempt to correct these man-made mistakes then that is good.

    Admitedly this could make matters worse.

    Of course, the underlying problem (which God has at least allowed) is that we don't have the original mss so we have to theorize about the differences and/or consequently develop a resolution methodology to determine the "true" text.

    One of the least credible of resolution theories (IMO) is "Onlyism" along with the "secondary inspiration" and "advanced revelation" sub-theories.

    The real answer (again IMO) is to be found in the "Preservation" of the text mss.

    Personally, I tend toward the Traditional Text (TR/MT) but with all due respect to others who tend toward the CT.

    It is, after all, a subjective matter seeing that we don't have the originals.


    HankD
     
  17. RAdam

    RAdam
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are no mistakes in the bible. God gave it by inspiration and promised to preserve it. Every word of God is pure.
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,407
    Likes Received:
    328
    But you will acknowledge that there are mistakes in all translations --though they might indeed be very minor. Translations are not the original autographs. All translations are fallible. However,we can trust them for the most part. Many modern translations are getting more accurate than ones done centuries ago.
     
  19. SolaSaint

    SolaSaint
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,824
    Likes Received:
    25
    I totally agree here, the more manuscripts we find and compare, the closer to the original text we will get, althought we will never reproduce the original.
     
  20. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who determined the original copies of the original manuscripts???? The scholars of that day debated which books, mss, were acceptable or not.

    Was Barth on the right track that the word becomes the word when we experience it???

    Careful here.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     

Share This Page

Loading...