Wierwille made the (correct) point that texts were altered, he led us to believe that he gave us the power to retrieve those original words by applying "keys".
Ehrman makes the point that there were so many places where errors, deliberate and accidental, could have been made (and in some cases there is no question that changes were made) that it is impossible to come up with an "original" text.
It makes it difficult to depend on any biblical text as "the" word of God.
he led us to believe that he gave us the power to retrieve those original words by applying "keys".
Well there's a totally confused statement if I ever heard one. Get real man! VPW had no more ability to give anybody any power to retrieve the originals than you or I do! It takes work, not power to rightly divide the Word of God by appling the proper grammatic principles (or keys if you want to call them that) to the Word of God. But if you just want to debate whether or not VPW did that more perfectly than others who did it, that's another topic. Come to think about it, that's exactly what this entire arguement has been about all along and still continues to be - isn't it? That is, whether VPW did it better than somebody else who supposedly had done it already before he did it! Then there are those who just want to argue over whether he even did it legally or not! (The whole plagarism thing, ya know.)
Ehrman makes the point that there were so many places where errors, deliberate and accidental, could have been made (and in some cases there is no question that changes were made) that it is impossible to come up with an "original" text. ....
Partially true. It's only partly true because who really knows exactly what Ehrman is defining as being impossible? Applying the grammatical keys to rightly divide the Word of God is something that certainly can be difficult at times, perhaps even very tedious at times, but not something impossible to do. If you ask me, that doesn't sound to me like VPW giving anybody the power to rightly divide the Word of God. It sounds more to me like someone (VPW) giving you a heck of a lot of work! Yeah, some just want to bitch about all the work he gave us, and some would rather sit and bitch (type) and enjoy each other's bitchin' more than going to work.
It definitely has some questions that weren't entirely addressed in PFAL...
Thanks for the link, George. His writings display the typical deist scorn towards religion, but his questions are powerful and penetrating.
Partially true. It's only partly true because who really knows exactly what Ehrman is defining as being impossible?
Well, I think its pretty obvious what he's defining as impossible. It is, as Oakspear noted, the ability to come up with an "original" text. Plain and simple, we don't have the original 'God-breathed' word, nor a reliable way to get to it. You have to make a lot of leaps of faith to get to the point of believing the bible is the unerring word and will of God. Ehrman's book is showing me there are many more leaps needed than I had ever imagined.
There's an interview in there with the Bishop of Oxford that was sort of enlightening. I loved his view of the miraculous interventions of The Almighty. At least he's thinking about it rather than spin-doctoring - kinda refreshing from a religious guy...
It's on my "to read" list, but that's gotten really long lately.
With my new exposure to the Gnostic gospels, the Nag Hammadi Scrolls, Elaine Pagels work, The History Channel's "Banned from the Bible" and other 'history lessons', I'm more and more doubtful about much of the Bible.... at least, the Bible as the inerrant, God breathed word.
Wierwille made the (correct) point that texts were altered, he led us to believe that he gave us the power to retrieve those original words by applying "keys".
Well there's a totally confused statement if I ever heard one.
Not at all. If you disagree with the statement, that's another matter altogether. The statement in itself is not confusing.
Get real man! VPW had no more ability to give anybody any power to retrieve the originals than you or I do! It takes work, not power to rightly divide the Word of God by appling the proper grammatic principles (or keys if you want to call them that) to the Word of God.
True, but that's how Wierwille promoted PFAL: a class on "keys", a way to get back to the "originals".
But if you just want to debate whether or not VPW did that more perfectly than others who did it, that's another topic.
You're right, it is another topic, one that I did not bring up.
Come to think about it, that's exactly what this entire arguement has been about all along and still continues to be - isn't it? That is, whether VPW did it better than somebody else who supposedly had done it already before he did it!
I don't tend to look at the Bible as a history book. I see it as a book of prophecy. Seen in that light, its astounding.
Looking at the bible as a history book, as you say, is going to be frustrating. I don't think that the bible can be read as a one-size-fits-all manual to be followed in all its minutia (sp?) and details. A person can live a very fullfilling and moral life by following the general principles of Jesus without believing that he literally walked on water or that Balaam's donkey reproved him
Any opinions out there? Any thoughts on the NT canon?
-JJ
-----------------------
Here's the full info. It's online at Amazon with 283 reviews.
"Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Ehrman
I had the book in my cart yesterday at Costco but I couldn't bring myself to plunk down the money for it so I put it back. I would like to read it, just don't want to pay money for it.
I have studied the history of the NT canon and I think it's amazing how God protected not just the canon but preserved the manuscripts through the centuries.
Can't say much more since I haven't read the book but when I do I'll get back to you...
I had the book in my cart yesterday at Costco but I couldn't bring myself to plunk down the money for it so I put it back. I would like to read it, just don't want to pay money for it.
...I think it's amazing how God protected not just the canon but preserved the manuscripts through the centuries.
Not trying to be contentious, but why do you feel the manuscripts were preserved? We don't have anything within a century of an "original", and what we do have has numerous inconsistancies and differences.
We can all quote the Bible, and man we where good at it. Shoot, we where "the best".
I learned a lot from the Bible..........I was Born again from reading the Bible............The Spirit of God spoke to me through the Bible...............
I've outgrown it.............
I'm still "born again".......still hearing the Spirit of God..............The God who indwelled the writers of the Bible, indwells me.
Not trying to be contentious, but why do you feel the manuscripts were preserved? We don't have anything within a century of an "original", and what we do have has numerous inconsistancies and differences.
Hi Oakspear,
I guess I have a different perspective on this. When I first read your question my thoughts went to all those monks and scribes copying away in monasteries and scriptoriums, and also the Jewish Massoretes who put a "fence" around the Old Testament words to preserve them.
Then I thought about the barbarian invasions and other wars and campaigns throughout the years where so many "books and parchments" were destroyed. The passage of time, moisture, decay, insects and other factors of time were also enemies of preservation.
Then there were the translators, Wycliffe, Purvey, Tyndale, who risked their lives or gladly gave their lives to make sure that we have the Word of God in our language to read and enjoy.
Then I think of intrepid explorers and adventurers like Tischendorf and other who found manuscripts hidden for centuries in obscure desert monasteries
I see the hand of God working in unseen ways to make sure that we can go into a bookstore and choose from hundreds of Bibles in any language.
Here's a passage from a book that I own:
From “The Books and the Parchments” by F.F. Bruce pg. 180:
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 BC – AD 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than 20 MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydidies (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from 8 MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.
So when we are considering the textual evidence for the Biblical writing, we should ask what kind and amount of evidence we might reasonably expect, having regard to other ancient writings of comparable date…
But the textual evidence for the New Testament is abundant beyond all comparison with these other works. The number of extant mss of all or part of the Greek NT runs to about 5000.
I have read my share of works regarding the canonizing of scripture.
Well my view of the whole thing is actually a little blind faith.
If there is indeed God, and if indeed he wanted his will, his plan, and his purposes known to us, then I have to believe that God was working mightily in history to make sure that the proper books were included.
When you think about it, it would have been pretty crucial for God to do that because if he didn't then no one could ever know if what he was reading was indeed inspired by God or simply the writings of men. This would leave man direction-less and standard-less, never being able to know if what he believes is indeed the truth (which is exactly how adversary would have it).
If you cannot know the truth and know that you know it, then any intellectual endeavor becomes a fool's errand.
I cannot believe that God would leave man so stumbling in the dark.
It wasn't only in the NT days when there were tons of other epistles floating around. In the OT, there were tons of writings and books about everything under the sun, mysticism, other religions, philosophy. Even by Solomon's time there was no end to the number of books and literature floating around. God would have worked hard to make sure the correct writings were assembled together as one unit of revelation so that when Jesus Christ was born he would know what his Father needed him to do.
Jesus Christ as he studied the scrolls must have had the correct writings because if he had been missing even one, he may have missed a prophecy about him that he should have fulfilled or if a fake writing had crept into the scrolls that he studied from, he may have read a false prophecy and did something he wasn't supposed to.
It's God Word. He put it together, he protected it.
There are approx. 20 books mentioned in the Bible but not included in the cannon. A lot of those works are lost. God didn't protect them as he did the ones he inspired. If we could read some of those books, like Samuel The Seer or the Book of Nathan the Prophet, I'm sure we could learn some cool stuff. I'm sure there was plenty in there that corroborated the scriptures, which is why God is referencing them in the first place. But in regards to God's plan of redemption and the Savior of mankind, they weren't applicable. God didn't inspire those. They could even be called great books from great men....but they're not from God.
Same with the NT. You can learn some cool things from other epistles not in the NT cannon. You may even find some things in there that corroborate what the scriptures say. You could even call them great books by great men....but they're not from God, and God let's everyone know by not including them in His Word.
I think it's simply a matter of whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not. If you do, then the above argument is completely plausible and technically, impossible to disprove. If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, then no argument that would prove the point would be viewed as logical by you anyway.
I guess it's one of those things where we just have to trust that God was big enough to pull it off. If he wasn't, we are indeed lost.
I can see where, if one believes that the bible is inspired by God, that one would necessarily have to believe that God put together the canon and held it together and protected it. It would have been nice if he had taken the protection to a higher level and protected the original wording so that textual scholars wouldn't be necessary.
That's a good nutshell of how I view it LoneMc. There's a lot to look at, in an out of the present Old and New Testaments. "The Bible" canon we have forms a core of writings to focus on.
I guess I have a different perspective on this. When I first read your question my thoughts went to all those monks and scribes copying away in monasteries and scriptoriums...
One of the points of the book is that yes, when that happened, the texts became significantly more consistent. But a formal methodology for copying texts didn't exist for quite some time after the 1st century. Back then, they were mostly just guys writing letters and some of them even complained about people who copied their writings inaccurately, whether intentionally or not.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
I have thoughts on the NT canon.
If one were to go by the tiny bit vpw was able to learn, just about anything could sound
reasonable concerning ancient texts. (Especially if they elevated Aramaic.)
Thus, one is forced (if one actually wants to learn) to go outside twi teachings to
learn anything about the texts.
I'm not exactly an expert on them, but I've learned a lot more than I knew when I
was in twi.
My conclusions are: if there was no divine guiding hand protecting the essential
meaning of the texts, and making sure we received the essence of what was necessary,
then the humans who worked on it did an amazingly-successful job by themselves
in preserving both,
and the discoveries of the last 50 years only underscore that.
I've found that-with the exception of less than a dozen verses across the entire
Bible- that talk of conspiracies, altered texts, and excluded texts all add up to
a new theology that is supported by a "leap of faith", but not the archeological
evidence or any other kind of objective standard.
Of course, that's just MY opinion. You DID ask.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Well, as long as you're at it, might as well get yer feet wet:
http://www.godvsthebible.com/
It definitely has some questions that weren't entirely addressed in PFAL...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wierwille made the (correct) point that texts were altered, he led us to believe that he gave us the power to retrieve those original words by applying "keys".
Ehrman makes the point that there were so many places where errors, deliberate and accidental, could have been made (and in some cases there is no question that changes were made) that it is impossible to come up with an "original" text.
It makes it difficult to depend on any biblical text as "the" word of God.
I guess that's why Mike reveres PFAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Partially true. It's only partly true because who really knows exactly what Ehrman is defining as being impossible? Applying the grammatical keys to rightly divide the Word of God is something that certainly can be difficult at times, perhaps even very tedious at times, but not something impossible to do. If you ask me, that doesn't sound to me like VPW giving anybody the power to rightly divide the Word of God. It sounds more to me like someone (VPW) giving you a heck of a lot of work! Yeah, some just want to bitch about all the work he gave us, and some would rather sit and bitch (type) and enjoy each other's bitchin' more than going to work.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Thanks for the link, George. His writings display the typical deist scorn towards religion, but his questions are powerful and penetrating.
Well, I think its pretty obvious what he's defining as impossible. It is, as Oakspear noted, the ability to come up with an "original" text. Plain and simple, we don't have the original 'God-breathed' word, nor a reliable way to get to it. You have to make a lot of leaps of faith to get to the point of believing the bible is the unerring word and will of God. Ehrman's book is showing me there are many more leaps needed than I had ever imagined.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Do you use those standards in the same fashion on ALL books?
After all, a LOT of books from the same timeframe as the New Testament are
considered to be "authoritative" or at least unquestioned,
with far less documentation supporting them, than the New Testament has.
Frankly, my beloved SHAKESPEARE has perhaps the same level of
authoritative support, and that's over a millenium more recent than the
New Testament. Most people never question THAT, and most of those
only question a word or two here or there.
("handsaw", "heron", or "hernshaw"?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Most people don't but some people do - Shakespearean Authorship Question
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
There's also this one that I find informative from time to time
http://richarddawkins.net/foundation
There's an interview in there with the Bishop of Oxford that was sort of enlightening. I loved his view of the miraculous interventions of The Almighty. At least he's thinking about it rather than spin-doctoring - kinda refreshing from a religious guy...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
It's on my "to read" list, but that's gotten really long lately.
With my new exposure to the Gnostic gospels, the Nag Hammadi Scrolls, Elaine Pagels work, The History Channel's "Banned from the Bible" and other 'history lessons', I'm more and more doubtful about much of the Bible.... at least, the Bible as the inerrant, God breathed word.
Thanks for the links, too, y'all. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I don't tend to look at the Bible as a history book. I see it as a book of prophecy. Seen in that light, its astounding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
I had the book in my cart yesterday at Costco but I couldn't bring myself to plunk down the money for it so I put it back. I would like to read it, just don't want to pay money for it.
I have studied the history of the NT canon and I think it's amazing how God protected not just the canon but preserved the manuscripts through the centuries.
Can't say much more since I haven't read the book but when I do I'll get back to you...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
try your public library.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Thanks for the suggestion. I was planning to but your suggestion prompted me to get online and reserve it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick and Sarah
No I have not read it............
Sounds interesting.
Can anyone really quote Jesus?
We can all quote the Bible, and man we where good at it. Shoot, we where "the best".
I learned a lot from the Bible..........I was Born again from reading the Bible............The Spirit of God spoke to me through the Bible...............
I've outgrown it.............
I'm still "born again".......still hearing the Spirit of God..............The God who indwelled the writers of the Bible, indwells me.
So really...has anyone read the book?
Patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Yes. And I own a copy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
Hi Oakspear,
I guess I have a different perspective on this. When I first read your question my thoughts went to all those monks and scribes copying away in monasteries and scriptoriums, and also the Jewish Massoretes who put a "fence" around the Old Testament words to preserve them.
Then I thought about the barbarian invasions and other wars and campaigns throughout the years where so many "books and parchments" were destroyed. The passage of time, moisture, decay, insects and other factors of time were also enemies of preservation.
Then there were the translators, Wycliffe, Purvey, Tyndale, who risked their lives or gladly gave their lives to make sure that we have the Word of God in our language to read and enjoy.
Then I think of intrepid explorers and adventurers like Tischendorf and other who found manuscripts hidden for centuries in obscure desert monasteries
I see the hand of God working in unseen ways to make sure that we can go into a bookstore and choose from hundreds of Bibles in any language.
Here's a passage from a book that I own:
From “The Books and the Parchments” by F.F. Bruce pg. 180:
Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar’s Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some 900 years later than Caesar’s day. Of the 142 books of the Roman history of Livy (59 BC – AD 17), only 35 survive; these are known to us from not more than 20 MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books III-VI, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydidies (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from 8 MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.
So when we are considering the textual evidence for the Biblical writing, we should ask what kind and amount of evidence we might reasonably expect, having regard to other ancient writings of comparable date…
But the textual evidence for the New Testament is abundant beyond all comparison with these other works. The number of extant mss of all or part of the Greek NT runs to about 5000.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
I have read my share of works regarding the canonizing of scripture.
Well my view of the whole thing is actually a little blind faith.
If there is indeed God, and if indeed he wanted his will, his plan, and his purposes known to us, then I have to believe that God was working mightily in history to make sure that the proper books were included.
When you think about it, it would have been pretty crucial for God to do that because if he didn't then no one could ever know if what he was reading was indeed inspired by God or simply the writings of men. This would leave man direction-less and standard-less, never being able to know if what he believes is indeed the truth (which is exactly how adversary would have it).
If you cannot know the truth and know that you know it, then any intellectual endeavor becomes a fool's errand.
I cannot believe that God would leave man so stumbling in the dark.
It wasn't only in the NT days when there were tons of other epistles floating around. In the OT, there were tons of writings and books about everything under the sun, mysticism, other religions, philosophy. Even by Solomon's time there was no end to the number of books and literature floating around. God would have worked hard to make sure the correct writings were assembled together as one unit of revelation so that when Jesus Christ was born he would know what his Father needed him to do.
Jesus Christ as he studied the scrolls must have had the correct writings because if he had been missing even one, he may have missed a prophecy about him that he should have fulfilled or if a fake writing had crept into the scrolls that he studied from, he may have read a false prophecy and did something he wasn't supposed to.
It's God Word. He put it together, he protected it.
There are approx. 20 books mentioned in the Bible but not included in the cannon. A lot of those works are lost. God didn't protect them as he did the ones he inspired. If we could read some of those books, like Samuel The Seer or the Book of Nathan the Prophet, I'm sure we could learn some cool stuff. I'm sure there was plenty in there that corroborated the scriptures, which is why God is referencing them in the first place. But in regards to God's plan of redemption and the Savior of mankind, they weren't applicable. God didn't inspire those. They could even be called great books from great men....but they're not from God.
Same with the NT. You can learn some cool things from other epistles not in the NT cannon. You may even find some things in there that corroborate what the scriptures say. You could even call them great books by great men....but they're not from God, and God let's everyone know by not including them in His Word.
I think it's simply a matter of whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not. If you do, then the above argument is completely plausible and technically, impossible to disprove. If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, then no argument that would prove the point would be viewed as logical by you anyway.
I guess it's one of those things where we just have to trust that God was big enough to pull it off. If he wasn't, we are indeed lost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Blind faith it is, LWMcQ.
I can see where, if one believes that the bible is inspired by God, that one would necessarily have to believe that God put together the canon and held it together and protected it. It would have been nice if he had taken the protection to a higher level and protected the original wording so that textual scholars wouldn't be necessary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Yeah, but at least he has made it available (by books and other things) to find out that information that was "unprotected".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That's a good nutshell of how I view it LoneMc. There's a lot to look at, in an out of the present Old and New Testaments. "The Bible" canon we have forms a core of writings to focus on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
One of the points of the book is that yes, when that happened, the texts became significantly more consistent. But a formal methodology for copying texts didn't exist for quite some time after the 1st century. Back then, they were mostly just guys writing letters and some of them even complained about people who copied their writings inaccurately, whether intentionally or not.
-JJ
(Edited for typos)
Edited by JumpinJiveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.