The Passion of the Christ

[Super 80]

First I note no one was put up a counter-argument to Timebuilder's excellent defense of the Bible in all its versions, and I'd also like to thank Tony C for his contribution. For surplus1 I would add that there are legitimate reasons for differing versions. Because Greek and Hebrew incorporate words that do not have a one-for-one translation, it is not always possible to render the exact verbiage as was written into a meaning that has the same impact in our language. This sets up two different and competing schools of translation, word-for-word and thought-for-thought. While the latter can include some verses that may be over-stretched, those same verses can lose meaning otherwise.

Hebrew has words that paint pictures, and words with multiple shades of meanings. Greek has verb tenses that are so specific that there isn't even anything close to what we can render in the English to impart their meaning. In addition there is also mood and voice inflections that can alter the meaning of a word that renders a straight word-for-word translation without the substance of the original language.

As to the legitimate arguments against Timebuilder by TWA Dude and the ad-hominem attacks mounted by others against Timebuilder, I note that all Timebuilder has done has been to quote what Jesus and the Bible said about His ministry and its truthfulness. And in return, I think Timebuilder has done an excellent job in apologetics.

 

[Timebuilder]

I can always find room for improvement, but thank you. Encouragement is hard to come by in modern America.

I expect pilots, engineers, and the like to have a healthy respect for facts, and the ability to think outside the box. So when someone has a criticism, I expect it will have something to do with the topic, and I feel a little disappointed when it degrades into mud throwing.

As far as I can see, with corrective lenses, the intention of the gospel is to encourage us to find the necessry faith to trust that God exists, and that he cares for us so much that He gave the dearest part of Himself to be tortured and killed on our behalf.

It's a simple message of apostacy and redemption. Funny how resistant folks are to the idea of eternal life, and God's love.

 

[Super 80]

Counter-point 2C (not in order)

Hey Dude! this post has no New Testament Scripture in it. I was wondering along with this post if you had any response to who is "the one they have pierced" that Zechariah mentions I responded with before?

C. SUFFERING SERVANT

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.”

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun.

When speaking of Isaiah's servant passages, (Isa 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9 and the one I mentioned before -the fourth: Isa 52:13-53:12) one concept the Bible, or TWA Dude's Tanach does not indicate from any systematic theology is:

There is no teaching in the Old Testament that a nation can atone for its own sins. In fact, this interpretation came into existence only after Christians pointed out the fulfillment of the substitutionary nature of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

So while this may be a reason, if you could back up your claim that "my servant" in Isaiah 52:13 is the same rebellious, stiff-necked people that are the verge of being annihilated as a nation as a consequence of their father's disobedience, I would gladly entertain looking up the Scripture.

However, saying a pronoun repeated so many times in ways only a single person could be depicted actually represents a nation, and that this nation of people can atone for its own sin is not supported anywhere else in Scripture.

When this servant "took up our infirmities" how can a nation take up its own infirmities? Which is he and which is our?

I find it more than difficult, if not impossible, to envision how a nation could suffer in the personal terms reserved for God's servant spoken plainly as a man who sprinkles many nations.

If this refers to Israel, then how can no one speak of his descendants? Why does Isaiah say he is cut off much like Daniel said of the "Anointed One will be cut off and have nothing," how then could this describe the nation of Israel?

No, this argument has no material support in the Scripture for this interpretation. Again if you have some evidence for it, bring it out that we may examine it. But this claim of yours falls flat on its own merit.

 

[surplus1]

Part 1 of 2

Re: Re: about Bible versions...

Originally posted by Tony C So, multiple versions of the Bible is problematic when one claims to believe the Bible literally, but when one does NOT claim to believe the Bible literally, multiple versions is NOT problematic. And that's why it's OK to have several versions of the Catholic Bible, but not a King James, New American Standard, Revised Standard, and New International Version? Am I reading you right on that point?

No, you aren't reading me right. I am not attempting to create a "contest" between versions of the Bible with respect to their being Catholic or non-Catholic. Both are subject to the possibility and probability of error. Which is more subject is a matter of opinion even among the most learned of scholars. I respectfully submit that neither you nor I can be classified as a "learned scholar".

When one chooses to interpret something "literally" and hang on the veracity of its every word, the problem of "versions" does become critical. If I happen to be literally interpreting the "wrong version" or an inaccurate version, my view will be prone to error.

The point I was trying to make was this. Given the origin of the writings from which "The Bible" is sourced and their antiquity, there is no such thing as the "original" writing from which we can translate. It is claimed that the KJV was translated into English from the "original Greek and Hebrew." That just isn't so. The original manuscripts simply did not exist in that time frame (1600). Those manuscripts therefore had to be "copies of the alleged originals".

While it is true that the primary English language Catholic Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and not from Hebrew or Greek, it is also true that the manuscripts used by Jerome to write his Latin translations were in fact "versions" of the Hebrew and Greek that are by far more "original" and pre-date the "versions" that was used to produce the KJV.

Because if I am, I take it you don't put much weight in the Bible at all, and I'm inclined to conclude that you put the weight in the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Bible instead. Why bother reading the Bible if the priest is gonna tell ya what it says?

You are wrong again. I put a great deal of weight in the Scriptures, but sometimes I differentiate between what is Scripture and what appears in the Bible. I just don't believe that The Bible is flawless in setting them down for us to read. Therefore, I do not take the Bible literally, word for word.

There is no such thing as the "Catholic Church's interpretation of the Bible." That concept is just one more fiction to which Protestants are prone. Christians have been compiling the works that appear in the Bible for centuries. For 1500 years prior to the advent of Protestantism ALL of the Christians that wrote the Bible were in fact "catholics". They produced a variety of "versions", parts or the whole of which still exist. Along the way, someone had to decide which of these versions was the most accurate. That was not done by one person, but by many clerics assembled from all over the world, all of them Christians and including both the Eastern and Western Rites of Christianity. In contrast, the Reformers are by comparison "come latelys".

It is not like there was "no conflict" or disagreement between Christians in the early years. In fact for the first 400 years there was a great deal of disagreement as to how what should be interpreted and which belief was closer to the truth. Jerome's "Latin Vulgate" was finished about 405 A.D., and if fact came into being as one of many efforts to resolve those conflicts.

Most Christians, that I know of, believe that The Word of God was "inspired" by God and the original scribes only wrote what He told them to write. That poses the question of who was in fact "inspired". Was everyone that compiled and translated the Bible inspired by God or was it just the original scribes? Do the original writings of the inspired still exist? When were they "lost", who copied them, were the copies flawless and "inspired" as well? Did all the scribes and copiers agree with each other? You are confusing Faith with reality. None of this can be proven, it is a question of belief.

The basic story of what happened and how it happened is consistent no matter which "version" of the Bible you or I may choose to read. However, when we start to interpret every word literally and claim that it is accurate and flawless, that stretches the point, for me, beyond reality.

I do not say any of this in an effort to prove that "my Bible is better than your Bible", I'm just trying to point out that none of us really knows with infallible exactitude, which passages or even which "books" are perfect. Different "versions" of the Bible don't even contain all of the same Books, let alone identical translations of the books that they do contain. Therefore, to claim that you can consider, accept and "interpret" every word literally is folly. The very use of the word "interpret" should make it abundantly clear.

Main Entry: in·ter·pret
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t, -p&t
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE
3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction <interprets a role>
intransitive senses
: to act as an interpreter between speakers of different languages

The definition of the term "interpret" copied above, should make clear to you what I mean. Read the # 2 definition, please. Note: "in the light of individual belief, judgement, or circumstance."

I am not arguing who is right and who is wrong. I am arguing about what is right. As soon as you have to "interpret" something it becomes nothing more than opinion.

How do you go about determining which points of agreement and which points of disagreement are important, or relevant? Do you arrive at these conclusions after a thoughtful study of the Bible, or do you accept what the priest says and not bother to study? For example, how did you come to a knowledge that belief in a Trinity is essential? I can tell you how I did - - I've studied the Bible. In fact, I've studied from several translations. No help from a priest, just God's word.

"No help from a priest" you say. Where then did you get this Bible that you studied? Did you study the original manuscripts, by the original inspired scribes, in the original Hebrew and Greek? If you expect me to believe that, we are both wasting each other's time.

The truth is that all of the translations, at some point in time, came from some "priest" and it is historically certain that he was not a member of any Protestant denomination, by virtue of the fact than not existed for about 1500 years.

Your idea that Catholics believe whatever some priest tells them to believe demonstrates your lack of knowledge and understanding of the catholic Faith. In nearly 60 years as a Catholic, I have never been told what part of the Bible I should read or how I should interpret it by any priest. I have been told that the Bible contains the "Word of the Lord", and that I should read it and accept The Word. I have also been told, and studied in depth, what my "Church" professes and believes and, that if I choose to be a part of that Church, then I should believe those things as well. What "the priest" believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant.

In other words, it is a question of Faith. The choice is mine to make. I do not have to believe everything that the Catholic Church does or says in order to be a "good Catholic". I don't have to believe anything that any priest says either. The Faith of Catholics is not centered on or around priests. They are simply people that have chosen to dedicate their entire lives to the service of God. Stewards of the Faith, not creators of the Faith.

Since you question whether or not I just believe whatever the "priest" says, I question whether or not you just believe whatever your preacher says? Does your preacher tell you what the Bible means or do you just form all of your own interpretations independent of any other points of view?

Continued ....

 

[surplus1]

Part 2 of 2

Since we are sharing opinions, I don't hesitate to tell you that I think most Protestant denominations are in fact centered around some particular preacher. That is especially true of the "born again" variety. That is exactly why you have so many different denominations. A "preacher" comes up with some new "interpretation" that is popular and before you know it you have a new Church. Is that a shallow perspective? Yes it is, but no more so than your perspective of my adherence to the word of some priest. That my friend is one of the very basic differences between us. Catholics don't form "churches" or religions around preachers. Our Faith is universal and it does not change from country to country, language to language, preacher to preacher, church to church, day to day. We don't start a new "religion" because we don't like what some preacher preaches or because we do "like" some other preacher more. The "pastor's" name is not emblazoned on the church's front door, for the Pastor is Jesus himself. There is no such thing as "my priest", they are all the same. The house of God is not in any particular church, it is every church and the world at large.

You can believe whatever you want to believe and I will not chastise you or claim that you cannot be a good person in the eyes of the Almighty. That is a judgement that only the living God can make.

What can possibly be more accurate than translating from the original language?

That question has a very simple answer. You confuse the "original language" with the "original writing". What language do you presume the Latin Vulgate was translated from, Hieroglyphics, Swahili, Chinese? What is far more important, in my opinion, is the origin of the writing from which the translation was made. The Latin Bible was also translated from Hebrew and Greek. The manuscripts used appear to have been considerably more "original" than those available when the English language translations were made. If I'm not mistaken, I think you mentioned an earlier than KJV Bible called the Wycliff, which was used extensively in compiling the KJV. Wasn't the Wycliff essentially taken from the Vulgate?

Whenever we discuss translation we should consider that it is not an "exact science". It is as much art as science if not more so. Regardless of the original source, translations are always subject to some error. Therefore, once the work is complete, someone has to put a "stamp of approval" on the result. When you apply that to the Bible you will have to decide if the stamp of approval is as "inspired by God" as was the original writing, regardless of the original language.

I'm sure the Catholic versions suffered none of the human tendancies to reflect doctrine. After all, those translators were not human, right?

Your feelings begin to shine through. We are talking about translations of ancient work which I have claimed are ALL less than fully accurate and therefore cannot be perfect, defeating the concept of "literal interpretation". Don't let your anti-Catholicism defeat your argument. Yes, the translators were all human. So, by the way, were the "original scribes" whether they wrote in Hebrew or Greek.

The Holy Spirit did not come down from heaven and personally write the Bible. Had He done so, his writing would be forever preserved in its original form and readable by all humans in their native tongues. We would have no "translations", no doctrinal disputes, no questions about what to believe or what not to believe, no "versions". Alas, that was not the case. We are left therefore with Faith.

But wait - - isn't the belief in One God, three persons another one of those types of things you claim Protestants start wars about? What makes it right for you to cling to a tenant of faith, and insist it is essential, but deny that same right to what you call Protestants? It sounds to me a whole lot like the pot calling the kettle...

You may have hit the nail on the head. It is equally right for either of us to "cling to a tenant of faith", just as it is equally right for TWA Dude to cling to the tenants of Judaism, which is his faith.(That got me into this discussion as you all sought to convert him). That brings us to the crux of the discussion. All religions are based on Faith. What then is "faith"? Answer: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

It is indeed a case of the pot calling the kettle black, That my friend is what all religions are about and it is what all religions do. Were it not so, we would have only one religion and all men would believe it with equal sincerity, minutiae and all.

May the Force be with you.

 

[wms]

Just as a point of order, there is nothing really special about the King James Version. As a Bible, it has many merits. It is well done in many respects. However, there are flaws with some of its translations in various parts, and the underlying Greek in the New Testament is weak, and wasn't even available for the book of Revelation: a Latin version was translated instead.

The best way to determine the authority of a version is to see how it describes Jesus. Most of the contemorary versions deny the diety and eternal sonship of Christ. Any version that humanizes Christ or rejects the Lordship of Christ is not worth consideration. The KJV is hard to develop an understanding of, but does the best of declaring the Lordship and eternal sonship of christ. The new KJV is a good alternative.

 

[Super 80]

Originally by Surplus1
When one chooses to interpret something "literally" and hang on the veracity of its every word, the problem of "versions" does become critical.

The pattern here is that we cannot rely on the Bible to provide the Word of God. Nothing could be farther from the Truth.

Nor is there anything wrong with being "literal" with the Word of God. It is after all, why God gave us His Word, and even why the Word became flesh.

Nothing in the Bible has to come down to a singe word test. All the principles of Salvation through Christ Jesus are repeated enough times that no one utterance or set of words, or even one word is the sole source for the essential Truth of the Bible.

If however, a word is being studied because it has become a keystone for a theological point, principle or perspective, it would behoove the student to refer to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek for further word study.

In fact, even plain words such as "Come!" in Revelation 6:1 have more significance when studied from the Greek as to the relationship of that command and the Horseman.

REV 6:1 I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come!"

The imperative 'come' from the living creatures has an interesting aspect in the Greek. Clearly in the inflected word, this verb is a command. And it is in the present tense. However Greek also includes the aspect of a voice, and here erchou is in the middle voice.—"Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament," Fritz Rienecker/Cleon Rogers p.826

The Greek middle voice shows the subject acting in his own interest or on his own behalf, or participating in the results of the verbal action. In overly simplistic terms, sometimes the middle form of the verb could be translated as "the performer of the action actually acting upon himself" (reflexive action).—Corey Keating

So we learn that the Horsemen, which can be thought as spirits from God at work in the world as shown in Zechariah chapter 6, are not only commanded by God to come forth, but in doing so they take on a life of their own.

Originally by Surplus1
The Latin Bible was also translated from Hebrew and Greek. The manuscripts used appear to have been considerably more "original" than those available when the English language translations were made.

I may yet put out a paper I did over a year ago, but at four pages, it may be too long for a post, but this is flat out incorrect nonsense. Here are some pertinent paragraphs without the end notes and bibliography:

The basic foundation for modern versions of the NT Bible are the Greek New Testament texts of Nestle-Aland (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). These are occasionally abbreviated as NU, as they both use the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and papyri in the Alexandrian family.

The Codex Vaticanus dates to A.D. 325 and is Alexandrian in nature. It has been in the Vatican’s possession since 1481, but was not released until the mid-nineteenth century. Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai in the nineteenth century. It dates to A.D. 350. Codex Alexandrinus, dated around A.D. 400 was brought to England in the seventeenth century. It was the discovery of a second source of Greek manuscripts after the primacy of the Byzantine had been established (which is the source Greek for the KJV and revised KJV) that led to a scholarly examination of the two families, and the controversy over the replacement of the traditional King James Version.

Since none of the earliest manuscripts are complete, textual critics will compile a rendition of the Greek from graded sources. One of the earliest, around A.D. 175 is Papyrus 75 from Egypt. It covers Luke from chapter three to John chapter five. P75 is graded high because of the excellent calligraphy, lack of transposition, omissions and editing. The scribe that produced it is judged to be an excellent scholar of the Greek, and that community did exist in Alexandria in the Second Century. Codex Vaticanus is assessed to be in lineage from P75.

Originally by Surplus1
While it is true that the primary English language Catholic Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and not from Hebrew or Greek, it is also true that the manuscripts used by Jerome to write his Latin translations were in fact "versions" of the Hebrew and Greek that are by far more "original" and pre-date the "versions" that was used to produce the KJV.

I don't know about Jerome, but the problem with going from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to Latin and then to English is that you are removing the original language with one more layer of translation, and the original meaning can be lost. The essential wording is still the original language and Latin has no special place outside of the conservative pre-Vatican II style worship some Roman Catholic churches still use for their mass.

Originally by wms
Most of the contemorary versions deny the diety and eternal sonship of Christ.

No, what I have found is that the emphasis on divinty of Christ is usually added or blended into the Greek for just that, additional emphasis. After all, the basis for the KJV comes from the The Textus Receptus, which is based on the Lucian text. It predated the Diocletian persecution of A.D. 303. The Lucian text is a definite recension characterized by smooth language achieved by alleviating difficult language, and harmonization. The Byzantine manuscripts share these characteristics and through Erasmus proceeds into the King James Version.

For instance, here is a verse in Luke, from which we have the earliest New Testament manuscript in the NIV:
4:41 Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.

And here it is in the Revised King James Version:
4:41 (r)And demons also came out of many, crying out and saying, (s)“You are (7)the Christ, the Son of God!” And He, (t)rebuking them, did not allow them to (8)speak, for they knew that He was the Christ. (Note 7 just says that the NU omits "the Christ.")

Both passages admit that Jesus is the Messiah (Anointed) and both have the demons saying He is the Son of God. Now the additional "the Christ" in the KJV indicates no additional information other than an affirmation of who Jesus is, as if being the Son of God was not specific enough. This kind of repetition is often found in the Byzantine Greek manuscripts that were the source documents of much of the KJV.

Again, the NIV is a good thought-for-thought translation which reads at the 8-9th grade level. A little bit more word-for-word translation is the NASB which reads at the 11-12th grade level. Still, if you like added emphasis and words which tend to smooth out the text, the Revised KJV is a fine Bible to use. However, all these major books, as well as about a dozen and a half more all affirm the same basic Gospel message and all of them affirm Jesus as Lord.

No Christian should be shamed into a legalistic stance that only one Bible version can be used. I have seen only one Version that my Church ordered for the youth that we found to be errant in its basic delivery of the Word. We threw that version out and bought another set for the kid's Sunday school classes.

 

[TWA Dude]

Re: Counter-point 2C (not in order)

I was wondering along with this post if you had any response to who is "the one they have pierced" that Zechariah mentions I responded with before?

I quoted one rabbi's answer to your original question and I'm afraid I'm leaving it at that. Jews and Christians translate the Hebrew Bible differently so what's the point in debate?

 

[countbat]

Mel G. is reacher by 200 mil in few weeks only. I wonder how reach can be The Church/Temple by doing the same thing for more than 2000 years?

 

[Super 80]

If we are to understand the controversy between the KJV and the modern versions, we have to understand that Western Culture has come to accept the KJV as the primary text is only based on the fact that it came first in universal acceptance as the sole source for the Bible and has remained so for so long. This made the KJV the established accepted benchmark to which all others are compared by tradition.

The KJV relies on the Byzantine texts for its underlying Greek. These were introduced by the infusion of knowledge gathered by the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire centered on Constantinople. As Islam waged its war of conversion and overtook the Roman Empire's eastern half, the Christians there fled to the reinvigorated western half centered in Rome. Eventually, the infusion of their arts and knowledge led to the Renaissance.

The Bible texts the clerics had from Constantinople, or Byzantine, were numerous. However, they, because of the nature of the materials used to write upon were not very old and usually weren't dated before A.D. 1000. This is the body called the Byzantine text, and the combined Greek was termed Textus Receptus, or received text because of its origin from the eastern half of the Roman Empire.

Once the primacy of the Byzantine text was established by centuries of use, the Alexandrian texts coming later from archaeological discoveries were seen at first as upstarts since they came upon the scene after the KJV was established as the authority on what the Bible contained. However, the Alexandrian texts have the advantage of being older, and so closer to the original.

It is a matter of the scholars and theologians who aspire to stay as close to the original Gospel and Epistle writings as possible that as a general rule, a scribe will tend to add words rather than take them away. Usually, this is done to "smooth over" the Greek which may be a little choppy in its original copy. So as a first presumption, the document with added words is suspect.

Another problem is omissions. However, what is usually seen here is whole paragraphs or sections are omitted or skipped. Usually the error stems from the same words starting both passages. One example of this is found in the Masoretic Text that is the source Hebrew for the Old Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls have uncovered another family of Hebrew Old Testament scrolls called 11QPs-a that has what is referred to as Psalm 151, as well as a much better rendition of Samuel in scrolls 4QSam-a.

So the problem boils down to having what has been accepted for so long being upstaged by a newer source that is actually older and closer to the original, and on a textual critique, is more accurate. Human nature takes over, and some hold to the KJV because it has been the accepted version for so long, and then they attack any "newer" version as being corrupt because it does not have a history of acceptance. However, we should not be so established in our ways that we fail to examine the assumptions we make when it comes to a version or a translation. Just because something has been accepted for so long does not mean it is right, or best.

Test everything and keep the good.

 

[Super 80]

I quoted one rabbi's answer to your original question and I'm afraid I'm leaving it at that. Jews and Christians translate the Hebrew Bible differently so what's the point in debate?

The point is not so much a debate where one can pile up words against another, or skewer an opponent with ad-hominem attacks, but a frank discussion where ideas are examined.

You put out your conclusions via your Rabbi. I have shown that his assertions are baseless in just one instance, that the pronoun and first person used so prominently in Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 cannot possibly stand for the nation of Israel as he contends.

In this respect, you have laid open the door to discussion by your assertions, yet you do not want to examine any of them to see if they stand a test of scrutiny as to their word meaning or whether they agree or not with the rest of Scripture, and in that regard, I will confine myself to Old Testament Scripture so as to not offend you.

To say "well we just interpret them differently" is only to say that you do not wish a closer examination of differing sets of beliefs. Just because one has faith, or believes in something, does not make it true -no matter how earnest or manifest that faith or belief is. Because both beliefs cannot be right when they are in opposition, removing yourself from the discussion means you just don't want to examine these servant verses in Isaiah because it could force you to reverse your beliefs.

If Moses had to cover his face with a veil so the glow of meeting the Lord did not scare the Israelites gathered at the base of Mt. Sinai, then perhaps that veil is still being used to cover the message of the Lord from you, and it may be beyond my ability to raise it.

However, as a witness, I will continue to offer counter arguments and alternative commentary to your Rabbi's points on Old Testament prophecy that centers on the Christ for the Christians reading this so they can have reason for assurance that God can perform the new things He said He would do in Isaiah.

 

[surplus1]

Super 80,

I think your post is excellent. That doesn't mean that I agree with all that you say but I do find your approach to be objective. I also think that you misinterpret some of the points that I have been trying to make.

The pattern here is that we cannot rely on the Bible to provide the Word of God. Nothing could be farther from the Truth.

That is not the pattern intended by me. We can rely on the Bible to provide the Word of God. The true question should be, on which of the many versions of the Bible can we rely for an accurate representation of the Word of God?.

Some versions, particularly the more "modern", are substantially different from earlier versions in ways that are, in my opinion, contracdictory to the Christian Faith. These "new versions", again in my opinion, cannot be relied upon as the Word of God. They do not contain or express "the truth" therefore, they are unacceptable to believers (or should be) for their content in fact denies several key elements of the Christian Faith. To me, they are not even "Bibles". When these books are used to teach Christianity, there is everything wrong with being "literal" for their content is an aberration of the Word of God.

Nothing in the Bible has to come down to a singe word test. All the principles of Salvation through Christ Jesus are repeated enough times that no one utterance or set of words, or even one word is the sole source for the essential Truth of the Bible.

I could agree with that IF you can limit your definition of "the Bible" to those versions that are recognized as being authentic by responsible and competent authority. All "versions" of the Bible do not really say the same thing. As far as I am concerned, there are only two (including their revised editions) that fall into that category, and even those two contain substantial differences and theological conflicts..

When we start dealing with "versions" like the NIV, NASB and NWT, there are huge problems. Focusing on the "modern" we have the Wescott and Hort. Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages? Isn't that basically what they have done? Is it not true that the text assembled by Wescott and Hort, in the 19th century, is the basis for the English Revised Version, (used by Protestants) which nearly all modern translations closely follow?.

Proponents of the authorized KJV refer to Bibles based on the Wescott Hort text as useless, and further refer to the Bible used by Catholics (the Vulgate) as the equivalent of "heresy". Where does that leave us?

"One of the fundamental deceptions being promoted by modern Bible publishers is that the new Bibles are merely in different styles of writing; that they are simply easier to read than the KJV; that nothing is being removed or changed in God's word.

"Why is this important? It is simple: if two books say different things, or if two books say inherently contradictory things, or if of two books one says more than the other, they cannot both be God's word. This is simple, basic logic. To say otherwise is to accuse the Holy Spirit of doublespeak."

Those quoted paragraphs don't come from this "heretical" Roman Catholic, they come from proponents of the authorized KJV. They also might reflect pretty much what I think about the KJV itself.

I rarely quot Scripture, but here is something thay you might find of interest.

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:19

I respectfully submit that presuming you accept that quote as accurate, it serves to confirm the problems I have raised.

If however, a word is being studied because it has become a keystone for a theological point, principle or perspective, it would behoove the student to refer to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek for further word study.

That presumes that the original Hebrew or Greek continues to exist. Yes, there are texts in Hebrew and Greek that are very old, but are they the "originals" or are they copies of the original in the Hebrew and Greek langauges?

The basic foundation for modern versions of the NT Bible are the Greek New Testament texts of Nestle-Aland (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). These are occasionally abbreviated as NU, as they both use the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and papyri in the Alexandrian family.

The Codex Vaticanus dates to A.D. 325 and is Alexandrian in nature. It has been in the Vatican’s possession since 1481, but was not released until the mid-nineteenth century. Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai in the nineteenth century. It dates to A.D. 350. Codex Alexandrinus, dated around A.D. 400 was brought to England in the seventeenth century. It was the discovery of a second source of Greek manuscripts after the primacy of the Byzantine had been established (which is the source Greek for the KJV and revised KJV) that led to a scholarly examination of the two families, and the controversy over the replacement of the traditional King James Version.

I do not argue with that. However, it should be noted that proponents of the authorized KJV regard the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus as completely erroneous and so full of error as to be virtually useless. Here is a quote confirming that.

"Both manuscripts contain uninspired, anti-scriptural books which are not found in the Bible. The only place where these error laden, unreliable manuscripts excel is in the quality of the materials used on them."

So, that brings us back to the purspose of my posts. Yes, "The Bible" contains The Word. Which Bible contains it, is obviously a matter of opinion. We could debate forever, as has all of Christendom from the very beginning.

Are there certain things that people who call themselves Christians should believe. Yes, in my opinion, there are. What I personally, and people who share my Faith believe, can be summed up in the Nicene Creed. Here it is.

As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations.

The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

I have seen only one Version that my Church ordered for the youth that we found to be errant in its basic delivery of the Word. We threw that version out and bought another set for the kid's Sunday school classes.

This final statement by you appears to confirm what I have tried to express. You found a "version" of the Bible that did not meet the approval of your church and you "threw that version out".

If your church can throw out a version of the Bible that you don't happen to like, you have proved my point completely. Yes, there is a "real Bible". All we have to do now is decide which one it is. I have my opinions on how we do that. I'm sure you have yours as well. Unfortunately, they may or may not be the same, thus the dichotomy.

Respectfully,
Surplus1

 

[Super 80]

Surplus1,

You have continually raised objection after objection to the use of modern texts without giving any real examples of which text in which version is heretical. I have a eighty-nine examples in Luke which takes the oldest known source for the Alexandrian text, Papyrus 75 and compares the discrepancies to the newer Byzantine Text. These texts are as far apart as can be, and yet with all these differences in words, none of the message is lost.

In fact, I can specify five normal reasons just from reading the texts side by side to which I can apply them over sixty times to more than half the differences (to some passages, more than one reason can be assigned). They are:

1. Addition for doctrinal emphasis
2. Translational difference
3. Emphasis on the divinity of Christ
4. Blended Scripture borrowing from other books
5. Explanation phrase added in

This in no way invalidates the New International Version as a corrupted text as you allege. If need be, I can put both texts up in sequence fashion, although it would take up a lot of bandwidth and over a page to do.

From what I can discern from a side by side comparison is that the KJV adds words to smooth out the text. However, even in the Lord's prayer, the words and phrases added in the KJV do not by their omission invalidate Jesus as the Son, or the God as the Father.

Now with what I am writing as a commentary on eschatology, I use a lot of Bible quotes. I have been using the NIV to do this because it's in the Zondervan software I have. Someone raised doubts over a year ago that this version was corrupted as you have suggested, so I took a couple of weeks and investigated it. For my own satisfaction, I have concluded the allegations are not valid, and I continue to use the NIV, although I acknowledge at places, it is weak. But as an understandable text in the majority it does an excellent job in communicating the Gospel message.

However, I can rely on the New International Version (NIV) as well as the New American Standard Bible (NASB) to express the Word of God in English just as well as the King James Version or even its revised version. These two "modern" versions are the ones I use the most, and there is nothing essentially wrong with them anymore than there is anything wrong with the King James.

We have to consider that in dealing with a time change of 2000-3500 years, two totally separate culture with their own values and priorities, as well as a completely different construct of languages from either the Hebrew (and Aramaic) and Greek to the English combined with all the faults of men trying to best replicate what we have from antiquity, and any errors you can point to don't amount to a hill of beans as far as getting the message across.

When we start dealing with "versions" like the NIV, NASB and NWT, there are huge problems. Focusing on the "modern" we have the Wescott and Hort. Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from passages? Isn't that basically what they have done? Is it not true that the text assembled by Wescott and Hort, in the 19th century, is the basis for the English Revised Version, (used by Protestants) which nearly all modern translations closely follow?.

In the preface of the New King James Version it reads: “In the late nineteenth century, B. Westcott and F. Hort taught that this text (Textus Receptus or Received Text upon which the King James Version is based) had been officially edited by the fourth-century church, but a total lack of historical evidence for this event has forced a revision of the theory. “It is now widely held that the Byzantine Text that largely supports the Textus Receptus has as much right as the Alexandrian or any other tradition to be weighed in determining the text of the New Testament.” Professor Hodge of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary and co-editor of a Greek New Testament book, writes, “Thus the Majority Text, upon which the King James Version is based, has in reality the strongest claim possible to be regarded as an authentic representation of the original text...based on its dominance in the transmissional [sic] history of the New Testament text.”

The Alexandrian texts composed primarily of two manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, were first combined between 1853 and 1881 by Westcott and Hort producing the Neutral Text. While the two Codexes are at variance with each other, and Westcott and Hort were not model Christians, the modern versions are not based solely on their work, even though they are Alexandrian in nature. The basic foundation for modern versions of the NT Bible are the Greek New Testament texts of Nestle-Aland (1st edition, 1898; 27th edition, 1993) and/or the various editions of The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (1st edition, 1966; 4th edition, 1993). These are occasionally abbreviated as NU, as they both use the same source Codex and papyri in the Alexandrian family. Any objection to modern versions based on reservations about Westcott and Hort is misplaced as their work is not the basis for the English translations we now use.

I find your condemnation of Protestantism to be misplaced. While you may feel a deep commitment to the Catholic Church, it is not my intent to tear down your Church in as much as people can come to a saving faith in Jesus, nor is it my intent to tear down Mel Gibson's movie even though I have severe reservations about a film based on book: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich.

God can use anything to call to His sheep. So if someone reads the Left Behind series and comes to a confession of faith because of what they have read and become Christian: good. Just because I disagree with their premise and think what they are teaching is misplaced, it is not enough for me to condemn the book and tell anyone not to read it at all. Likewise, people can see in a culturally relevant mode what Jesus suffered for our sins. That this is a Roman Catholic version and based on a famous mystic Catholic nun, however flawed a version, still does not prevent people from coming to Christ.

So, in that respect, I am not attempting to divide brothers and I would wish that you would not try to do so by saying what others have built their faith on in their devotionals is null and void because it is not.

 

[Snakum]

Finally saw the POS movie this weekend. I never wanna hear another fundamentalist whacko complain about gratuitous violence in a movie again. It was just two hours of senseless S&M ... a colossal waste of time.

Minh

On a funny note though ... I've had a HUGELY messed up week (my son is ill, two flat tires, work haywire, etc.) and near the end of the flogging scenes, my girlfriend leans over and with a deadpan expression, she quietly says "And you thought YOU had a bad week." I almost peed my pants trying to keep from busting out laughing. There were fundamentalist whackos all around us crying, praying and what-not, and I was sure I'd have been lynched if I'd started laughing. I waited till we got outside and let loose. Glares all around, but I didn't care. It was @&*$ing funny.

 

[TWA Dude]

To say "well we just interpret them differently" is only to say that you do not wish a closer examination of differing sets of beliefs. Just because one has faith, or believes in something, does not make it true -no matter how earnest or manifest that faith or belief is. Because both beliefs cannot be right when they are in opposition, removing yourself from the discussion means you just don't want to examine these servant verses in Isaiah because it could force you to reverse your beliefs.

It’s an erroneous and arrogant assumption that my refusal to debate Biblical verses means I’m afraid I may suddenly accept Jesus. I admit that I’m not qualified for this debate. I’m not a rabbi or even an Orthodox Jew. I’m not a spokesman for my people or for anyone other than myself. Millions of my ancestors were persecuted, tortured or murdered for their beliefs and I shall not disrespect them by entering into a debate I’m not qualified for. We’re talking about a religion and a people who’ve existed for over three thousand years after entering into a covenant with G-d starting with Abraham. Since then others have come along with “new” covenants that “supercede” the Tanach. Who knows how many more will come along to “reinterpret” the Hebrew to foretell of their new laws. If G-d has something to say to the Jews I’m sure it’ll be so obvious and unequivocal that debate will be unnecessary.

However, as a witness, I will continue to offer counter arguments and alternative commentary to your Rabbi's points on Old Testament prophecy that centers on the Christ for the Christians reading this so they can have reason for assurance that God can perform the new things He said He would do in Isaiah.

Knock yourself out. Go to www.aish.com and send your questions to the rabbi. You’re not the first nor the last to believe your arguments prove your point.