by Gill 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
origional books? Let's get serious now. These books we call the bible were copied from other scrollls. The origionals have been gone forever.
So we have copies of copies of copies..
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, experts compared them with other later copies. There was hardly any alterations. It stayed the course..........
There was 'hardly' any alterations.
When millions of people are basing their lives on a single comma or apostrophe applied to a bible text, 'hardly' does not cut the mustard I'm afraid.
Actually gaiagirl is pretty close, the Codex Vaticanus is oldes manuscript we have (300s) held at the Vatican, followed closely by the the Codex Sinaiticus which is currently held in the British Library(http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/themes/asianafricanman/codex.html).
All we have are copies of copies of copies.
The kid
Very interesting - I go along with about 150-300 AD for the earliest Christian writings...(and I probably believe for their ORIGINS rather than any so-called originals. I personally think that not only what we have are copies of copies as previously said, but also that the earliest attempts at this writing was probably many years after the death of Jesus.
Two or three points on the "circular logic" (i.e. its inspired because it is what we have now) train of thought:
* Isn't it interesting that no one seriously claims that Jesus himself wrote anything? So, everything we have now is hearsay in a sense.
* Isn't it also interesting that even the early church leadership was in a quandry over the divinity of christ/trinity and what was or not authentic canon at about the same time as our earliest knowledge of the history of the writings?
* So, how can we (at this late date) pass judgement on such primary doctrine and find radically different results than the early fathers? Their stuff seems to be the earliest we have...
By such reasoning - should we not either go with Athanasius and get on with life, or admit that this was not an inspired preservation of the bible at all?
I really like the way this ties in with the other thread on origins of divine christ and trinity - maybe there was a reason the Gnostics failed???
James, glad to be back after a long business trip...
>Very interesting - I go along with about 150-300 AD for the earliest Christian writings...(and I probably believe for their ORIGINS rather than any so-called originals. I personally think that not only what we have are copies of copies as previously said, but also that the earliest attempts at this writing was probably many years after the death of Jesus.
You would NEED to think that to bolster your own bias. There is practically no reason to date any of the writings this late and that is what the mainstream scholars say. Some of the epistles were written within 10 years of the founding of the church at Pentecost. Many were written well before and up to 68 A.D. and the last might have been around 98 A.D. but then some also argue that the Gospel of John and Revelation both came before the prophetic destruction of Jerusalem. There were early church fathers being martyred well before 150 A.D.
>* Isn't it interesting that no one seriously claims that Jesus himself wrote anything? So, everything we have now is hearsay in a sense.
Not relevant to the issue at all
>* Isn't it also interesting that even the early church leadership was in a quandry over the divinity of christ/trinity and what was or not authentic canon at about the same time as our earliest knowledge of the history of the writings?
It was not at all, the divinity of Christ was known and taught by the apostles immediately, the exact ides of the Holy Spirit took longer but it did not have to be clarified, but was believed even before the council of Nicea.
>* So, how can we (at this late date) pass judgement on such primary doctrine and find radically different results than the early fathers? Their stuff seems to be the earliest we have...
Nope, your whole foundation of reasoning is flawed so badly that all you prove is your own preconcieved notions.
>I really like the way this ties in with the other thread on origins of divine christ and trinity - maybe there was a reason the Gnostics failed???
Because the early church recognized the heresies and dealt with it, under the influence of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Christ.
Rex
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, experts compared them with other later copies. There was hardly any alterations. It stayed the course..........
Actually here are many substantial discrepencies between the Qumran text and the MT, most especially in Deuteronomy, 1-2 Samuel, Psalms, and Jeremiah, but also throughout the other books. Most of the differences, as usual, are minor scribal discrepencies, but many do change the sense of the text, omit, or add material.
Very interesting - I go along with about 150-300 AD for the earliest Christian writings...(and I probably believe for their ORIGINS rather than any so-called originals.
I doubt even the most radical critics would assign the earliest Christian writing to after AD 150. Marcion, who died c. AD 160, had already compiled his own Apostolicon by the 140s, and there is much evidence of their use by both second-century apologists and gnostic writers (e.g. the commentary on John written by Ptolemy of Rome, c. AD 150-180).
Well, this is my lucky day...I guess. (I can say "lucky" now that I am out of WTthink...) Lucky because:
------ I got both the shining light and ms Leolia pizzed off at me in just one post! ------
Let me get myself back upon the point -
* 1 - we certainly do not have anything that Jesus himself wrote. No one does, and this is NOT beside the point, my shining friend. Those red letter verses in the King James may not be really so red after all!
* 2 - we certainly do not have anything that any of the "original" bible writers wrote. No one does, and this also is NOT beside the point. Leolia, I do take your point quite seriously about probable earlier scribblings which got compiled and rewritten, but we just do not know.
* 3 - we certainly are far removed from the early authors who must have worked hard to assure themselves of some kind of authenticity. (at least some or hopefully most of them) You really have to concede the point (of their general correctness) if you want to say that any of it is inspired at all! In my reality, we just do not know, and we can debate all day about the exact year and who wrote what and who inspired what.
* 4 - we are therefore reduced (if we hold belief in this "inspired writings" system at all...) to a sort of revisionist set of arguments to prove various personal prejudices and preconcieved beliefs.
* 5 - I am certainly not a trinitarian or an enthusiast for the Catholics or good old Athanasius. My point just was that we are way to far removed from all this to rewrite history (like WTS tried to do...). Otherwise, just believe in the book of Mormon and the angel Moroni or some such and make up whatever you want.
* 6 - My own feeling is that all of this ("scripture") is really the result of a great religious upheaval from around 2000 years ago and can certainly be considered GREAT religious and ethical literature. However, if GOD HIMSELF inspired and preserved it, then it should bloody well be perfect - which it manifestly is NOT.
BTW - do not even try to get me started on the HOLY GRAIL, the templars, or the DeVinci code!!!
