To begin with let us examine the idea that something is the ‘literal word of’. What would that mean?
Let us compare the New Testament to documents that are made everyday that are the ‘literal word of’. These documents are made by court reporters throughout the United States. Almost every day a court reporter creates a document that is the literal word of the speakers in a legal proceeding. These documents must be 100% accurate and they are. That is what is meant by the word ‘literal’. These records are 100% accurate recording of the speakers and therefore a literal recording on paper of what the speaker said.
If these court records were not 100% accurate they would not be a literal record. Actually the court reporters take extra ordinary care to check and re-check their work to insure that it is 100% the literal words of the speaker.
For the New Testament document to be the literal word of God would mean that it has to be 100% accurate record that contains the 100% exact words written down by the Gospel writers who got 100% accurate the word sent to them from God. Therefore anything short of 100% accuracy who by definition mean that it was not the “Literal word of God.”
Let us examine the facts.
From the web site www.newadvent.org which is an official web site of the Catholic Church :
“3) New Testament manuscripts
(a) In General
There are, according to the latest authority on this subject, von Soden ("Die Schriften des N.T. in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt", Berlin, 1902), 2328 New Testament manuscripts extant. Only about 40 contain, either entire or in part, all the books of the New Testament. There are 1716 manuscript copies of the Gospels, 531 of the Act, 628 of the Pauline Epistles, 219 of the Apocalypse.”
Now I only quoted a reference to the complete Greek manuscripts of either the total Text known as the New Testament or of complete copies of varying Gospels.
When one counts all the texts, even the smallest fragment of a text then:
“At last count, more than fifty-seven hundred Greek manuscripts have been discovered and catalogued.” [ pg. 88, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman, 2005]
“These fifty-seven hundred include everything from the smallest fragments of manuscripts – the size of a credit card – to very large and magnificent productions, preserved in their entirety.” [ pg.89, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman, 2005]
Ehrman said the number was 5,700!!!
“Scholars differ significantly in their estimates – some say there are 200,000 variants known, some say 300,000, some say 400,000 or more! We do not know for sure .because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all.” [Pg 89, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman, 2005]
Therefore the facts tell us that from the 5,700 as of yet discovered and catalogued differing variants of partial and complete texts of the Greek New Testament there is as few as 200,000 or as high as 400,000 contradictory records of the words of God.
Now recall that to claim that a document is “the literal word” means to be 100% accurate record of those words – it can only be concluded that any variant, any error in recording the words of the speaker is less than 100% and thus less than the “Literal word”.
Even if the number of errors and/or variations are 37,000 which was how many variations John Mill a fellow of Queens College in 1550 who had access to only 100 Greek manuscripts when he published his printed text of the Greek New Testament. [pg. 84 – 88, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman, 2005]
John Mill in 1550 had only 100 manuscripts to compare and he found 37,000 errors and or variations! 37.000 from only 100 copies!
The conclusion we must reach is that we do not have a 100% accurate document of the words of either the Gospel writers or of God.
I will repeat myself for clarity and emphasis: The idea that the text of the New Testament is the “Literal Word of God” is utter foolishness, at best or an out right lie, at worst. How can a collection of 5,700 copies which contain possibly 200,000 errors be considered a 100% accurate record of anyone!
Here is a very partial list of variations or errors I have complied from reading Ehrman’s book: If you want to know how or why Ehrman thinks these errors/variations occurred and what the significance of them means – you should read his book. I am only going to list some of them.
The format of the list will be that for each citation there will appear two translations of the Greek texts into English, the first will be the more commonly printed version, say from the RSV, and then I will use a "/" to show the other citation that exists in other Greek manuscripts and is generally only footnoted in the RSV or other English versions that are printed of the New Testament. Thus you can see two different English translations of the New Testament text - each disagreeing with the other as to what was the actual words. The point of this brief list is to show that if the text was the Literal word of God there would be no errors or variations in existance.
This partial this list is to show that there exists variations within a document that True Beleivers say is the "Literal Word of God"! 37,000 or up to as many as 400,000 errors or variations prove that the text is not the literal word of anybody, much less the word of God.
The incident with the woman charged with adultery and where Jesus says “He who is without fault cast the first stone’ -- This story does not exist in many manuscripts! Some have it as John 7: 53 – 8:11, others after John 7:36, others after John 21:24, others have it after Luke 21:38. Therefore it is a complete fabrication never told by Jesus or it was a story that John did not know where and when it occurred or that John never knew of this story at all. But perhaps only Luke may or may not have known of it, depending of which of the manuscripts of his book you refer to and believe is accurate. (“The story is not found in our oldest and best manuscript of the Gospel of John.”) [Pg 65, Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus]
1 Tim 3:16: God made manifest in the flesh / Who was made manifest in the flesh
Luke 2:33 his father and mother were marveling at what was said to him / Joseph and his mother were…
Luke 2:43 his parents did not know about it / Joseph and his mother did not know about it
Luke 2:48 Your father and I have been looking for you / We have been looking for you
Luke 3:23 You are my son, today I have begotten you / You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time, but the unique son who is in the bosom of Father, that one has made him known / No one has seen God at any time, but the unique God who is in the bosom of Father, that one has made him known
Mark 1:41 And feeling compassion / And becoming angry
Luke 22:43 -44 = the following citation is missing altogether in the earliest manuscripts “And an angel from heaven appeared to him, strengthening him. And being in agony he began to pray yet more fervently, and his sweat became like drops of blood falling to the ground.”
Heb 2:8 For in subjecting all things to him /For God subjects all things to him
Heb 2:9 so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone / so that apart from God he might taste death for everyone
Rom 12:11 Never flag in zeal, be aglow with the spirit, serve the Lord. / Never flag in zeal, be aglow with the spirit, serve the time.
1 Cor 12:13 and all were made to drink of one spirit. / and all were made to drink of one drink.
Luke 12: 9 but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God / this verse is completely missing in the earliest manuscript of the this text
John 17:15 I do not pray that you keep them from the world, but that you keep them from the evil one / I do not pray that you keep them from the evil one – this version exists in the Codex Vatianus,which Bart Ehrman calls one of the best manuscripts of the text.
Rev 1:5 To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood / To him who loves us and has washed us from our sins by his blood.
Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God / Therefore, since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with God.
John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me. / You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that are sinning against me [from an early manuscript]
Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “Behold, I send my messenger before your face who shall prepare the way ” / As it is written in the prophets: “Behold, …”[The problem here is that the passage quoted never appears in any variant of the book of Isaiah. Actually the line does appear anywhere in the Hebrew Testament but it is similar to Exodus 23:20 and Malachi 3: which reads “Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me…”]
Matt 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the son, but the father only. / But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but the father only.
Mark 9:29 This kind comes out only by prayer / This kind comes out only by prayer and fasting
John 5: 3 -4 “In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed. One man was there, who had been ill for 38 years’ / [some manuscripts add:] John 5: 3 – 5 In these lay a multitude of invalids, blind, lame, paralyzed. For an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool, and troubled the waters; whoever stepped in first after the troubling of the water was healed of whatever disease he had. One man was there, who had been ill for 38 years…”
Heb 1:3 Christ bears all things by the word of his power / Christ manifests all things by the word of his power.
Restating my conclusion: The point of that list is to show that there are variations in a text that is called "the literal word of God". 37,000 or 400,000 errors or variations prove that the text is not the literal word of any body, much less the word of God.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 76
The New Testament is suppose to be 100% literal word of God! it can't be the literal word of god if is contains 37,000 - 400,000 errors! My logic is not flawed.
You wrote: human's wrote the Bible as well.
My point exactly! I beleive the Bible is the word of human beings and not the word of God. The Bible is at best the Divinely inspired word - but still the word of humans. And the text is not an accurate record of the disciples of Jesus.
My point is that so many people treat the English translation of the text as if they were reciting the actual words of God. This is what I find indefensible.
So if you agree that humans wrote the bible...... and they wrote it several years after Jesus died, then HOW CAN YOU SAY IT'S THE LITERAL WORD OF GOD!!
You've just disproved your whole argument!
It's not Gary's logic that is flawed!
As my essay noted: The oldest and most reliable texts of the Greek New Testament do not have the story that Jesus said to the men who came to stone the woman accuse of adultery.
"The story is not found in our oldest and best manuscript of the Gospel of John.") [Pg 65, Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus]
The story was insterted into the text by someone other than John or Luke - the supposed recorders/authors of the Gospels. The story is false, it was made up by authors unknown.
Now, the same essay can be written to show the same problems with the Hebrew Testament and the Koran. None of them are the literal word of God. All of them are the words of humans.
One word for instance: the GREEK word of 'salvation', for instance...ουσ. σωτηρία (της ψυχής): salvation of sinners αμαρτωλών σωτηρία: (has OVER 70 implied meanings). A very rich and descriptive language!
I have to wonder where the term of 'Literal Word of God' originates. Besides, you neglect the commitment of Levitt Tribe and scribes. They were burdened with the task of making EXACT copies of texts...(Not a jot or tittle were to be overlooked).
What is MIRACULOUS about the Bible is the historical story told involving so many varied authors over a period of about 3,000 + years and the historical light of authenticity being proven with recent archaeological finds! Not to mention how a diverse story of God's interaction with Man and the varied peoples over the course of several thousands of years all ties in.
I understand the Bible to be the 'Divine Revelation' of God., NOT a LITERAL Transcription. I also note the freedom you and your 'author' take with the thousands of transcripts and translations.
From ANCIENT Greek-Hebrew-Aramaic: The Bible, in whole or part, has been translated into some 1,750 languages and dialects and the work continues. By continent, the totals with numbers of complete Bibles in brackets are:
Africa 500 (100)
Americas 400 (15)
Asia and Pacific 800 (125)
Europe 50 (over 40 complete)
World total 1,750 (280 complete Bibles)
It is friggin IMPOSSIBLE to make a 'Literal" translation fool!
1) Apocrypha - From the Greek "things hidden away". Old Testament books of doubtful authority included in the later Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate versions, but not in the original Jewish Bible. Written mostly in the four centuries before the birth of Christ, they include:
Tobit - Judith - parts of Esther - First and Second Book of Maccabees - Book of Wisdom - Ecclesiasticus (as distinct from the "canonical" Ecclesiastes) - Baruch - parts of Daniel collected together as the Old Testament Apocrypha.
The term is also applied to gospels, acts, letters and apocalypse of the early Christian era that were not included in the New Testament canon
Vulgate - From Latin "vulgata", "to make public" = in common use. Latin translation of the Christian Bible made in the 4th century by Jerome, much of it in Bethlehem. The Vulgate was in wide use until the Reformation, and is still the official text of the Catholic church Above and Beyond the Cannons.
OLD TESTAMENT from HEBREW - Greek Septuagint (LXX) - from c 250BC; Syriac later called the the Peshitta ("simple" or "in common use") - probably from 1st cen AD; Latin Vulgate - from 390-405AD
NEW TESTAMENT - Syriac, Old Latin, Coptic, Gothic - all from the Greek from 2nd to 4th cen; Latin Vulgate - from Greek 390-405AD; c AD27, The Bible of Jesus - Two versions of the Jewish Bible existed - the original Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint translated in Egypt.
Armenian - from Greek or Syriac early 5th cen; Georgian - possibly from Syriac or Armenian from 5th cen; Ethiopic - from Greek possibly from 5th cen; Old Arabic - probably from 8th cen; Slavonic - from Greek from mid 9th cen.
Although no originals have been found, more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts from the next few centuries - complete, in part, or fragments - still exist, a few of the oldest and most important being illustrated in the following Map.
They all help to confirm how accurately the Bible has come down to us. They also show the Greek was not a special religious language, but the common "koine" spoken by ordinary people throughout the Greek-speaking world.
EARLY TRANSLATIONS
Portions of Scripture from the Latin Vulgate - Anglo-Saxon, German - from 8th cen; French, Hungarian - from 12th cen; Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Polish, Bohemian - from 13th cen
For one:
As counterbalance to your ABSURD assertions, I offer:
BACKGROUND TO THE NEW TESTAMENT
Some Important Notes:
From 1947, The Dead Sea Scrolls - The first Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered around Qumran in Israel in 1947; others further south of Qumran.
These Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts and parts of the Old Testament, dating from the time of Jesus, are more than 1,000 years older than any previously known manuscripts.
Until then, the earliest Hebrew documents in existence were 9th century AD copies of the Pentateuch. The Dead Sea Scrolls helped to confirm just how accurate the translations of the Jewish Bible have been over the centuries.
You should have done more research that simply reviewing a few web pages after reading Bart Ehrman's 2005 book before posting this article contending that "nothing" in the Bible is inspired of God (which is what you are contending).
You specifically state (erroneously) that the account of the woman Jesus stopped from being stoned NEVER happened just because it was apparently inserted later. This account is actually in the oldest known texts we have of the Bible (from the 4th Century AD) and this account is referenced in the works of some of the early church fathers as well. This account is certainly not included in all of the Gospels, but then EVERYTHING that Jesus did is not included in any Gospel.
It must be agreed that the Gospel writers largely wrote what they either remember (or more likely had been told) and what they felt was important and/or inspired. Just because there may be error or inconsistency in the Bible, does not mean we should disbelieve all of it. The words attributed to Jesus at the incident of the woman's stoning are in line with his character. Jesus came to forgive sins and not to punish or condemn sinners, but to encourage them to change their ways. Whether or not all of the Gospel writers described this account or whether or not this account actually happened, those of us who know God's character easily recognize that it is consistent with his character.
If I were you, I would be more inclined to rest on the observations and commentary of the Early Church Fathers and the earliest known translations, rather than go on a tirade by writing this article just because a book you recently read inspiried you to take on this subject.
Incidently, court recorders do make quite a few errors when attempting to record ones words (as I have a good deal of person experience with this). All human writings are "only human" and I will agree that the Bible was written by men; however the fact that the Bible (especially the New Testament) is extremely consistent from book to book and has changed VERY LITTLE in 2000 years, demonstrates that these men were (at least to a large extent) inspired by God.
The point being that between any two people there is a 50/50 chance of agreement or disagreement ... for an example, read the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary compiled by the founder of the Unity Church (Unitarians) Charles Fillmore I believe it was, he shows how the exoteric orthodox meanings of 'normal' Christians to the Old Testament are often the opposite of the more esoteric and mystical understandings related to the metaphysical.
Jesus spoke in parables, the one wording containing two messages. The more essential and deeper meaningful that the very few that had the ability to understand could get, those being his apostles ... the lesser understanding for the greater number that had not the ability to understand, needing much more instruction, that larger group being those that would be called the disciples.
God speaks to each and all that will listen through His Spirit, that experienced in our mind when we are open to it ... all books should be read via such spirit, with our heart ... along with our mind and our 'logical' brain of 'literalism' ... IT should all be a BALANCE of all of those factors ... our own truth will be unique to each of us regardless ... so why get all hung up on what SOME LEADER tells us IS THE WAY ?
There is NO one way, we each must find our own ... that does not mean that we cannot be assisted by others, just use our very best judgment INFORMED by our Spirit.
But some, too many I believe, insist upon being followers. They require leaders to be followers of ... this often results in the blind being led by the Blind ... not a very pretty picture for those that value any kind of individuality.
A very good article Gary. I have also read the suggested book and many good points are made there.
Peace, j.
Which also points out just what others of us would contend 'differently'. His view that all such info CONFIRMS the original view (that HE holds), I (and many others) contend that they (the Scrolls etc) show how much of the original is in error ... there will always be at least two opinions ... funny is it not that the one most adamant will always insist that the other is going to Hell ...
HERE
Actually, there should be a 100% chance that two people would either agree or disagree on any given point (except for fence-sitters, who would completely upset your statistical estimate).
I have to admit that I've never read the Unitarian's "Metaphysical Bible Dictionary" - I guess I would presume that it's usefulness as an authoritative source on the subject was questionable and I would probably never end up purchasing (simply based on it's title).
What is a "normal" Christian? I don't believe I've ever heard any Christian group claiming to be the one true group of "normal" Christians.
Jerry, I agree that God speaks to us through his Holy Spirit and that we comprehend his words to us in our minds. However, your suggestion that "our own truth will be unique to each of us" is merely another denial (by you) that absolute truth exists. I find it hard to understand why you cannot see that absolute truth must exist, if God exists.
Everything is NOT relative, Jerry. In that universe, 2+2=4 would be relative (which is nonesense). 2+2=4 is true by its very definition - it is an absolute truth. 2+2 would never NOT equal 4. This is an analytical statement that is always true.
In actuality, if something is relative, it should not be referred to as "truth", perhaps "opinion". Analytical statements (which are necessarily true by definition) are very different than sythetic statements (which are contingently true).
I hope you would recognize that the existence of absolute truths can very easily be demonstrated with numerous examples.
Jerry, you frequently encourage others to NOT follow anyone's advice because this would make them "followers" in your opinion. This view overgeneralizes correct behavior. If we observe someone "correctly" jumping out of the street because a runaway car is rapidly approaching, the prudent action would be respond in a similar manner - you can call this "being a follower", but in reality, it could be seen as reasoning (rather quickly) that based upon the available information, one should promptly leave the road in order to minimize the elevated risk of being harmed by the runaway car. If someone jumps off a cliff for no apparent reason and a "follower" simply does the same without reasoning why they should do this - then I would concede that such a person could justifiably scolding as a mere "follower".
Jerry, try to write slower (you frequently don't write in complete sentences and it is difficult to follow your train of thought).
Your response about Grateful 1's comment, do not adequately refute what he was saying about the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls do "largely" demonstrate that the Septuagint's translation changed very little over the Centuries. There were some additions & deletions, but these were relatively minor when considering the entire whole of the books discovered as part of the Dead Sea Scroll collection. Most scholars agree that very little alterations to the translations occurred over the Centuries (a handful of modifications would not reasonable be classified as a LARGE number of errors by an inpartial scholar - if this were the case, then we would have to toss out all of our school textbooks if they contained any single error - which all of mine did - you should not throw the baby out with the bath water).I
I don't believe that Grateful 1 said ANYONE was going to Hell in his comment (stop trying to put words in his mouth).
And then he goes on to completely ignore what I had written.
The point you over looked and didn't read in my essay was this: that in the 5,700 variants of the Greek New Testament there are over 200,000 difference found in those texts. 200,000 times that the same words are not found in other copies of the texts.
If we had 5,700 exact copies - that would be a miracle. But we don't. We have a mess of mistakes, ommissions, additions, changes, and alterations. We have no way with any certainty to discover what it was that was actual said by the orignal authors - what version of the accounts came from the original source. My point is that if someone claims that the text was the "LITERAL WORD OF GOD" it must be an exact reproduction of those words. 200,000+ errors, omissions, additions, etc prove that the text is not the literal word of anyone.
As for the Masoretic Hebrew text being a perfect record of the Hebrew text that is a myth as well. There were numerous masoretic schools and each preserved a different Hebrew text from the other school! Hence we again have different texts which are supposedly from a single source. The Hebrew Testament can not claim to be the literal word of God, either.
I didn't bring this topic up originally because I did not know of a new, easy to obtain, well writen and easy to read book on this subject.
So, before you call people a nasty name, disparaging their inteligence - show some inteligence yourself by accurately reading what you are arguing against. Your failing to do this cast doubts on your inteligence.
Hmmm....what scholar are you citing on that assertion? Or did you not read or understand when I quoted the following: ("The story is not found in our oldest and best manuscript of the Gospel of John.") [Pg 65, Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus]
You wrote: ust because there may be error or inconsistency in the Bible, does not mean we should disbelieve all of it.
My essay is very specific. It address the claim that the New Testament is the "Literal Word of God." I only demonstrated that the text can not be the literal word of anyone since the collection of 5,700 varing texts contain 200,000 + contradictory variations. Hence they collectively can not point to any true orignal source - or at least we can not claim to know what the original exact words of that source would be or if it even existed. My point is that the Greek New Testament can not be called "The Literal Word of God."
I would also say the same for the Hebrew Scriptures and the Koran, but that is another essay.
You wrote:
If I were you, I would be more inclined to rest on the observations and commentary of the Early Church Fathers and the earliest known translations, rather than go on a tirade by writing this article just because a book you recently read inspiried you to take on this subject.
Actually this is one of the leading scholars on the subject and the scope of his book takes in not only the Greek Texts, the Latin Vulgate, the writtings of the Chruch fathers, and prior scholarly research and writtings on this subject. He did not ignore the evidence he simply presented it clearly and concisely. Bart Ehrman does not discuss the issue of the Literal word of God claim for the text. I did this.
You wrote: however the fact that the Bible (especially the New Testament) is extremely consistent from book to book and has changed VERY LITTLE in 2000 years, demonstrates that these men were (at least to a large extent) inspired by God.
I am not sure what you think demonstrates consistency but I find 200,000+ errors and contradictions to be a clear sign of inaccuracy.
I didn't say the text was inspired by God - I just am stating it can not be the Litteral word of God.
Such a gentle voice amongst all of this.
You quiely and sincerely asked: Gary, I meant specifically! What "specifically" do you find in the Book that you find fault with personally?
I will answer as best I can.
First, I did not imply that the New Testament was at fault. I was stating that because there is so many contradictory records of the words of the text one can not conclude that it can be a literal record of some original source.
The text is clearly a human creation which was inspired by God - but the acutal words chosen were the choice of human authors and not God's. With so many differences it makes one can not claim that the text is exactly the record it claims to be.
As for my faith - well I am Jew and so I find all of Christianity to be not relevant to my beleifs.
Now to be fair, I do not beleive that the Hebrew TaNaK is the literal word of God either. It is also a collection of 1000's of differing texts and they contain an abudance of difference, errors, etc. Just like the Greek text has. The Massoretes did there humanly best in trying to transmit the text accurately but when they started with different texts to begin with and they started with texts already containing errors - well they kept a very good record of those already existing problems.
I have studied the New Testament and I am interested in the history of Christianity, the text, the early church and I also studied American history of religion in america.
A great book on the history of religon in America is Winthrop Hudson's Religion in America: An Historical account of the development of American religious life. If you were interested in the subject.
All the world religions contain the same essential teaching, adapted to time and place. They are transmitted by small schools and often seem to appear "whole" from a single messenger (legendary or historical) and are spread by a small group of disciples, in oral and written form and become the basis for a new civilization and institutions. What is called the Old Testament borrowed many ideas from previous religions, especially the Iranian, which was monotheistic. The Bible was formulated over a long period of time (during the periods the Hebrews spent in Egypt , in Babylon , in Palestine etc. drawing from those cultures' different ideas and teachings). Moses teaching represents only one part of what became the official Bible text.
Consistent with your claims ... please tell me your impression of God's character ...
Absolute truth includes concepts, ideas, facts, etc. that are immutable, unalterable, eternal - it is logically necessarily true. Absolute truths are truths by their very nature (or by definition). Such as: there are absolutely no square circles. If a two dimension object has even one right angle, it is not (by definition) a circle.
You cannot argue against the existence of absolute truth (no matter what John Dewey said). By doing so, you are invoking the existence of truth. In other words, by saying that there is no absolute truth, you would need to invoke this as being an absolute truth on this subject (which of course, is an absolute truth in itself).
When a relativist states that "there are no absolutes", they are declaring that there are "absolutely" no absolutes. That is an absolute statement. The statement is logically contradictory.
When a relativist states that "truth is relative", they are once again imploying the use of an absolute statement, implying that truth is absolutely relative. If we presume that this statement was, in fact, true, then everything (including the statement that "truth is relative") would be relative. Thus, if a statement is relative, it is not always true. Therefore, if truth is relative, it's not always true, then one would be saying that sometimes truth is not relative. This statement affirms the existence of absolutes (which of course means that the original statement "truth is relative" is false).
Relativist arguments always contradict themselves (that is an absolute truth).
I tired to be clear and specific. The topic of the origins of the Sacred Scripture is very complex. I have tired to deal with that topic in a number of essays each with a very narrow focus so that I can deal with each issue directly one at a time.
For example I didn't cover the ideas and issues that Clark rasies because I want to have upmost clarity. I agree in principle with Clark but I disagree in some of the specifics. Not very important at this point in time.
One of the best books I found on explaining and discussing how both the Hebrew Scriptures, the Talmud and the New Testament came to be written down - and how they all are coming out of similar Jewish backgrounds is the following book:
Donald Harman Akenson: Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of The Bible and The Talmuds (1998)
It is very readable but it is big! Akenson does a wonderful job of explaining how and why the scriptures came to be written when and in the form they were written.
He covers the whole issues of oral transmission to the written text. I can not offer enough praise for this brilliant book that is truly surpassing wonder itself.
What is Ehrman's "oldest and best manuscript of the Gospel of John"?
I was referring not only to the original Latin Vulgate (written by Jerome between 382-395 AD), in addition to the copies of the three oldest surviving copies of the Bible (attributed to the "50" bibles commissioned by Constantine early in the 4th Century. Not to mention commentaries on the Gospel of John by Tertullian (200 AD), Eusebius (325 AD), Origen (215 AD), etc.
Regarding your comments about the "New Testament not being the literal word of God" - my comments were not directly addressing, this thesis (which obviously has merit), but my comments were directed at you commentary on this thesis, which I believe goes too far in denying the authenticy in the New Testament because of the presence of either inconsistencies, translation additions/deletions or obvious human opinion. I acknowledge the presence of these attributes within the New Testament as a whole; however I do not believe that their presence signifies that there is NO truth in the New Testament (or that NONE of it is inspiried of God), which clearly is what several of comments imply.
Regarding you comment about Ehrman's research...I believe my points of refutation are largely with you; however it appears that Ehrman seems to have written his book in response to "modern" assertions that the New Testament is the Literal Word of God. Actually, this argument against it being the literal word of God can only be demonstrated on the grounds of inconsistencies between passages (or direct contradictions between the purported words of God) because Ehrman's thesis that most current New Testament translations have modified from the original text does not in and of itself deny that the latest translation is actually the literal word of God, while earlier translations may have had more human error (I'm not actually proposing this to be the case, but his assumption presumes that the original copy was more in line with the literal word of God than modern translations, which may not necessarily be the case).
I have read the New Testament (various translations) thoroughly and I don't see 200,000+ errors or "true" inconsistencies. I'm sure Ehrman does not list all 200,000+ purported errors in his book either (and I know you have not listed them all). Perhaps you can give us a list of at least 10 errors, so that we can evaluate these one by one?
Just throwing the number of 200,000+ errors around (or repeating it because Ehrman threw it around) may have an "shock effect" with some, but it sounds a bit too fantastic to believe to me. Please provide an abridged list, if you would like to convince us that these are truly errors/inconsistencies. If there's 200,000+ errors, it should not be hard to list 10.
In my essay I listed a few of those inconsistencies all of which I got from Ehrman.
The point of Ehrman's book was to show how the New Testament was transmited and how that process has effected the text we now use and translated into English.
He does not directly address the claim of the New Testament being the Literal word of God.
I will search out the "best and oldest" reference that Ehrman refered to - I am currently at work on my lunch break.
My essay was never claiming that the text has no value. My essay was only claiming that it is not the Literal word of God and therefore is the word of many humans who were inspired by their beleifs in God, which is a very different thing.
I use the number 200,000 because Ehrman gives it as one of the amounts of variations posited by some of todays scholars - Ehrman also mentions that some scholars list it as 400,000. In the end Ehrman say is great number. Enough to make us consider what has been going on all these long years.
I mentioned that in 1500 a English scholar using only the 100 available to him copies of manuscripts of the Greek text - he produces his cummulative best text and listed and pointed out the 37,000 errors he himself found.
Open up you own copies of the New Testament - my RSV and NEV versions both list many of these variations in footnotes to the verses. My list at the end of my essay is from Ehrman and I check out each of those citations against my RSV & NEV - many of them are listed in the foot notes.
You say that Ehrman (in his book) "does not directly address the claim of the New Testament being the Literal word of God." If he does not address this claim AT ALL, then why is the title of your article "The New Testament can not be the Literal Word of God" - wouldn't you say this is misleading, if Ehran's purported supporting documentation only addresses the changes that occurred from the New Testament's original text to the current translations we have in English?
I agree that we can say with great certainty that the King James Translation of the New Testament is not EXACTLY (word for word) the same as the earliest known copies of the Bible.
Thank you for your clarification that neither Ehrman's book (nor your intent) was to indicate that the Bible is not the inspired word of God, nor the literal word of God, but actually that current English translations of the New Testament have been modified from the earlier text versions.
I agree with you (and Ehrman) that there have been many modifications, but I would contend that many of these modifications (even though not in the original text) are similiarly inspired of God (which I believe is what you have indicated in your comments to me & Mary H). An example, I always site is John 7:53 through 8:11, which has been added since the early manuscripts were written - this text is certainly consistent with the character of the God in the New Testament and it is not hard to imagine God saying this. This passage may be referred to as an "error" by some, but it could actually be completely inspired of God (because it does not contradict other original text in the New Testament).
It's good to know that scholars of old (and new) still have enough time on their hands to painstakingly compare various biblical manuscripts to make note of the modifications - of course, you & I don't have time for this because we have real jobs (as you indicated in your last comment).
Take care.
Lets start with your last line; " ... Relativist arguments always contradict themselves (that is an absolute truth). ... "
Your assertions are from a Dualistic viewpoint, that of 'normal' objective, rational and logical people. (+/-)
I used to be that also (a Dualist) until I sought more. I then had a 'spiritual awakening' that evolved me into a Trinity thinker. (+=-)
That makes me for sure a 'Relativist'. That is really what the "=" in (+=-) represents if one cannot allow that it also stands for the Spirit of God.
The Trinity symbolization of (+=-) is also what I call the BET, the Basic Equation of Truth. That is also a Paradox ! But what Dualist can abide a paradox ? None ! That is why dualists constantly argue and debate everything, always contesting each other for an agreement that they can call a 'fact' if not an outright 'truth'.
My thinking about all of this gets deep into Ontology and Epistomology, something there is neither the time nor room for here to properly address (thus the BOOK I wrote about it all). (free).
But in a nutshell, when one becomes truly spiritual (at least to the degree that I have) they come to know the wisdom of the Perennial Philosophy that is basically the same in Essence amongst all such people throughout all time. They/we INtuitively understand this concept. It is of the Cosmic or Universal Truth ... transcendent to the 'common' and 'normal' world way of Dualistic thought.
What more can I say ? Please read the book, it may be rewarding beyond your wildest imagination.
Peace, j.
so why get all hung up on what SOME LEADER tells us IS THE WAY ?
AFTER citing HIS guru of faith:
the Metaphysical Bible Dictionary compiled by the founder of the Unity Church (Unitarians) Charles Fillmore
Just how frigin crazy are you?!
acceptance of non-Jewish converts following the passing of their master. Jesus' teaching clearly reflected the views the most liberal of the Jewish religious sects, that of the Pharisees
How in world do you get that kind of viewpoint from the NT?! Jesus made it VERY clear the shortcomings of salvation by the Law (See the Sermon on the Mount)!
He also had a little tizzy fit, if you have ever read ANYTHING in the Bible and not some obscure website), about how the Temple was bastardized by the Pharisees (primarily a Political and Corrupt group) and the welcoming of the money-changers!
As far as it goes He preached on one level to the apostles and another for the MASSES is just stupid. Why bother? Don't you think God has more important things to do than piss his time away doing speaking egagements for those that don't have a chance of 'getting it"?
He spoke to people's HEARTS...TRUTH. That is what made it effective.
And I return to my ORIGINAL thesis that this is ludicrous to discuss a LITERAL Translation of the Word of God since ONE WORD in Greek - satoria - has OVER 70 MEANINGS....which would be used?
And Jerry, I really have no concern about where you CHOOSE to spend YOUR eternity...AGAIN, I simply accepted the simple terms offered by God, in the Flesh - Jesus - I BELIEVE in my heart, and confess with my tongue, that Jesus Is LORD.
Without all the mental gymnastics you worship and promote - especially since none of us morons can "get it", like you do!
I appreciate your kind words referring to me as a normal, objective, rational & logical person. I recognize your perceptive abilities and see this as further proof that you are wrong (in your comments in another article) when you refer to yourself as a "crackpot".
I would not characterize my view (that right does not equal wrong) as dualist. I would certainly characterize the view (that right equals wrong, or, positive equals negative) as not only illogical, but highly inconsistent. Given that (to me) the "Spirit of God" must be completely logical and consistent, your "Trinity view" cannot be the "Spirit of God" or actually have anything to do with God.
I'm trying to avoid saying that your "spiritual awakening" was incorrect (because I must take you at your word when you say had an "spiritual awakening" and I have no reason to doubt you at all); however it seems clear to me that the conclusions you drew about the nature of truth from your experience were in error. I'm not trying to put you down, but if I am going to comment on your points, I would be dishonest if I said that you were correct (or that we both could be correct - which of course is a state of ambivelence).
You state that no dualist (and by this you mean anyone who accepts that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth) can accept the existence of a paradox. I would contend that anyone who believes that Jesus is the one true God is accepting a paradox. What we are accepting is that the omnipresent, eternal, immutable God (not constrained to exist within the bounds of time or space) became flesh (or came to exist in time, in space, in a changing body. This is a classic an example of a paradox as I've ever heard one - and most Christians believe this - I do. I can't explain it, but accept the existence of this paradox and accept the fact that an explanation will be forthcoming one day that will make perfect sense and be perfectly logical (becuase it will come from the one true, perfect God - who is absolute truth by the way).
Thus, you see that all of our "dualists" (as you are inclined to categorize us) do in fact believe in paradoxes. Besides your statement that "no dualists can abide in paradox" is in fact an absolute statement - I just wanted to point that out because you have claimed there are no absolutes (or absolute truths).
You've intrigued my curiousity by implying that your book covers all aspects of Ontology & Epistomology - now I have to read it.
Jerry, I do agree with you that God (who is immutable) is the only thing that is truly "real" because everything else is in a constant state of change. However that does not mean that facts do not exist.
I did not write the comment you attributed to me (it was Clarke M.)
" ... My thinking about all of this gets deep into Ontology and Epistemology, something there is neither the time nor room for here to properly address (thus the BOOK I wrote about it all). (free).... "
NOT that IT 'covers all aspects of Ontology and Epistemology', But of my thinking expressed in the book as being THAT which is related to those subjects ...
By the way you (and especially Grateful 1) are twisting and spinning my words to your own uses, I can see no reason to reply issue by issue and have those replies also 'twisted' ... It is very apparent to me here that you both have your own agendas that are at odds with any suggestion that I might make ... that is typical dualistic behavior ... as is the endless 'debate' over the minutiae of literal words and such meanings ... I will stick with the spiritual essence of thought where I believe higher truth resides ... I stand by my comments and my book ... call it all what you will as it appears you will twist it all anyway.
Peace, j.
What words of yours do you believe I am "twisting"?
It is not my goal to twist or spin anything you are saying. I am trying to understand what you are saying and tell you what I think on those subjects.
If you are referring to your comment about your book...your words indicated to me that your book "gets deep" into the subjects of Ontology & Epistemology and that you said that in your book you "wrote about it all" - to me this means that you were saying you believe you covered all of the aspects of these topics. If you really meant to merely say that your book discusses these subjects, then you could have said so - it was your own additional adjectives and choice of words that led me to believe that you believe your book covers all aspects of these subjects.
My only agenda, Jerry, is to understand the truth. In no way am I professing that I have or know the whole truth (if I did there would be no point in continuing to search for it). I am not interested in convincing people that my beliefs or opinions are correct. By asking you probing questions, I am actually challenging my own beliefs by putting them to the test - you response to my questions may illuminate a light bulb in my head and I might receive a greater degree of revelation on a particular subject. So, please don't avoid replying to my inquiries. I am trying to move away from the ignorance end of the spectrum toward the enlightened end of the spectrum - and the best way I've found to do that is to challenge my beliefs & ideas at all time, so that I can discard the ones that are false.
Jerry, could you give me a definition for the term "dualist" that you repeatedly use. If I am a "dualist", I want to know what it is.
Peace.
So far there is no 'valuation' applied here as in 'moral' judgment of 'better' (good/best/etc) and 'lesser' (worst/bad/etc) ... those judgmental evaluations came with Augustine's determinations of the way Christians should henceforth perceive things ... most especially Heaven and Hell. This is where the western concept of Dualism all began in 'my' estimation.
By Dualistic standards, a linear 'scale' is constructed based upon all opposites ... with the good called 'perfection' at one extreme end and the bad of course being the 'other' end.
Thus in time there is THE beginning of Creation at Alpha ... then there will be an Ending at Omega ... many religions concentrate on those two extremes, placing little comparable value on the middle or center (which is the actual personal balance point between such potentials) calling that 'fence sitting' in the grey area, that they call indecision, as if one is 'required' to pick one extreme over the other and commit to (naturally) their 'good' extreme seen as eventual 'perfection', assuming that the farther one goes in 'that' direction which they call love ... they can effectively 'battle' and eventually 'defeat' evil in the process ... a 'battle' (or fleeing) all of the way. Very Dualistic due to the primary 'focus' on extremes ... even though the actual living is right in the middle of it all ... (maybe why Christians insist that all are sinners, because they fall so short of the ideal of 'that' perfection).
Back to the basic 'math' of it all ... (+=+) is thus separated from, usually seen as 'over' in a subtractive or divisive differentiation of (-=-), being the (I said usually, a dualistic trait of 'valuation' and judgment, rather than mere discernment) 'lower' factor ... thus the two separated by a void (the 'fence') symbolized as / .
Thus (+=+)/(-=-) ... reduced or combined into (+/-) ! The symbol (mine) for Dualism !
A common and natural 'world' view. All about extremes, very divisive and separative, even very judgmental with requisite 'condemnations' and 'sentencings'. Very egotistical.
I have found through 'spiritual' experience that there is a transcendent view held as cosmic and universal, that of God, and it is Trinitarian.
In this concept/theory. God IS the Perfection as the Totality of the Whole ... But God IS represented by His Spirit in Creation, right in the middle or center of every real truth of each aspect of the Created. Thus in 'addition' to the parts of Creation that are manifested as positives 'and' (not 'or') negatives ... Spirit stands for the symbolization of 'equality/balance/centredness/etc' as THE combining truth of Equals BUT Opposites ... (+=-) . The true meaning of THE Trinity ! THE BET the Basic Equation of Truth (+=-) ! ( a Paradox)
This takes place when the void of "/" is 'bridged' with the Spirit as "=". Spirit is thus NON-judgmental, UN-conditionally Loving, Co-Operative, and Compassionate ... to the degree that opposites can be reconciled for the natural Diversity that they are in creation, to where there takes effect a Creative Synergy via (+=-) ... rather than the Competitive, Conflictive, path down to destruction and nothingness worthwhile, via fighting across the gap of misunderstanding that generates FEAR thus Hatreds involved with Duality as (+/-).
It is all explained far better in the book ( I think).
By accepting Spirit as the Perfection (=) Standing in for the eventual reunification with God at Omega, one can be relatively 'perfect' (because Spirit IS) while in this world as a Spiritual being where ego becomes 'married' with your own Soul in the here and now. (that has been 'my' experience, which I only try to explain).
You cannot get to the Father except through the Spirit (by whatever 'name' one calls that Spirit).
Peace, j.
I will offer a little clarification on a point you brought up.
You wrote: You say that Ehrman (in his book) "does not directly address the claim of the New Testament being the Literal word of God." If he does not address this claim AT ALL, then why is the title of your article "The New Testament can not be the Literal Word of God" - wouldn't you say this is misleading, if Ehran's purported supporting documentation only addresses the changes that occurred from the New Testament's original text to the current translations we have in English?
My title for the essay is my conclusion on the basis of Ehrman's book and other readings I have done.
Many scholars shy away from make a highly controversial conclusions even if their research point in that direction.
I beleive it is important to act like a lightening rod and make such bold statements.
I was drawing conclusions based on his book, and I limited my remarks to only using his book to keep the essay easily accesable - his book being new and readily available.
Now, I may again be causing problems - but I am saying that the New Testament, and for that matter all Sacred Scriptures, are not the Literal word of God. They are the words of humans who were inspired by God/Divine. A significant difference.
And - for the most part - the books as we have them now have been transformed by intent and unintent into a document that is not the original words of the first human author either. In the process of transmission scribal errors were made, intentional changes were made, many different starting versions existed - not one single source text, and so on.
I occassionaly feel like the character Tevye, created by Scholem Alecheim, as portrayed in the musical "Fiddler on the Roof". In the song: If I were a rich man - Tevye dreams of the "sweetest thing of all" as being sitting all day with the learned men and talking about the Holy books. I also which I had the time to devote my life solely to reserach and writting. sigh.....
You still don't "get it". If God can inspire people then any given text can be His Word. Any given text can be His "literal word" if He chooses. You don't think God can inspire people it seems. That is fine, each must make such a call based on what they have experienced. The title of this article is missing a clause that renders it meaningless in a discussion of spirituality on the planet Earth. For on the planet Earth, billions of people believe God can inspire people. The whole of your treatment is nothing more than a personal declaration that they are wrong.
The following statement is quite true:
The New Testament can not be the Literal Word of God, if God did not inspire the authors and transcribers of it
No rational person could dispute that statement, but neither:
The New Testament is the Literal Word of God, if God chose it to be so.
Quit "beating around the bush", shout it for all the world to behold and give due reverence to:
Gary Jaron does not believe God inspired the Bible.
I think you've done a pretty good job of explaining your theology & dualism. I would like to discuss this further (and I will be purchasing your book to review these thoughts further and discuss them with you - where can I find your book again - Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble.com?).
I would contend by your comments that you do believe in Absolute Truth - you're just referring to it in a different manner than it normally is discussed.
The "dualism" you are describing goes back as far as written records. Of course, dualism was first best expressed in the Early Zorastrians (before 600 BC) and many of these ideas worked their way into today's main Western & Middle Eastern religions. However, the broader ideas of right vs. wrong, beginning vs. end, originated long before the written word (and these ideas are different than the dualistic view of a powerful good force vs. a powerful evil force - and a battle between the two for domination.
Western civilization (and Christian theology as well) are not necessarily grounded solely in a dualistic view. Early Western (and Early Christian) thought was geared toward seeking perfection (an off-shoot of Plato's "forms"), but essentially all things that were not perfect were viewed as substandard and the dualism you are describing did not (and has not really) worked its way into all aspect of this thought. Of course, when Aristotlian thought re-emerged to replace Platonic-based thought, then the "mean between extremes" became a pretty good place to settle in (in order to avoid being too extreme). This view is dominant in Western thought (especially Science and even Christianity) today.
I would imagine you enjoy reading Aristotle (he's so balanced in his views)?
We'll I have to go. We can discuss this more later (perhaps after you have commented on these thoughts).
Take care.
I
Thank you for your points of clarification.
I would still point out that no one can irrefutably state the the "New Testament CANNOT be the Literal Word of God" - simply based upon inconsistencies in translation copying or even if the authorship is suspect - because none of this PROVES that NONE of the text is NOT the literal word of God.
Lost people speak God's words all the time without even knowing it. Also, text can be corrected and made to become more accurate and match up completely with the words of God.
I understand your main point seems to be that God did not sit the authors of the New Testament down and say "write what I'm going to tell you", but there is no way we could prove that God did not put these words into their minds and they wrote down his words. No amount of historical research or scholarly review can definitively refute this possibility.
I understand your article is controversial; however I would encourage you to carefully evaluate whether or not the controversial title of an article is defensible - obviously the "exact" title that you've chosen is NOT. If your title were "The New Testament should not be presumed to be the Literal Word of God" - that title is completely defensible because no one can prove that it is, but by using the title you've chosen, you have put yourself in a position where the burden of proof is on you because you are making an absolute statement.
Regardless of the specifics of the title or Ehrman's book, I've really enjoyed this discussion that was spawned by your article - and for that I thank you.
I too love that movie "Fiddler on the Roof" - we got the record when I was a kid and played it around the house all the time. I remember years later seeing the lead actor in Flash Gordon and kept waiting for him to break into song.
As for how far 'dualism' goes back, I would say for Christians (any believers in the Bible) it began with the fall from the garden of Eden … also explained in the book.
I would never contend that anything was 'solely' something, as everything is an intermix to one degree or other, probably of everything. What I do contend though, is that it was Augustine's interpretations of Aristotle's message that put the Christian church down that more or less 'dualistic' path.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind that we all use a balanced approach to most everything … except when it comes to normal (exoteric) religions 'priorities', then it becomes a linear scale issue. This has in turn seeped into the thinking of the world's peoples, the reason for the ever increasing polarization and associated conflicts that we are all experiencing from day to day … it is not necessarily a 'good' trend if it ends in physical conflict and death.
I have not read the great philosophers very much … because there is just far too much to read in order to give it a fair balance, I was too old and did not have the time to do it justice when I first became interested 13+ years ago. Instead I have read of them primarily by other reputable authors that have done much of the necessary study.
I also realize, and the BET allows for such, that there will always be counter opinions on almost everything, as people will find 'facts' to back their assertions … I do not usually participate in that, relying on a broad based approach with the trust in intuition (my spirit) to guide me to my decision that works best for me. Thus to each their own … I only offer, as to if there are any takers, that is beyond my care.
Peace, j.
you wrote: You still don't "get it". If God can inspire people then any given text can be His Word.
Check out the definitions of the word "inspiration" and "Literal". They are not the same. I can be inspired by someone without directly doing that someones exactly as I was told.
You are not understanding the words you are using.
I read a book - it inspires me to write my own, I do so using my words not the author who inspired me.
You seem to have a hard time with my ideas.
To meet the definition of "Literal" is to accomplish it 100% perfect. If their are 200,000 variations in the 5,700 differing documents then we do not have the 100% accurate record - we have a text that is "Somewhat, sort of, mostly the word of God."
"Check out the definitions of the word "inspiration" and "Literal".
It would appear you stopped reading, or comprehending, my words after the second sentence, since this is the third:
"Any given text can be His "literal word" if He chooses"
Please start again with this in your analysis.
"We" are not little children, and realize God does not "think" in English, or any particular human tongue. It is fully understood that by "literal word of God", we do not assume some sort of technical accuracy. We all realize we must, as with any writing, use a degree of discernment to apprehend the underlying meaning of the words and sentences on a page. We mean: It's God's word, literally (as in really from God) .Your incessant harping on minutia is borderline neurotic, in my opinion.
The title of your reference: "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
Maybe that should have been the starting point of all this semantic brouhaha.
Just what great CONSPIRACY are we missing here according to You and Ehrman?!
Is this bigger and more sinister than the Davinci Code? Or part II? Or a thesis that God is simply the collective figment of thousands dispersed through the millennium that had to updated constantly to maintain some cohesiveness throughout? (Which it so miraculously has, when taken as a whole - and now even more so with recent archaeological finds)!
So, what's the Grand Scheme we are being denied by you and E?!?!
I read and hear almost everyday - generally from what I would describe as 'fundamentalist Christians' who beleive that the Bible is the Literal word of God. Now some of them, I think are foolish enough to think that the English bible they can read is the Literal word of God. Which is clearly nonsense - so I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they mean the text in its original form is the exact words of god.
That idea - that the text we have of the Bible is the Literal [meaning the exact ] words from God: is what I am saying is not possible and the evidence shows it.
To be the Literal word it would have to have no errors.- since it has thousands of conflicting passages between the thousands of differing texts I conclude correctly that our collection of texts are the words of humans.
Whether there ever was an original document - can not be shown, it can only be assumed. There is no record of it in our historical records.
And no the KJV was not a literal translation - but it was a one hebrew word for one English word translation. Not quite the same thing becuase English words have multiple meanings in different contexts and the same goes for Hebrew so a single word for word decoding fails to translate accurately.
I agree with you gatobilis that it is so unfortunate that those who put so much faith in the text do not know much at all of its actual history.
And all the fundamentalist Christians I meet do think that the text is perfectly accurate - they do assume, to use your word John, that the text is 'technically' accurate.
John : "Your incessant harping on minutia is borderline neurotic, in my opinion."
I am only responding to the statements made daily by Fundamentalist Christians - they do beleive that the text is the "literal word of God" - that those words come directly from God and are chosen by God and are not in anyway affected by human actions. It is this simplistic world view held by hundred of thousand God-fearing Christians that I trying to offer a challenge to. I am so glad you are so enlightened that this all seems so bothersome to you.
As for a 'literal' word, there is nothing that comes closer to such as the URANTIA BOOK. It was even presented directly to America in the English vernacular (as limiting as even that is to explain the things esoteric).
But no, 'they' do not want to know the truth of Jesus and God, they would rather die (and many even kill) for their mental 'investment', how sad.
I agree that the long history of bible translation is a very rich story in itself.
I would like to point out however that I believe that fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, etc.) are primarily dangerous not merely because they consider their book (Bible, Koran, etc.) to be the literal word of God, but that they interpret the passages to solidify a position that promotes hate. I've read the Bible and the Koran and I can see how some would interpret many of the passages of both to demonstrate a philosophy of love or hate, depending upon the emphasis they place on particular passages.
Furthermore, when Fundamentalists only use certain passages to bolster their pre-determined position, they ususally grossly overestimate the obvious emphasis by the author and take these passages completely out of context.
I am also bothered when people ignorantly claim to me that every word in their particular Bible translation is without any error or devision from the original text (when historically I am aware of many modifications over time).
How can you say you were too old 13 years ago to read the great philosophers? You could have easily read all of Aristotle's collected works in your spare time (10 minutes a day), several times over again during the past 13 years.
Let's not lament over the past, you can begin today - I'm sure you've got another 40 years of life left (at least in this plane of existence). I would recommend reading:
* Metaphysics
* Categories
* On Interpretation
* Prior Analytics
* Posterior Analytics
* Topics
* On Sophistical Refutations
* Nichomachean Ethics
These are all very short works, but power packed.
I would love to have some discussions with you about these works.
If you promise to read these works, I promise to purchase your book and read it - so we can discuss that work in detail - deal?
Take care.
Your suggestion is enticing though. I will give it some thought, but I am pretty sure it won't get past that stage :-) , as I have been bogged down on Gather as my pile of unread books grows.
But then I have about 40 years left to get caught up ... check back around 2040, that will give us a few years to discuss Aristotle ... I'll only be about 107 then ... that should make me wise by age default shouldn't it ?
Don't let the large pile of unread books keep you from systematically reading them - I'm in the same boat, but I am able to gradually get through them (approximately 7 books at a time).
Were you born in 1933 or 1939 (your email is somewhat confusing)?
I find it interesting that you were unable to retain little of Artistotle's "Metaphysics" - I know that reason for this cannot be that it was too metaphysical for you, because you're one of the most metaphysical guys I know.
The irony about that work (as I'm sure you know) is that the work was not intended by Aristotle to be a work on metaphysics (by our modern definition) at all. When copies of notes of Aristotle's lectures at the Lyceum were being written in book format (about 200 years after Aristotle's death), this particular work was taken from the lecture immediately following Aristotle's lecture on "physics" - the person compiling Aristotle's works called this work "metaphysics", simply because the word "metaphysics" means "after the physics". And yet, the term metaphysics has taken on the meaning of the ideas in that particular lecture by Aristotle. This is another example of a word in common usage today being coined by Aristotle (although indirectly). Aristotle coined the words "maximize, minimize, etc."
Take care any happy reading.
But I do have a hope of some improvement beginning eventually, sometime 'after' 2012, or so, maybe.
You are surely sparking my interest in the works of Aristotle, I will put the looking into that on top of my mental list of things to do. As I recall, I had no trouble understanding what I did read, as it agreed with my thinking at the time in general.
Of what little I recall from all of such reading at that time, I was left with much respect for the thinking of Plato as written by Socrates, followed by Aristotle ... but it all went to hell (pun intended) when Augustine made 'his' interpretation of meanings around the two extremes of division with the subsequent heaven on one end and hell on the other, with no middle ground allowed ... that called 'fence sitting' in religious terms and not allowed ... meaning everything became dualistic from then forward in western thinking based on those religious assertions, whether one was really religious or not did not matter, as the 'standard' had been set.
Anyway, that is my take on it all in a nutshell. I have no doubt that it is arguable ... as everything is anyway. (+=-) paradox is OK by me. Must be why I like generalities over specifics ... :-)
Have a Merry Christmas in general.
Do you think Mark McGwire should be elected into the Hall of Fame?
Ron wrote: What is Ehrman's "oldest and best manuscript of the Gospel of John"?
I was referring not only to the original Latin Vulgate (written by Jerome between 382-395 AD), in addition to the copies of the three oldest surviving copies of the Bible (attributed to the "50" bibles commissioned by Constantine early in the 4th Century. Not to mention commentaries on the Gospel of John by Tertullian (200 AD), Eusebius (325 AD), Origen (215 AD), etc.
Now, when I reviewed Ehrman's book where he states, pg. 65, that the oldest and best manuscripts of John do not include the story of the woman accussed of adulery - he gives no list of these texts.
When I consulted Norman Perrin's The New Testament: An Introduction - the text assigned in my U of Washington New Testament class I came across the following:
'Most responsible modern translations relgate the story of the adultress to the margin, because the best Greek manuscripts do not include it at all; when it does appear, is is either maked with asterisks or other signs to indicate that it is dubious, or it is included at different places...It is a traditional story about Jesus that circulated in the church and that various scribes inserted at various places throughout the New Testament as they transcribed it. Is so happedned that the texts from which the King James Version was translated had it at John 7:53-8:11, but it is not written in the Johannine style and has no claim to a place in John. Indeed, is has no claim to a place in the text of the New Testament at all, which is in some ways tragic, since it is one of the most challenging of all stories told about Jesus." pg 224 of Perrin's book.
Again, Perrin did not sight the specific Greek manuscripts that did not include the story. I do find that the story is noted in The New English Bible translation of the New Testament with the following note: 'This passage, which in the most widely recieved editions of the New Testament is printed in the text of John 7:53 - 8:11, has no fixed place in our witnesses. Some of them do not contain it at all.'
My copy of the Revised Standard Version takes the whole section out of the maind body of the translation and adds it as a footnote saying 'Other ancient authorites add 7:53-8:11 either here or at the end of this gospel or after Luke 21, 38, with variations of the text.'
In both cases the collection of scholars who undertook the two translations, the RSV and the NEB, both recognized that the story can not be included in the main body of the New Testament due to its clear to them dubious nature. They can only with reference the story as being something that was inserted into the text in many different places - but it does not desrve to be accredited as truly a part of the text.
If I find any other specific and relevant information on this issue I will post it here.
I don't think it is any sort of conspiracy, just laziness on the part of beleivers who insist that the Bible is the literal word of God. It seems clear that there is evidence that the New Testament, as is the Koran, and the Hebrew Scritpures, are a collection of 1000's of different conflicting manuscripts which demonstrate that the text is not the product of getting the exact words from some source.
"Everything is NOT relative, Jerry. In that universe, 2+2=4 would be relative (which is nonesense). 2+2=4 is true by its very definition - it is an absolute truth. 2+2 would never NOT equal 4. This is an analytical statement that is always true."
i no longer know which of the contributors wrote this: sorry. too much word has flown since, and i read it all with care...
...but here's my hair-splitting response to the absolutism therein:
"in a scenario where the quality '2' is doled as an estimation based on perception--say, 'two units of two six-foot humans apiece equals four humans-- and i see four six-footers over there, so that's four humans.'-- in a scenario such as this, perception is everything.
"what if, upon closer scrutiny, one of the four humanoids was discovered to be a scarecrow?
"now the total is three--unless, of course, we were counting for gross purposes. no consideration for, say, a pulse-per-unit. or organs viable for donorship.
"what if still another humanoid out of the original four was discovered, upon closer investigation, to be a set of dwarves/ -one atop the other's shoulders?
"what's the total THEN? -does the scarecrow count?
"that depends.
"what if a third humanoid was found to be Siamese twins? -and what 'separates' them (enough) to, if one forgives, 'stand on their own two'? -a brain? -does a shared heart (since that organ is lent so much import) make them 'one'?"
i could go on and on-- and, yes: i'd be splitting hairs.
or Siamese twins.
which answer is correct?
are not ALL of them correct--as well as all variations?
is there an Absolute, even in math?
once you establish "rules" convenient to YOUR point of view (read: "scarecrows aren't alive", or "two dwarves count separately, but the Siamese share a lung so NOPE"), you have already compromised yourself.
i suspect the best scripture in the Bible runs along this vein; "We must all work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." -i suspect that it means, "Identify the fact that you don't know SQUAT, and that God's a big mystery, and that you're probably waaay off in most of your assumptions... but, hey: that God LOVES you, and knows just how stupid Humans are."
note: i typed, "suspect". because i know that i, for one, know nothing.
i'm not even sure there IS a god-- and, if there IS... how nice a guy It could possibly be.
what with all this talk of Hell, and stuff.
That is just how far I go in laying out the playing field of the reality I speak of when I say that the only absolute truth is that of the whole of God/universe, that actually amounting simply to the number One (1) ...
Then all withIN such a UNIverse is then but a "fraction" of that (1) as in 1/xxx ... or ... if you want to increase the number of dimensions, 1/xxx/yyy ... or maybe even 1/xxx/yyy/zzz
But God's truth be known, everything is included withIN the Basic Equation of Truth (BET) as (+=-) where the totality (whole) of that is God and withIN that are the potentials (+/-), balanced and equalized by the Spirit of God as the (=) ... Trinity (+=-) being greater than (>) Duality (+/-) ... thus (+=-)>(+/-)
What this boils down to, is that other than the 1 of God and the "3" of Trinity, which is more like "thirds" ... there are no absolutes in the universe ... all which "we" would claim to be anything, are but "facts" that we have decided to agree on for the sake of some commonality of understanding associated with communication ... facts are but objective considerations based only upon agreements commonly held. Then IF considered a "truth", that also a relative truth only by agreement also.
Even "numbers" such as what you have called 1 through 4 ... may well, I believe they do, have their opposites in the form of the nullifying negative numbers, -1 through -4.
So without going a whole lot further in all of this ... you can, and maybe will, claim your "facts" as your "truths" even ... but I claim that would be be simply "objective" considerations of the physically manifested world reality ... which in my mind is offset, tempered by, and very much related to the "subjective" spiritual aspect.
In "my" view, all other than God's "singular" reality, there are time/space differentiations and thus differing perspectives, one persons truth may be another's falsehood ... AND ... vice versa ... all is relative under the 1 of God !!! IMnsHO.
you went the long way around, but hey: we agree.