daniel1212: Really? This is the standard by which you accept or reject the validity any ancient extensive document to, with its figures for which data is missing, versus what could be provided its contemporary setting when it was believed [...]
Yes, really! (Your confusing syntax notwithstanding.) I see absolutely no reason to apply laxer standards - essentially "forgiving" or "overlooking" gross inaccuracies and distortions, giant omissions, etc. - to a document just because of its antiquity.
If I need a heart operation, and have the choice between two medical documents - one written by modern heart surgeons, and the other dating back thousands of years, which has undergone numerous massive edits by medieval clergymen (Council of Nicaea, etc.), is missing WHOLE BOOKS, etc. - of course I am justified in being suspicious of the ancient document.
alex: The disparities between the Lutheran Bible and the Catholic Bible and the Eastern Orthodox Bible (whole books being left out or added in) only compound the issue.
daniel1212: What significant disparities?
An even only cursory examination of the Eastern Orthodox Bible, the Greek Orthodox Bible, the Lutheran Bible, and the Roman Catholic Bible quickly shows VAST DIFFERENCES. Namely that ENTIRE BOOKS are missing from one and present in the other, or vice-versa.
So, whenever you speak of "THE" Bible - you should specify WHICH Bible you actually mean.
In your brief (but syntactically puzzling; don't mean to harp on it, but some of your sentences have jumbled syntax, making it very difficult to decipher your meaning) excursion into the differences between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic versions, you admit to as much, but try to minimize them. If we are truly speaking about the WORD OF GOD, then the absence / addition of entire books should be regarded as more than merely "significant." Rather, it should be considered to be CATASTROPHIC!
daniel1212: There is simply no confusion btwn a 19th writing by a very imaginative soothsayer who relied upon the Bible for his perversions of it and as a badge of authority [...]
I am no Mormon apologist - I referenced the Book of Mormon only as one of the latest examples of the contamination of the Bible. The damaged done to it by the Council of Nicaea and by Luther only compound it.
daniel1212: Thus the conflict btwn RC's and evangelicals is essentially because distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
You explain the differences - but that does not excuse them. They still exist, and they still demonstrate that an honest person humbling seeking enlightenment today is confronted by a bewildering variety of heavily redacted versions to choose from.
Then RoosterRedux goes so far as to accuse me of being "pure Evil" for merely pointing out this fact. (I always find it incredible how some people who hold themselves to such high moral and religious standards can be so cavalier about making such accusations; I can very easily imagine them in former days being the ones proclaiming the damnatio and ordering the condemned heretics to be burned at the stake.)
Thank you, by the way, for your patience; I, likewise, endeavor to be patient.
Regards,
You DO like to grade the papers of the other students!
There simply are no gross inaccuracies (aside from some inconsequential copyist errors), and distortions, or actual contradictions in doctrine in the 66 books of the Bible, despite its volume and many duplicate accounts (and , and man being the stewards of it, except in the echo chamber of ignorant atheistic propaganda, which apparently is all you have read, and not extensive examinations of cited texts and explanations If I need a heart operation, and have the choice between two medical documents - one written by modern heart surgeons, and the other dating back thousands of years, which has undergone numerous massive edits by medieval clergymen (Council of Nicaea, etc.), is missing WHOLE BOOKS, etc. - of course I am justified in being suspicious of the ancient document.....I am no Mormon apologist - I referenced the Book of Mormon only as one of the latest examples of the contamination of the Bible. The damaged done to it by the Council of Nicaea and by Luther only compound it.
Poor analogy, while the idea that the Bible underwent undergone numerous massive edits (which means there was a settled established volume to edit) by medieval clergymen as related to the Council of Nicaea, and is missing WHOLE BOOKS (missing from what established canon?) if related to that, indicates subscription to refuted propaganda, with its Council Myth, which is akin to Da Vinci Code fiction . https://historyforatheists.com/2017/05/the-great-myths-4-constantine-nicaea-and-the-bible/ can help here.
Instead, rather than missing books from an established canon, then as with discerning men of God as being do, likewise were writings progressively so, with a general consensus among devout on both essentially being due their surpassing qualities and attestation, and not due to magisterial judgments (the NT church actually began in partial dissent from one), if not always uniform.
RC sources themselves affirm : “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217) And it is doubtful that the LXX at that time contained the Deuteros. discredited "The Books of Maccabees, though regarded by Jews and Protestants as apocryphal, i.e., not inspired Scripture, because [it is] not contained in the Palestinian Canon or list of books drawn up at the end of the first century A.D." (https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PDN.HTM)
And rather than Nicaea establishing any canon, then as substantiated, the status of the Deuteros (and sometimes a very few other books), was permissibly debated among Catholic scholars until Trent defined the canon - after the death of Luther Other writings claiming Divine revelation, such as Gnostic literature had been rejected before Nicea, which did not decide the Biblical canon nor alter its text anyway!
Apart from that, as for "massive edits by medieval clergymen," whatever this means is the issue. I will first state that any insinuation that the Bible was edited to conform to Catholic doctrine is absurd. If they had the power to do so then they were very negligent, since it would not be hard to add a few words to support distinctive Cath. teachings that are simply not found in the Bible. Pray to angels and saints in Heaven? The planning of a named successor to Peter? The mention of the status of Mary and prophecy of her ascension? Paul teaching elders on the Eucharist being a essential spiritual food (like as he stated of the word of God)? Etc. Just a few words needed. More would be as Rome continued its romanization, resulting in fabrications being used.
As for edits in general, when dealing with ancient writing materials that had a relative short expiration date, thus requiring copies and copes of copies, and with stewardship and translation (from basically 3 languages) of the original accounts and transmission and translation of its approx. 800,000 words being committed to man, and with thousands of mss of varying size (if most being fragmentary) and quality, surpassing anything of like antiquity, esp with its volume, and with spelling errors, paraphrasing, copyist and translators preferences, etc. then of course not all mss nor translations of the text of the Bible today are exactly the same as when each was originally penned centuries ago.
Note also that the premise that "older" mss (which have the most variation) are more reliable transmissions than relatively more recent ones, is specious, since the latter can be a copy of a more ancient one (though there is 94% agreement between the NT text held in common between the NA/UBS critical text and the Byzantine MSS.
Even in Islam, despite the Quran (which depends upon an existing Biblical canon for its claim of further revelation) being much later than the Bible and written on far better material, and with attempted purification of variant texts, textual variants in Quranic manuscripts are a reality.
So much for an explanation, while contrary to your argument, and Bible attackers allegations of rampant interpolations that changed doctrine, mss variations simply do not mean that we do not have reliable transmission of doctrinal truths of Scripture, as hardly any of the variations (which are a very small percentage among the approx. 800,000 words of Scripture) affect the latter.
And as study and technology has helped to uncover differences among copies, so it also enables us to see what is said in original languages and their meaning. But one would have to read the apologetical works on such to realize this, and not just the works of myopic skeptics. Which imagine such things as that the word translated "virgin" in Matthew 1:23 from Is. 7:14 never denotes a virgin in Hebrew, and that words in duplicate accounts not all being exactly verbatim what was said (as in accounts of the trial o Christ) impugns the Divine inspiration of them, in which the Spirit can expand or contract and paraphrase what was said for the benefit of the intended readers, while providing a fuller revelation of truth that can be conveyed. And that differing accounts are necessarily contradictory, versus complimentary, and who typically ignore context and genre in their myriad of allegations. Which I should not have to deal with myself here.
An even only cursory examination of the Eastern Orthodox Bible, the Greek Orthodox Bible, the Lutheran Bible, and the Roman Catholic Bible quickly shows VAST DIFFERENCES. Namely that ENTIRE BOOKS are missing from one and present in the other, or vice-versa....he absence / addition of entire books should be regarded as more than merely "significant." Rather, it should be considered to be CATASTROPHIC!
Absurd. You are simply reiterating what you said before, and ignores my response. Just what VAST DIFFERENCES exist in teaching due to the 7 extra books of Rome, let alone the two additional books of the EOs? At best I can only think of two instances in these books that would somewhat help RC doctrine. How CATASTROPHIC was the inclusion of apocryphal books in the KJV for approx 274 years? If the type of literature was not recognized, some of the inspired record of what Solomon concluded in Ecclesiastes as revealing the reasoning of his natural mind would be a problem as would be such fantastic fables as the apocryphal book of Tobit.
Since the position that these apocryphal books were not part of what the Lord Jesus referred to as "all the Scriptures" (Lk. 24:27) is what is best evidenced, then the real issue is the premise of Catholicism (as well as Mormonism) to be sure supreme authority on what it from God, as she proclaims herself to be.
they still demonstrate that an honest person humbling seeking enlightenment today is confronted by a bewildering variety of heavily redacted versions to choose from.
More polemical propaganda of propaganda, as if a humbling seeking enlightenment today is confronted by a bewildering variety of heavily redacted versions to choose from. Hardly any persons even know what you are talking about, while at 71 and 45 years as a Christian (in the NE even) I have never met a humble salvation-seeking soul who was bewildered even as to what Bible to find the Truth in. Such a heart finds the bread of life even though many versions water it down.
; don't mean to harp on it, but some of your sentences have jumbled syntax, making it very difficult to decipher your meaning)
I apologize for that, but while, by the grace of God, I have only needed medical care once (piece of rust from exhaust system stuck in my eye) in over 40 years (and having left all to serve God in 1986, without solicitation, or welfare, but seeing God act according to His word in response to obedience), and can still run with kids and handle wrenches, etc. yet my stiff typo-prone arthritic fingers are a test of my patience, taking hours to post replies, and my slowing mind gets fatigued, and thus even proof reading is neglected.
In addition, after thousands of thousands of posts dealing with various objections over the years (thus I sometimes cobble replies together) I also ask myself why I should expend more time and energy when others have already dealt with such as your objections.
So this is it, I intended to be done with taking such time with your replies. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)