Posted on 01/15/2015 1:30:54 PM PST by daniel1212
Newsweek’s recent cover story on the Bible, as we expected, proved quite controversial, particularly among the evangelical community...
Is it true that prominent Christian leaders in America are misusing the Bible to suit their own purposes?...
Has the text of the Bible undergone such dramatic changes over the centuries that it bears little resemblance to the original teachings of Moses, Jesus, and Paul?..
..does Newsweek paint an accurate picture of conservative evangelicals? Certainly not.
More importantly, does Newsweek paint an accurate picture of the reliability of the Scriptures? Emphatically not...
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Michael Brown is somewhat liberal in the manuscript science sense, as he agrees with things such as that Mark 16:9-10 does not belong in the Bible based on it being absent from "the oldest Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian manuscripts,", despite what 99.9% of the Greek manuscripts, 99% of the Syriac manuscripts, and 99.99% of the Latin manuscripts, and four second-century witnesses, over 40 other Roman-Empire-era witnesses evidence to the contrary. (More here ).
Such claims are made on the basis of "earlier is better" than later copies (see here ), which can be copies of even earlier mss, the conclusion is also reached (debated here )
Yet Newsweek is so desperate or ignorant to poison the minds of men against Christ whom the oppose that they even resort to the absurd atheistic charge that the Lord's censure against praying in public (in the context of ostentatious religiousity for the praise of men) means preachers praying in public is necessarily sin!
Some may be (pious George Washington prayed that his were not), but not because any public prayer is sin.
Of course, recently an antagonistic atheist/agnostic//skeptic type even insisted that Jesus taught His disciples to steal by telling them to go into a specific village and bring a donkey to Him, and what to say if anyone asks them what they were doing, and which was done, with obvious consent. (Lk. 19:30-34)
Is it really “loaded with contradictions and translation errors,” as Newsweek alleges? Is it true that it “wasn’t written by witnesses and includes words added by unknown scribes to inject Church orthodoxy . . . ?” Is it accurate to say that “the Bible can’t stop debunking itself”?..
Let’s unpack this carefully, since a number of foundational propositions are laid out here. And it is this section of Newsweek’s examination, making up the major part of the article, which has drawn sharp criticism and strong correction from a number of top biblical scholars...
...the very term “the Bible,” derived from the Greek ta biblia, “the books,” wasn’t coined until approximately 223 A.D. And what we are reading today – in English translation or in the original languages – is extraordinarily close (and, for the most part) identical to what these early believers would have been reading when the term was coined.
Newsweek exhorts us to follow the teaching of Jesus, reminding us that he said, “Don’t judge. He condemned those who pointed out the faults of others while ignoring their own.” Yet here, Newsweek engages in the very kind of biased judgment that Jesus condemned...
The real question is: How reliable are the Hebrew texts we have today, the ones used in the translation of the Old Testament? And how reliable are the Greek texts we have today, the ones used in the translation of the New Testament?
Actually, they are remarkably well-preserved, to the point that we can say that, with the exception of changes in spelling of words (like colour vs. color in English) and the adding of vowels (which are not part of the original Hebrew text), for the most part, when we read the Old Testament in Hebrew, we are reading the identical Hebrew texts that Jesus would have read in his hometown synagogue as a boy. (We’ll address the New Testament Greek manuscripts shortly.)
Ah, the oldest manuscript trick. That kind of junk gives the enemies of God occasion to blaspheme.
I will ask Newsweek for advice on the Bible about the same time I ask Hugh Hefner for advice on how to make it to the alter with your chastity intact.
Just after I ask my local imam for a really great slow-roasted BBQ pork recipe.
These are all topics about which which the three entities questioned know absolutely NOTHING!
Obviously, our media serves Satan. Look at the things it supports and the things it attacks. The puzzle is why Christians continue to finance their extinction by buying this poisonous propaganda and subjecting their children to its moral pollution. (Do your children and grandchildren know more nasty rap lyrics than psalms.)
How can I make such a remarkable claim?...
Newsweek claims that Jesus opposed family values....
To illustrate how English versions of the Bible allegedly mistranslate words to suit theological biases, Newsweek focuses on the Greek word proskuneo which is “used about 60 times in the New Testament” and “equates to something along the lines of ‘to prostrate oneself’ as well as ‘to praise God’” and in the King James Version is rendered “worship.” (Actually, the word never means “to praise God.”)..
And so, “with a little translational trickery, a fundamental tenet of Christianity—that Jesus is God—was reinforced in the Bible, even in places where it directly contradicts the rest of the verse.” Indeed, it is claimed, “That kind of manipulation occurs many times.”
First, this is highly inaccurate. There is only one instance in the New Testament where the King James translators rendered proskune.. with “worship” with reference to bowing down to other humans..
Second, the meaning of all the relevant passages, where people “worship” Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 8:2; 9:18) is not affected at all if we translate with, “bowed reverently before him” or the like..
Third, this is not a matter of “translational trickery” or “manipulation.” Rather, this is simply the work of translation, since every word has one meaning in one confined context (although we recognize things like double entendre and poetic meanings in certain contexts) and translators must find the best word to use in each specific context. So, if I say in English, “The rock is hard,” I am using the word “hard” differently than when I say, “The test is hard.” The former means “solid”; the latter means “difficult.”..
Fourth, for Christians, the belief that Jesus is the divine Son of God, worthy of worship and adoration, is found throughout the Bible and is hardly dependent on the precise translation of proskune.... Yet there are, in fact, verses in the New Testament that speak of Jesus being worshiped and praised as divine, using that very verb. (See especially Revelation 5:11-14, all creatures in the universe worshiped God, sitting on the throne, and Jesus, depicted as a lamb, in the exact same way. This one text alone undercuts Newsweek’s entire argument.
Nonetheless, Newsweek makes the gratuitous claim that “the publishers of some Bibles decided to insert their beliefs into translations that had nothing to do with the Greek. The Living Bible, for example, says Jesus ‘was God’—even though modern translators pretty much just invented the words.”
The reference here is to Paul’s teaching in Philippians 2 that Jesus existed in the “form” of God, which the Living Bible then renders with “was God.” The problem is that the Living Bible is not a translation but rather a paraphrase, and so is a poor example to use (in that respect, the New Living Translation, which also translates with “was God,” is also a paraphrastic translation). The great majority of evangelical translations state that Jesus existed in “the form of God,” while the NIV, which renders with “in very likeness God,” is simply explaining what it understands the Greek words to mean. Since the larger context (see Philippians 2:6-11) points to the divine nature of Jesus, Bock is correct to point out that, “These contextual features are what a translator considers as he or she decides between possible rendering options, looking for the best specifically appropriate renderings for this context. This is not manipulation for doctrinal reasons. It is reading the text with literary sensitivity.”
Prof. Ben Witherington, longtime faculty member at Asbury Theological Seminary and the author of more than 40 books, explains further that what the Greek word “morphe [form] means is the outward manifestation of the actual nature of something. It doesn’t refer to the mere appearance of something. This is why diverse translations, not just conservative ones have rendered the verse in question ‘being in very nature God, he did not consider the having of equality with God something to be taken advantage of”. In other words, here as elsewhere Paul is perfectly happy to include Jesus within the definition of deity. Indeed this very passage refers to how he pre-existed and took on human form.”...
Is the Trinity in the Bible?
There is yet a bigger problem for Newsweek, namely, the Trinity, which is branded “a fundamental, yet deeply confusing, tenet.” (To say that God is three in one certainly is confusing to many, but that doesn’t mean it is not true. I prefer to think of God’s complex unity as profoundly mysterious rather than confusing.)
Newsweek then asks: “So where does the clear declaration of God and Jesus as part of a triumvirate appear in the Greek manuscripts?”
The answer? “Nowhere. And in that deception lies a story of mass killings.”
Actually, the doctrine of the Trinity is deduced from the witness of the entire Bible, beginning in the Old Testament where: 1) God appears to individuals (or the nation of Israel) and yet elsewhere is said to be unseen (we believe that the Father is hidden and the Son is seen); 2) where prophecies indicate that the Messiah will be divine; and 3) where the Holy Spirit is spoken of in personal terms (he leads; he instructs; he can be grieved). The New Testament simply unfolds this in greater depth, based on which we believe in God’s tri-unity.
As for a specific statement in the Greek New Testament, Matthew 28:19 is sufficient. There, Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize new believers in “the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (Remember that Matthew was a Jewish monotheist, writing for fellow-Jewish monotheists, and so this formula is quite striking, speaking of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit on equal terms. Can you imagine immersing people into a new faith in “the name of God and of our denominational founder and of our favorite teacher”? That would be blasphemous.)
Newsweek either misunderstands what Christians believe about the Trinity or else intentionally oversimplifies those beliefs so to create a conflict where it doesn’t
What about the Mass Killings?...
But weren’t there very real theological conflicts in the Church that led to many deaths?...
The problem is that Newsweek’s investigation brings more heat than light. It is more destructive than constructive, it is terribly one-sided, and it is so laced with errors as to render it unusable..
.http://www.newsweek.com/response-newsweek-bible-299440
I have a 3 hour round trip commute, and have the entire bible on a thumb drive that I can plug into my dash stereo. I must confess that after listening to the books of the bible a LOT, I’m beginning to wonder how accurate some of it really is.
I’m wanting to separate the new testament into its separate books “physically” and rate them in authenticity separately.
I do, however, believe that many of the “contradictions” in the bible are really only contradictions in people’s interpretation of what it says. And before people take its words too literally, they may want to remember that the rooster crowed once before Peter denied Christ three times in Mark, but not until after he denied Christ three times in the others.
Is it a contradiction, or is it a lesson in getting the meaning of the phrases rather than the meaning of the words. If the latter, one is just plain wrong.
It makes me sad that so many people are deceived by the media in this way. Given the onslaught it is somewhat understandable.
When it comes to textual reliability, I urge people to make secular comparisons.
Think for example of the Gettysburg address. That is a real text that was authentically spoken by Lincoln right?
Well, why are there more than six different copies of the Gettysburg Address?
They don’t match. Several of the copies were actually provided by Lincoln himself and they still don’t match!
Maybe the Gettysburg address was a complete fiction?
I don’t believe that line of thinking but it makes sense if you are going to use the same reactionary logic of skeptics. Similar things can be said about all ancient writings from the Greeks like Aristotle.
If the Bible is an unreliable text then 30-80% of major texts on college campuses relating to historical matters are vastly more problematic.
The Bible actually has incredible textual verifiability. People can disagree with what it teaches if they choose— I don’t— but the text is incredibly good and is its own miracle in creation.
“Is it a contradiction, or is it a lesson in getting the meaning of the phrases rather than the meaning of the words. If the latter, one is just plain wrong.”
Actually, such minor discrepancies in testimony - even eyewitness testimony - are common and, when taken together, establish the truth of critical events. Moreover, those who allege that the gospels are the result of a “collective conspiracy” to “get the story straight” are dashed upon the rocks by testimonies which differ in such small detail.
If there were a conspiracy to “get the story right”, why do these discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses remain?
Critics can’t have it both ways: they cannot allege a conspiracy years after the events took place to purge such discrepancies and then condemn the Bible for having them!
But no one will ever accuse a Biblical critic of logical consistency.
The fact of the matter is, did a cock crow when Peter denied Jesus? Every one of the synoptic gospels says it did. That is the “big picture” people miss when they focus on the minutiae.
Newsweek is attacking the foundational text of my faith, The Bible. I wonder if they will notice that I don’t try to kill them for it...
What does this bold critic say about the Koran?
NEWSWEEK IS A failed LIBERAL JEWISH DIGITAL RAG....
sidney harman bought it for a buck and OVERPAID.
he was your typical libtard and whoever works there is of the same slant... I wonder if they get paid... his wife ended her political endeavors by chatting with israeli intel... and got cought..
Bookmarked.
Newsweek is owned by two evangelical Christians, who are apparently too cowed to exercise editorial control.
they may want to remember that the rooster crowed once before Peter denied Christ three times in Mark,
Peter would be the only one who would know first hand, and how could you forget something like that.
I believe the fact that the word ;Twice; being left off would not be a contradiction but only a detail not aware of by the other writers..
See here for a "common usage" understanding.
Typically those who claim errancy in scripture have been too lazy to research.
In all those Greek texts, when Mark ends Luke immediately begins. EXCEPT in one text. There the monk left a large space long enough to accommodate the last verses of Mark. So it was known that there was a longer ending at that time.
**As for a specific statement in the Greek New Testament, Matthew 28:19 is sufficient. There, Jesus instructs his disciples to baptize new believers in “the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”**
The apostles obeyed the Lord’s command in Matthew 28:19, and baptized in the name (singular) “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”, which is “Jesus”. Every DETAILED baptism (or DETAILED instruction of baptism) in Acts, was done in the name of Jesus: 2:38; 8:12,16; 10:48; and 10:5.
Jesus Christ declared that his name was not his own, but that he came in his Father’s name: “I am come in my Father’s NAME, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his OWN name, him ye will receive”. John 5:43.
The Son of God shows that to be the case here as well: “Father, glorify THY NAME. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” John 12:28
And again: “I have glorified THY NAME unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world..”. John 17:6. (And, by obedience to Christ’s command in Matthew 28:19, what NAME did those men use in baptism?...JESUS!
Joseph was commanded by the angel to call the Son’s name JESUS (Matt. 1:21). The writer of Hebrews says that the Son “hath by INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name than they” (the angels). Heb. 1:4. (remember John 5:43?)
And the name that sends the Holy Ghost, is JESUS: “..the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY NAME..”. John 14:26,
Paul reminded the saints at Rome, “Know ye not, that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” Romans 6:3
When reprimanding the saints at Corinth (that had become proud, bragging about who baptized them, instead of who they were baptized into), Paul said: “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” 1Cor. 1:13
**(Remember that Matthew was a Jewish monotheist, writing for fellow-Jewish monotheists, and so this formula is quite striking, speaking of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit on equal terms.**
(’formula’? now there’s some private interpretations at work)
Oh, it’s striking alright......strikingly unfortunate that trinitarians fail to see the command first initiated in Acts 2:38.
**Can you imagine immersing people into a new faith in “the name of God and of our denominational founder and of our favorite teacher”? That would be blasphemous.)**
(What do you call baptizing in the name of Jesus?)
On the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out, Peter preached the first post-ascension sermon to the lost. Who were convicted in their hearts, and responded by asking: “Men and brethern, what shall we do?”
Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call”. Acts 2:38,39.
**(Remember that Matthew was a Jewish monotheist, writing for fellow-Jewish monotheists, and so this formula is quite striking, speaking of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit on equal terms.**
You are reading your ‘separate and distinct, co-equal’ trinitarian opinion into what Matthew wrote.
Further, Jesus Christ said, “...my Father is greater than I”. (John 14:28)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.