[email protected] writes:
>
>You're right Charlie. Or, you would be if that is how things happened.
>There are roughly a million copies of the Bible distributed -each week-
>and it is available in roughly 2,300 languages. "Oral histories" came to
>an end with Moses.
>
>This isn't the parlor game of 'pass it on' played by a bunch of giggly
>kids ... this is "pass it on" played for keeps by serious-minded adults
>with their eye on the ball
>
>It is one thing to declare that the scriptures were adulterated. Knowing
>humans, it seems almost certain that they were. It is quite another to
>prove it.
>
>Bill
Actually, Bill, on a recent broadcast on NPR (actually perhaps as long as
a year ago), they talked about just that. Each time the Bible was
re-copied, the person copying might put notes in the margin. Often when
it was copied the next time, the person making that copy incorporated the
notes into the text. Therefore, the Bible that was translated into
multiple languages might actually be not exactly the same as (or quite far
from) the original text. They gave a specific example of a well-known
story from the New Testament where they actually had copies of the text in
its original forms (the ones copied by each scribe) that showed the
various steps of this well-known story and how the one commonly accepted
is not at all the original. The oldest text they found only reported the
deed, the "modern" version has punishment included, a quite severe one at
that. That being from the New Testament; one can only imagine how the
years from Moses forward were altered (not to even address the "blips" in
the oral recounts prior to writing). When they have the in-between copies
in the ancient form, that pretty much indicates the Bible used today is
not as each part was written originally, not even allowing for the
translation and culture errors. Heavens, even the Apostles who were there
wrote different things about the same events as presented in our "modern"
books.
I suspect that any ancient book recopied thousands of years by mortals
would have very similar outcomes. Human beings are not always prone to
pass on the facts but to alter them to suit their own purposes or even
memories (true of altered memories) and are certainly not photo-copy
machines. Like you said, "Pass-it-on" but accepted as true. Of course,
I've always liked the quote by a person who was offered the New Standard
Bible and responded with, "The King James version was good enough for
Christ and it's good enough for me."
My oldest son says, "I can help you if you are poor, I can help you if you
are hungry, but I can't help you if you are stupid." Note an ignorant
person can be taught, a stupid person won't be taught.
Glenna
(who enjoyed reading this off-topic but interesting thread)
Glenna Rose wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>You're right Charlie. Or, you would be if that is how things happened.
>>There are roughly a million copies of the Bible distributed -each week-
>>and it is available in roughly 2,300 languages. "Oral histories" came to
>>an end with Moses.
>>
>>This isn't the parlor game of 'pass it on' played by a bunch of giggly
>>kids ... this is "pass it on" played for keeps by serious-minded adults
>>with their eye on the ball
>>
>>It is one thing to declare that the scriptures were adulterated. Knowing
>>humans, it seems almost certain that they were. It is quite another to
>>prove it.
>>
>>Bill
>
> Actually, Bill, on a recent broadcast on NPR (actually perhaps as long as
> a year ago), they talked about just that. Each time the Bible was
> re-copied, the person copying might put notes in the margin. Often when
> it was copied the next time, the person making that copy incorporated the
> notes into the text. Therefore, the Bible that was translated into
> multiple languages might actually be not exactly the same as (or quite far
> from) the original text. They gave a specific example of a well-known
> story from the New Testament where they actually had copies of the text in
> its original forms (the ones copied by each scribe) that showed the
> various steps of this well-known story and how the one commonly accepted
> is not at all the original. The oldest text they found only reported the
> deed, the "modern" version has punishment included, a quite severe one at
> that. That being from the New Testament; one can only imagine how the
> years from Moses forward were altered (not to even address the "blips" in
> the oral recounts prior to writing). When they have the in-between copies
> in the ancient form, that pretty much indicates the Bible used today is
> not as each part was written originally, not even allowing for the
> translation and culture errors. Heavens, even the Apostles who were there
> wrote different things about the same events as presented in our "modern"
> books.
>
I think you should be using something other than NPR as a source of
theological reference. There are numerous books that discuss the history of
the canon. In actuality, the copying of scripture was taken very
seriously, there were numerous checks and cross-checks to assure that
documents were copied correctly. In Old Testament times, a single error on
a page led to the entire page being destroyed; they had a mechanism set up
in which the letters across and down were added up and checked (an analog
to our modern checksums). It's been several years since I attended a
lecture on this subject, but as far as New Testament, there are several
codices that trace back to just after the first century AD. Their origins
are geographically separated, but their contents are in agreement. Some of
the codice have missing sections in comparison to one another, but this is
not indication of something added elsewhere, it is more akin to sections
that either were not completed or lost.
As far as the comment regarding how the apostles wrote different things
about the same event, the best analogy for this is having several
eyewitnesses recount an event. Each person sees the event from a slightly
different perspective (while believers assert that scripture is inspired,
we also recognize that God used people in that activity who wrote about
what they saw and heard). So, while one person might focus on the color,
make and model of a car involved in the event, a second eyewitness may only
indicate a "vehicle" was involved and describe "the man" who was the
primary actor in the event, while yet a third person will talk about
the "three people" who were involved. None of these eyewitnesses would be
wrong or incorrect, they are just describing from a different view of the
same scene.
.. snip
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
"Maxwell Lol" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> In Old Testament times, a single error on
>> a page led to the entire page being destroyed;
>
>
> That's because they didn't have White-Out
Wonder how many times they got near the end of a page and thought "son of a camel! I'm keeping quiet
about this one"
Maybe his name really was Bejesus.
Mark & Juanita <[email protected]> writes:
> In Old Testament times, a single error on
> a page led to the entire page being destroyed;
That's because they didn't have White-Out
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Glenna Rose wrote:
>> Actually, Bill, on a recent broadcast on NPR (actually perhaps as long as
>> a year ago), they talked about just that. Each time the Bible was
>> re-copied, the person copying might put notes in the margin. Often when
>> it was copied the next time, the person making that copy incorporated the
>> notes into the text. >
> I think you should be using something other than NPR as a source of
> theological reference. There are numerous books that discuss the history
> of
> the canon. In actuality, the copying of scripture was taken very
> seriously, there were numerous checks and cross-checks to assure that
> documents were copied correctly. In Old Testament times, a single error
> on
> a page led to the entire page being destroyed; they had a mechanism set up
> in which the letters across and down were added up and checked (an analog
> to our modern checksums).
Y'think NPR has an agenda? Between the woodworking shows today I watched
several PBS commercials touting their impartiality, balance and depth.
Snickered at every one....
Know that the moderns are as zealous about letter by letter Torah as you
say, but still willing to bet there is the odd commentary co-opted from
somewhere along the way.
In the case of the New Testament, it was created from the writings deemed
suitable answers to issues of the time, with as many legitimate and
contemporary writings deliberately left out.