Defining scripture in my dreams...LOL

[Provoker]

You have not provided a single scripture to support what you say,
Hello all...and especially John from Elba:

John, I hope that you will not take offense if I offer you a short short course on the scripture that we have...LOL
Neither Hebrew nor Greek, uses the same rules of composition as English, and therefore a word for word translation from one to the other would be virtually unreadable. The translators are obliged to interpret the sentences to determine the thought behind them, and then they must compose an equivalent, paraphrased, sentence, in English.
In order for the translators to interpret the sentences, they must rely on their own doctrinal understanding, or the doctrinal instructions of their employer(s).
If there is a conflict between what is actually written, and the translator's employers doctrinal beliefs, the translators resolve the problem by simply transliterating the offending words, rather than translating them, and then everyone can define the words as they want. Virtually every bible word which is associated with Christian beliefs, has been transliterated, and not translated, and transliteration has absolutely nothing to do with defining a word, it is simply writing a foreign word in English syllables so that it can be pronounced by an Anglophone.
Our English bible then, is doctrinally interpreted, and paraphrased, the pertinent words have been left un-translated, and the only part of the bible which is actually in English, is the paraphrasing between the untranslated key words.
Erasmus was the 16th century Dutch translator, who translated and published the first Greek new testament, and the first Latin new testament.
It is commonly thought that Erasmus simply assembled first century Koine Greek writings to form the Greek new testament, but first century Koine Greek was completely out of use by the end of the 4th century, and the Koine Greek of Erasmus' day was a completely different language(Byzantine), and Erasmus obviously had to translate from the early Koine Greek, so the so-called "original Greek" we refer to, is not even original Greek.
Then we quote one verse, out of a paragraph, because it has a word or two which we can fit into our dogma, and we think that we are quoting scripture...give me a break...LOL
The one thing in our English bibles, which can lead us to a proper understanding of the text, is the context.
In other words, the continuity of the complete story which runs right through the bible, is the greater context in which all the text was written, and in which all the text must be understood.
Context always trumps individual verses because the bible is written in story form, and it was definitely not written in verses. Verses must be understood in the context of the story scripture tells, and that common practice of using single verses to define the bible story, is a joke!!!
When I explain my opinions by pointing out the obvious chronological flow of the scriptural story, which all those who ever went to Sunday school will recognize, I am one heck of a lot closer to quoting scripture than anyone who quotes single verses, or single passages.
What do you think?

[James Peter]

The critism of Erasmus greek NT stands but the modern Nestle-Aland stands above those criticisms. Still its true that most, if not all, english bibles contain doctrinal glosses. And quoting a verse out of the context of the author's entire thought is very weak. The problem with the alternative is that we'd have to produce entire essays to justify each and every point. Of course, thats what us academic theologians do do - but its beyond most christians who are, to be honest, indoctrinated to one extent or another. Of course they trust the 'experts' who have taught them.

The real question is what can be done about it?

I don't know. Having everyone learn greek to a high enough standard is impractical. Leaving theological debates to experts also is probably not an option most will be happy with (and who would decide who was right?). I guess the only option is to have people read good translations with good commentaries and trust the Spirit to guide...

[Provoker]

The real question is what can be done about it?
Hello James Peter:
The real answer is; "Nothing"!!!
Any interpretation errors which may exist in orthodoxy, have been perpetuated for over 1500 years, and the story which clearly runs through the bible, is invisible to those who are already committed to a pre-conceived creed...LOL
I feel duty bound to accept personal responsibility for my bible beliefs, and I will not arbitrarily pick one of the thousands of disagreeing denominations, and commit to it's creed. I have a bible, an exhaustive concordance, an interest in personally seeking out the truth of the bible, and I form tentative opinions based on the preponderance of the evidence that I have, and I am prepared to change my opinions, if/when I find new evidence that is better than what I already have.
I discuss with other bible scholars, not to convert, because that would be impossible...LOL, but as a critical test of my own opinions, and on the chance that I might discover evidence which I may have missed.
I don't have any direct knowledge of anything which happened before I was a couple of years old, so I will never allow myself to think that I know enough about the bible to close my mind, and insist that my opinions are the truth.
Regarding Erasmus, the writings that he translated the Greek new testament from, are no longer extant, and I'm not aware of any English new testament which is based on earlier writings.
What do you think?

[John from Ebla]

Hello James Peter:
The real answer is; "Nothing"!!!
Any interpretation errors which may exist in orthodoxy, have been perpetuated for over 1500 years, and the story which clearly runs through the bible, is invisible to those who are already committed to a pre-conceived creed...LOL
I feel duty bound to accept personal responsibility for my bible beliefs, and I will not arbitrarily pick one of the thousands of disagreeing denominations, and commit to it's creed. I have a bible, an exhaustive concordance, an interest in personally seeking out the truth of the bible, and I form tentative opinions based on the preponderance of the evidence that I have, and I am prepared to change my opinions, if/when I find new evidence that is better than what I already have.
I discuss with other bible scholars, not to convert, because that would be impossible...LOL, but as a critical test of my own opinions, and on the chance that I might discover evidence which I may have missed.
I don't have any direct knowledge of anything which happened before I was a couple of years old, so I will never allow myself to think that I know enough about the bible to close my mind, and insist that my opinions are the truth.
Regarding Erasmus, the writings that he translated the Greek new testament from, are no longer extant, and I'm not aware of any English new testament which is based on earlier writings.
What do you think?

So where does all this leave the Hebrew scriptures- why speak English if what you say is true? Then, no point of uttering a word in English- for who knows where the original writing is- there is none- and make of the Hebrew Aramaic writing what you like, because to put it in English, no man can be trusted- unless you think a Jew is special and better.

So tell me, what verse from the Hebrew text are you going to take out to show mean an everlasting covenant exist-what verse are you going to take out to to show me a Jew is Better and trust worthy, did the Hebrew scrolls have verses? Does one verse prove anything?

From what you wrote and said, there is not a single “original” Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek scripture to prove anything. JUST PROVOKER SAYING WHAT HE WANTS :smile:


Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[James Peter]

Hello James Peter:
The real answer is; "Nothing"!!!

Sorry but thats unacceptable. Its just taking the easy way out and avoiding all responsibility. Only criticise if you are prepared to be constructive. There must be a better way of doing things (although not a perfect way). If how things are is the best they can be then don't criticise them. But I believe that there is room for improvement... But its the detail of that improvement that is difficult...


I feel duty bound to accept personal responsibility for my bible beliefs, and I will not arbitrarily pick one of the thousands of disagreeing denominations, and commit to it's creed. I have a bible, an exhaustive concordance, an interest in personally seeking out the truth of the bible, and I form tentative opinions based on the preponderance of the evidence that I have, and I am prepared to change my opinions, if/when I find new evidence that is better than what I already have.
I discuss with other bible scholars, not to convert, because that would be impossible...LOL, but as a critical test of my own opinions, and on the chance that I might discover evidence which I may have missed.

And that is the most any of us can do. To look at the evidence and arrive at conclusions and be responsible for what we say, do and believe.


Regarding Erasmus, the writings that he translated the Greek new testament from, are no longer extant, and I'm not aware of any English new testament which is based on earlier writings.
What do you think?

Sorry but I think you're entirely wrong here. What texts did Erasmus have access to which we no longer have? However many texts have been discovered over the last 4 centuries, many of which are older and more reliable than those he had access too. The Nestle-Aland is the work of very, very good scholars (there is a reason it is the edition used by pretty much the entire of academia). Whilst there are some points where we cannot be 100% sure what the original texts said we do know the options and roughly the balance of probabilities. The same situation exists with Hebrew, Aramaic etc. Textual Critism is very much a field for experts where non-experts (even those with PhDs in NT studies etc) simply stand back and watch for the most part. To be honest, I don't see that as a problem.

[Provoker]

So where does all this leave the Hebrew scriptures- why speak English if what you say is true? Then, no point of uttering a word in English- for who knows where the original writing is- there is none- and make of the Hebrew Aramaic writing what you like, because to put it in English, no man can be trusted- unless you think a Jew is special and better.

So tell me, what verse from the Hebrew text are you going to take out to show mean an everlasting covenant exist-what verse are you going to take out to to show me a Jew is Better and trust worthy, did the Hebrew scrolls have verses? Does one verse prove anything?

From what you wrote and said, there is not a single “original” Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek scripture to prove anything. JUST PROVOKER SAYING WHAT HE WANTS :smile:


Kind Regards
John From Ebla

Well John:
As you know, I qualify what I say as opinion and not the truth, and I freely admit there are many problems in making good interpretation. Most bible scholars speak as if everything they say is absolutely true, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
We all hold our scriptural opinions by faith, not knowledge, and the honest among us will not want to stick their heads in the sand if there are major problems with scripture, and they will be quick to use any new tool which might help them interpret more accurately. Of course, those who are committed to their doctrines right or wrong, will fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo...LOL
As to suggesting that the Jews were somehow better, I did not do that!
The old testament books were written and disseminated long before the first century, and always remained in the hands of the authors' descendants, so it is my opinion that apart from contradictions in the details, they still tell the same basic story, which appears to be the history of a people.
The new testament writings, on the other hand, were mostly written by Jews, but came under the control of gentile Romans very early on in history, and Rome certainly had a vested interest in convincing the Jews that they should not try to resurrect the Davidic kingdom, so it is something to be considered.
Since we know "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the old testament contains dozens of contradictions in the details, but the basic background story remains straight and clear in spite of the detail errors, I have to assume that the basic background story is more accurate than the details, and that it can be an important key to properly understanding the details.
If the details appear to conflict with the continuity of the flowing background history, then it is reasonable to look for an interpretation, of those details, which will bring them into the context of the background history.
Everyone who discusses the bible, says what he wants, and I am simply suggesting that there is another tool for making bible interpretation more accurate, and that is something that every honest bible scholar should want...LOL

[Provoker]

Sorry but thats unacceptable. Its just taking the easy way out and avoiding all responsibility. Only criticise if you are prepared to be constructive.
Hello James Peter:
Don't be sorry...LOL I do not discuss the bible as a teacher, but as a lifetime bible scholar, so I cannot be responsible for anyone but myself, and any "criticism" is constructive if it causes people to look past their dogmatic committment and become aware that there is more than they know.
There must be a better way of doing things (although not a perfect way). If how things are is the best they can be then don't criticise them.What I am discussing here is what I believe to be a better way of interpreting the bible, and unfortunately, to make that point, the current method must be criticized. But I believe that there is room for improvement... But its the detail of that improvement that is difficult...Those who are pre-committed to pre-conceived dogma, are not interested in improvement because they don't believe there can be improvement. Bible scholarship to most people is simply learning what someone else says about the bible...LOL
And that is the most any of us can do. To look at the evidence and arrive at conclusions and be responsible for what we say, do and believe.Absolutely, but there is the possiblity that we don't have all the evidence, and if we don't keep an open mind, our pre-committments will cause us to reject any new evidence.
Sorry but I think you're entirely wrong here. What texts did Erasmus have access to which we no longer have? However many texts have been discovered over the last 4 centuries, many of which are older and more reliable than those he had access too.I have read several times that the texts Erasmus used, are non-extant, and if as you suggest, they can somehow be determined to have been later and less reliable than texts used for later translations, it simply shows that there is a reliability problem with early **copies**, which are most likely copies of copies, of copies, etc. The Nestle-Aland is the work of very, very good scholars (there is a reason it is the edition used by pretty much the entire of academia). Whilst there are some points where we cannot be 100% sure what the original texts said we do know the options and roughly the balance of probabilities. The same situation exists with Hebrew, Aramaic etc. Textual Critism is very much a field for experts where non-experts (even those with PhDs in NT studies etc) simply stand back and watch for the most part. To be honest, I don't see that as a problem.I don't see that as a problem either, because I do not see myself as in competition with any bible "experts", or any denomination/sect of Christianity. I have dealt with "experts" all my life, and I am aware of the limitations of "expertism"...LOL I personally think that the less one specializes(expert), the bigger picture he can see, and consider. Bible scholarship is not a precise thing, but when it becomes limited to specific methodologies taught in school, it becomes a trade which is performed from memory, not from understanding, and while it is good to know the different methodologies, it is also good not to limit one'self to the standard methodologies, but to keep an open mind.
What do you think?

[James Peter]

Firstly out of interest as you describe yourself as a 'lifetime bible scholar' I'm curious as to what your academic background is. Just to know where you're coming from. I guess the most accurate description of me is a 'scholar in training'; I don't have my doctorate yet but I'm working towards it.

The thing is I'm commited to understanding what 'the Scriptures' actually say and mean (i.e. what the men who wrote them thought they were saying). Out of that comes an understanding of the core of the 'christian faith' which can then be used to educate and correct the church. That is my ultimate aim, to do what I can to fix the failings of the church of God. Just like Luther I feel it is my duty to do so. God is truth, so there is no need to be afraid of what is true (as the quote in my signature says).

Ok, you can just criticise and hope that you persuade people to abandon their current beliefs but what does that achieve? Its simply tearing down for its own sake and it harms people. I'd rather offer an alternative; bring people closer to God rather than drive them from him. I'm not saying not to attack the current systems, I'm saying that the most virtuous thing to do is to attack in order to heal and rebuild. Don't just say that something is wrong, also say what is right.

Those who are pre-committed to pre-conceived dogma, are not interested in improvement because they don't believe there can be improvement. Bible scholarship to most people is simply learning what someone else says about the bible...

Sure there are and such people are beyond hope unless you have an entire system to offer them which is well-argued. If you just attack their premises then they'll just think you're an enemy of the gospel and retreat into the safety of their dogmatics. You achieve nothing except to drive people from your message and to frustrate yourself.

Absolutely, but there is the possiblity that we don't have all the evidence, and if we don't keep an open mind, our pre-committments will cause us to reject any new evidence.

Do you see me arguing to ignore evidence? I say use all the resources at our disposal. Always question. New discoveries can always destroy old theories but thats the very nature of scholarship. We work with what we have and come to conclusions based upon that, always aware that tomorrow a first century codex could be discovered in the sands of Israel that will change everything...

I have read several times that the texts Erasmus used, are non-extant, and if as you suggest, they can somehow be determined to have been later and less reliable than texts used for later translations, it simply shows that there is a reliability problem with early **copies**, which are most likely copies of copies, of copies, etc.

We know there are problems but we can also be fairly confident of our solutions. N-A doesn't just work from a few codecii, they work from every single text that we have. That includes single passage citations in other texts and certainly includes Erasmus' work. But Erasmus only provides a small fraction of testimony to the early text. New discoveries can change old conclusions remember? There have been many new discoveries in 400 years.

[Provoker]

Firstly out of interest as you describe yourself as a 'lifetime bible scholar' I'm curious as to what your academic background is.
Hello James Peter:
"lifetime bible scholar" simply means that I will always be a bible scholar, and never allow myself to reach a point where I think that I know so much that I can close my mind...LOL
I began personally studying the bible in 1957, I graduated from high school in 1960, and have been studying the bible, off and on, ever since.
I found that orthodox Christianity requires the acceptance of unsupportable, unscriptural, man-made doctrines, as a starting point, so I began to study the bible in the context of it's own story, and worked very hard to avoid any doctrinal preconceptions.
I extrapolated from the chronology of old testament historical events, and found that, even though orthodoxy interprets the new testament as a radical departure from the old, the events of the new testament are actually a logical extension of the old testament story. Then I interpolated from the chronology of all the historical events of the whole bible, to logicly interpret the details which tie all the historical events together.
Basicly, my method is to interpret scripture according to the continuity of the story it tells.
I don't expect to be taken seriously, as I test my honest opinions through discussion with other bible scholars.
There have been many new discoveries in 400 years.
Yes, and if I was a famous bible scholar with great academic credentials, mine might be one of them...LOL

[Cynic Sage]

Hello James Peter:
"lifetime bible scholar" simply means that I will always be a bible scholar, and never allow myself to reach a point where I think that I know so much that I can close my mind...LOL
I began personally studying the bible in 1957, I graduated from high school in 1960, and have been studying the bible, off and on, ever since.
I found that orthodox Christianity requires the acceptance of unsupportable, unscriptural, man-made doctrines, as a starting point, so I began to study the bible in the context of it's own story, and worked very hard to avoid any doctrinal preconceptions.
I extrapolated from the chronology of old testament historical events, and found that, even though orthodoxy interprets the new testament as a radical departure from the old, the events of the new testament are actually a logical extension of the old testament story. Then I interpolated from the chronology of all the historical events of the whole bible, to logicly interpret the details which tie all the historical events together.
Basicly, my method is to interpret scripture according to the continuity of the story it tells.
I don't expect to be taken seriously, as I test my honest opinions through discussion with other bible scholars.

Yes, and if I was a famous bible scholar with great academic credentials, mine might be one of them...LOL

But seriously, what are your credentials?

[Provoker]

But seriously, what are your credentials?
Hello Johnny:
If by credentials, you mean; who's opinions have I been taught? the answer is that I have not been taught anyone's opinions.
However, the unofficial credentials that I have are; a reasonable command of English composition rules, a reasonable amount of common sense and logic, and a "hopefully" unbiased committment to seeking the truth of the bible.
Da Vinci said; He who in discussion, appeals to credentials, argues from memory, not from understanding:-)

[Cynic Sage]

Hello Johnny:
If by credentials, you mean; who's opinions have I been taught? the answer is that I have not been taught anyone's opinions.
However, the unofficial credentials that I have are; a reasonable command of English composition rules, a reasonable amount of common sense and logic, and a "hopefully" unbiased committment to seeking the truth of the bible.
Da Vinci said; He who in discussion, appeals to credentials, argues from memory, not from understanding:-)

:lmbo:

:bump:

[Provoker]

:lmbo:

:bump:
Hello Johnny:
It took you long enough, so what are you trying to say???...LOL

[Cynic Sage]

Hello Johnny:
It took you long enough, so what are you trying to say???...LOL
That from what you have told us here, you have been misrepresenting yourself as a Bible-Scholar.

[Provoker]

That from what you have told us here, you have been misrepresenting yourself as a Bible-Scholar.
Hello Johnny:
I don't think that you and I have the same definition of "bible scholar".
To me, a bible scholar is one who seriously studies the bible, and forms opinions based on the evidence that he finds. This should not be confused with one who has simply been taught how to present and defend the doctrines of previous bible scholars.
I want to thank you for responding Johnny, because when debaters realize that they were never taught an arguement against the true bible story of Christianity, they usually just run away...LOL
How do you think a bible scholar should be defined, and why?