Main theme in here is good, Lex is explaining that there is very little significant variation in Bible manuscripts (English translations being another matter):
Why are there so many different Bible translations, and which ones should we use?
UNLEARN the lies | 11.X.2018
Several things to say on this one, Lex is wrong on detail in more than one place:
- "During the first 1400 years of Christian history, all Bibles were handwritten copies ..."
I suppose you mean up to Gutenberg*, says this quibbler.
In fact, the very first decades, I don't think there were any Bibles, since a scroll is too small, by physical necessity to have more than one book.
For instance, if "Samuel" and "Kings" are now two books each, it is partly bc writing all of Samuel from "There was a man of Ramathaimsophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elcana, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliu, the son of Thohu, the son of Suph, an Ephraimite:" to "And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered holocausts and peace offerings: and the Lord became merciful to the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel," on one single scroll would be cumbrous.
While a book like Genesis has that size, about, a Torah scroll in a synagogue is set in a cask to make scrolling columns easier.
So, up to when there were codices, there were even no single volume Bibles.
However, this doesn't make your comment untrue, as you were not saying they existed all of the first 1400 first years of Christianity.
However, 0:53 "that were written and copied by hand, and most of the time, these copies were not made by scribes."
I thought the first writer in the NT era was educated as one. St Matthew was a Levite, and a Levite who was not serving in the temple at the least was a scribe, by training, even if he was doing tax collecting some time instead.
So, why would most of the time the copies NOT be made by precisely scribes?
Why would the Catholic Church have preferred amateurs over proper training, when starting out with at least one properly trained among the first disciples?
- 1455 is actually 1422 years after Christianity was founded - and as mentioned above we didn't have any one volume Bibles for more than just two decades, as far as I can see.
- 5:06 I was just thinking of Corpus Caesareum the other day.
Bellum Gallicum, Bellum Civile, and a few more (not sure if all are considered his).
One manuscript from a 10th C or so manuscript in Gaul, or France as it could begin to be called, because the Bellum Gallicum was of relevance to them. Plus later copies usually of it.
- 6:29 "For example, Matthew 17:21 is missing from the Critical Text."
Have you checked Matthew 17:20? Douay Rheims has this:
Gospel According to Saint Matthew Chapter 17
 But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.
This doesn't mean any verse content is missing, it means there is one division between verses less added.
You see, outside psalms, verses were added very late for reference. St Thomas Aquinas didn't have them, and only recently before him came the chapters.
In Matthew 17, the part when the father speaks has just one verse in DR, while KJV has one for fact of his speaking, other for what he says.
- 8:26 "In this verse, the majority text makes it clear that God was manifest in the flesh, but the Critical Text using the pronoun He leaves it unclear if it was God or someone else"
Textus Criticus would have been somewhat ... based on Codex Sinaiticus, right?
I have heard that the circumstances of finding the codex were such, that the monastery itself did not really care to call it a Bible (and the researchers concluded they were ignorant, who didn't know a Bible) and I have also seen JW (Watchtower Society) value Sinaiticus.
I suspect that it could be an Arian copy, and that it was tucked away in a lowly place in a monastery once the controversy was over. And that therefore, the monastery was not sure whether it could be called a Bible or not, as some would not qualify New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures as a Bible.
And that this is why it was preserved so long, because so little used.
12:09 "the Greek text says"
[already visible, Greek text plus] "purifying all foods"
Now, this does not mean that
NIVgets it right.
Why? Because the manuscript has no quotation marks. This means, Greek doesn't show whether "katharizon" (ending in omega nun, not omicron nun, that is important) refers to Jesus talking or to a masculine noun Jesus has mentioned while talking.
NIV takes a position and says it's about a masculine noun in the discourse of Christ. Bc, "purifying all foods" in the English language refers to what went immediaterly before, while this is not a Greek rule.
Now, is there a masculine noun in that discourse?
After checking Nestle Aland, no. All nouns from when He says to them in verse 18, all nouns He mentions Himself, are neuter nouns. They could not be qualified by "katharizon" ending in omega nun. He himself as saying this could be so qualified.
My dear, lear a little more about Greek grammar before recommending
NIV(and I'll be watching if you actually do that ...)
No, they do not have a bias only, they have a knowledge of the fact that grammatical context cannot be limited to the verse, since these divisions are very late and sometimes do cut through sentences, and that katharizon ending in omega nun, which is the masculine singular nominative ending for a participle like this, needs a masculine singular nominative behind it.
This can be the understood "he" within a verb form, but it cannot be any noun in the discourse Christ gave, so it must refer to Himself. If however it had been the whole process actually purifying, well, that nounless purely verbal "subject" would take a neutre participle and it would have been "katharizon" with omicron nun.
But in Nestle Aland, I find the ending in omega nun : καθαρίζων.
In Douay Rheims, I find Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?
In the wider context of the Vulgate:
Et ait illis : Sic et vos imprudentes estis? Non intelligitis quia omne extrinsecus introiens in hominem, non potest eum communicare :  quia non intrat in cor ejus, sed in ventrum vadit, et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas?
Now, in Latin "purgans" could be masculine, feminine or neuter. It could theoretically be, rather than the subject of "ait illis", the subject in previous sentence, namely, "omne extrinsecus introiens".
However, since "omne extrinsecus introiens" would be the "escas" themselves, and they are not purifying themselves and here they reappear in feminine plural.
Therefore, they could more properly be understoof of subject of "ait illis", namely Jesus.
However, if you would say that "since it could be neutre, it could refer to the process", no, in Latin that would be a gerund, not a participle (both are translated as present participle in both Greek and English). A gerund would be "purgando".
So, Vulgate also favours this as being a participle in masculine singular nominative, referring to Jesus.
- Obviously, you should have a translation approved by the Catholic Church.
- The Reformation happened for a reason.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Yes, there is a devil down in Hell, that is a reason ...
- What's that supposed to mean?
Also, the Devil isn't in hell. He's very much in our midst, as he is the master of this world.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Is he still the master of this world?
I'd say that title was taken from him on Calvary.
He's roaming in our midst, as are his minions, but his permanent adress is Hell.
What it is supposed to mean, is, that I think the Reformation was the Devil's work.
I'm Catholic and I went Catholic after studying the Reformation.
- Catholic traditions and dogma supersede Biblical truth. That's why the Reformation not only happened, but was necessary. Unfortunately, many of those traditions were still carried over into Protestantism. The idea that Satan rules the underworld is pagan, not Christian or even Jewish.
Show me one Bible verse that says Satan rules hell.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Catholic traditions and dogma supersede Biblical truth."
The supersession is of NT over OT.
"Show me one Bible verse that says Satan rules hell"
Show me one which says that either Testament, Old or New, every teaching needs a specific Bible verse?
"That's why the Reformation not only happened, but was necessary. Unfortunately, many of those traditions were still carried over into Protestantism."
Your idea is Islamistic, in so far as it states that Christian truth in its fulness was lost to the nations the Apostles were sent to very soon after they even started obeying Matthew 28:16-20.
If it was how come you can't take Muhammed as well as Luther or your latest Judaising parody of him?
Bc Muhammed contradicts the Bible? But so do you as far as Matthew 28:16-20 says sth about the Church.
Also, we certainly do not believe Satan rules all of the underworld, as for instance his only gain in Abraham's bosom was the righteous souls being kept out for a while from the Heaven he had been eternally cast out from, he couldn't touch them. Also the souls in Purgatory are righteous and he cannot touch them. When I said "Hell" I meant Gehenna, not Sheol.
- "Show me one which says that either Testament, Old or New, every teaching needs a specific Bible verse?"
I cannot believe that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question. A church MUST be accountable to the Bible. Otherwise, you could just make up anything you want and call it doctrine(the catholic church in a nutshell), or fabricate a whole new book and say that it's the latest revelation from God(the qur'an, the book of mormon). Do you not see the danger of such a view? This isn't a matter of telling a kid not to pull on a girl's pigtails, we're talking about the nature of the Devil and his place in creation. That sort of thing is too important to rely on anything other than the Word.
Galatians 1:8-9(YLT) "but even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be! As we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be!"
That passage describes my position perfectly. Notice that Paul repeated himself. It must have been important, right? From these words, he is declaring that those who preach the Gospel are to be held accountable if they stray. Even angels are not exempt from this decree. Accountability is not authority. Paul and the apostles submitted to the Word in every way, and this was a clear warning against those who would twist Christ's words for their own ends.
Colossians 2:8(YLT) "See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,"
That builds upon the verses from Galatians. This warns against those who would equate human fables and traditions with Christ's teachings(again, the catholic church).
Gehenna is not hell, but a burning landfill of refuse that existed outside Jerusalem in what is now called the Valley Hinnom. Christ referred to it as a contemporary example of ruin and destruction to drive his point about what awaits the wicked if they don't repent. Revelation cites the lake of fire as the final judgment of the wicked, where hell(Hades/Sheol) itself is also to be cast. There is no Biblical evidence for purgatory. All rest in Sheol until the resurrection, to be judged when Christ returns, not before.
The Bible is the truth. I will never give spiritual credence to anything else. The words of God and His son are the most important things on Earth, perfect and complete.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "I cannot believe that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question."
I note, instead of giving even one Bible verse saying "all teaching must be directly and clearly backed up by a Bible verse", which is what I defied you to do, you gave two Bible verses which say sth other AND give a reasoning, which, if I accepted it, I would be accepting a teaching without (so far) one single Bible verse to back it up.
"A church MUST be accountable to the Bible."
Once again, no Bible verse exactly saying that either.
"Otherwise, you could just make up anything you want and call it doctrine(the catholic church in a nutshell),"
No, this is not the "Catholic Church in a nutshell" since the Catholic Church is accountable to Bible and Tradition.
If you tried today to make up a doctrine which was not given by tradition from back at the Apostles, you would meet opposition from Catholics since it is not traditional.
For instance, Anti-Pope "Paul VI" defied aspects of Tradition in Nostra Aetate and Gaudium et Spes, that is why there are Catholics rejecting his "papacy" as a non-papacy.
And his sending pills to nuns raped in Africa during a revolutionary war defied good morals, meaning calling him a saint also defies Catholic tradition, that is why there are Catholics rejecting the "papacy" of "Pope Francis" as a non-papacy.
"or fabricate a whole new book and say that it's the latest revelation from God(the qur'an, the book of mormon)."
Not with Catholics, since through the clergy all Catholics are accountable to Bible and Tradition. It is Catholic dogma that revelation is closed. No new content can be added after the last Apostle left the earthly life. A "truth" can be upgraded to "dogma" (a truth which all Catholics must believe), but a novelty can't be upgraded to dogma.
"Do you not see the danger of such a view?"
I even see a danger with saying anyone can interpret the Bible, since this gives free room for inventing new understandings of Bible verses, or for that matter of mistranslating the Bible.
That is the precise rationale on which the Catholic Church condemned Protestantism.
"This isn't a matter of telling a kid not to pull on a girl's pigtails, we're talking about the nature of the Devil and his place in creation. That sort of thing is too important to rely on anything other than the Word."
Except that The Word Made Flesh told us to rely on His clergy. Several times over in fact (including my favourite proof text against Protestantism, Matthew 28:16-20).
Galatians' quote - note "different from what we did proclaim to you" ... St Paul was not limiting this to what he had written only.
Note also "anathema let him be!" - St Paul was speaking in a Church able to anathemise people, which we also see from a more purely disciplinary matter in Corinthians.
Roman Catholicism, with its rivals Greek Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians, makes the claim to be that Church still around. Yes, there are only five confessions you can get by "symmetric" anathema. Bishop against bishop (even if Pope against bishop involves an assymetric relation in anathema too).
"That passage describes my position perfectly. Notice that Paul repeated himself. It must have been important, right? From these words, he is declaring that those who preach the Gospel are to be held accountable if they stray. Even angels are not exempt from this decree."
Catholicism perfectly agrees.
"Accountability is not authority."
Accountability implies authority. This means, if you have one hundred Christians in a parish who all together are accountable, whether to "Bible alone" which is as un-Biblical as it is un-Traditional, or to Bible and Tradition, the Biblical and Traditional solution, there must be someone within them having authority to tell the others how to live up to this. Especially if an "anathema" is involved. The 100 Christians presumably involve some toddlers who have just learned to talk and some teens and some of them not even married yet, and it would be somewhat irrational to put all on an equal footing in this matter.
"Paul and the apostles submitted to the Word in every way, and this was a clear warning against those who would twist Christ's words for their own ends."
As far as I could see what happened in Reformation, that is exactly what English and Swedish and Genevan reformers actually did, which is why the warning was for them.
Colossians again does not speak of Bible alone, and Reformers owed lots of their understanding of Bible passages or of what constitutes idolatry to the "rudiments of men" called Humanist Renaissance learning.
"That builds upon the verses from Galatians. This warns against those who would equate human fables and traditions with Christ's teachings(again, the catholic church)."
I didn't see "traditions" in your quote.
"Gehenna is not hell, but a burning landfill of refuse that existed outside Jerusalem in what is now called the Valley Hinnom. Christ referred to it as a contemporary example of ruin and destruction to drive his point about what awaits the wicked if they don't repent. Revelation cites the lake of fire as the final judgment of the wicked, where hell(Hades/Sheol) itself is also to be cast. There is no Biblical evidence for purgatory. All rest in Sheol until the resurrection, to be judged when Christ returns, not before."
This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.
Gehenna as the landfill was where Christ got His nickname for what we usually call Hell. All resting to resurrection is a teaching we condemn.
"The Bible is the truth."
Yes, read correctly.
"I will never give spiritual credence to anything else."
Even if the Bible requires us to do so?
"The words of God and His son are the most important things on Earth, perfect and complete."
Which doesn't mean that NT books are quite as complete a guide to them as the totality of Catholic tradition.
- I apologize, but I cannot fathom how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian. I don't mean to be rude, but equating man-made tradition with scripture is clear heresy. You are putting your faith in men, not the Word. You're implying that the Gospel is incomplete, and by extension, that Christ failed in His ministry. If you don't see how that's a problem, then I can't help you.
Christ tasked His Apostles to carry on in His place, not to make it up as they went. Again, accountability is not authority by any stretch of the imagination. You completely missed the point of the passage from Galatians.
Although I'm not easily rattled, nothing frustrates me more than hypocrites, especially those within the church who ignore our Lord's teachings. As I recall, Christ had a lot to say about hypocrites. I suggest you read the epistles again, but imagine that Paul is writing to the catholic church instead. You'd be amazed at the parallels that may be drawn.
Stop praying to Mary, angels and your saints. Stop praying for the dead. Stop confessing your sins to a man. Stop performing your pagan rituals. Stop calling Sunday the Sabbath. Stop forced priestly celibacy. Stop counting your prayers on a rosary. Stop fetishism.
Only God can point you in the right direction, please seek Him out in earnest.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "I apologize, but I cannot fathom how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian."
Thanks for showiing yourself narrowminded and incomprehensive, deliberately set on misinterpreting Catholics.
"I don't mean to be rude, but"
We have some more important issues here than who is rude.
"equating man-made tradition with scripture is clear heresy."
I agree. As long as the tradition in question is MAN-MADE, that is POST-APOSTOLIC, it clearly is heresy.
That is the precise reason why I reject both more Classic Protestantism, starting some 14 - 15 Centuries after the Apostles, and the even more recent Evangelical tradition, which you clearly belong to, which started out sth like after Freemasonry even (that is after 1717).
"You are putting your faith in men, not the Word."
I am putting my faith in the Church which was founded by the Word as the Church of the Living God.
"You're implying that the Gospel is incomplete, and by extension, that Christ failed in His ministry."
Neither nore, I am implying that the written part of the NT would be incomplete without Apostolic tradition. But as the Apostolic tradition is there, Christ did not fail.
If you had been right, if we had to piece together original Christianity from Bible alone, Christ would have failed the promise given in Matthew 28:16-20.
"If you don't see how that's a problem, then I can't help you."
I am not asking you to, and you have more problems than helping me out, like helping yourself to not twist peoples actual words into whatever accusation best suits your defense for the indefensible reformation.
"Christ tasked His Apostles to carry on in His place, not to make it up as they went."
I totally agree on that one.
I also agree with the promise He gave them which implies one strand of clearly identifiable Apostolic tradition would last to the end of days.
Clearly identifiable means, it has to pass the test of Apostolic succession.
We cannot have one single day between Ascension and Doomsday, therefore not between Ascension and now either, when the Aposles did not have successors passing on exactly and precisely what they were supposed to pass on.
However, we can have Apostles not confiding every detail to writing (like the sign of the cross or the fasting on wednesdays and fridays), and we can have apostles confiding things to writing in such a way that some and even many would need tradition to know exactly what it meant, and that tradition would be necessary in order to get all of it right.
"Again, accountability is not authority by any stretch of the imagination."
Too bad you have too little imagination to see a very obvious point.
"You completely missed the point of the passage from Galatians."
Ah, you are conceding that the words as written can be misunderstood without tradition from those believing rightly?
Well, if so, who of us has a tradition going back to the Apostles? You or I?
"Although I'm not easily rattled, nothing frustrates me more than hypocrites, especially those within the church who ignore our Lord's teachings."
We are not within the same Church.
If the Catholic Church is what Christ founded and I belong to, feel assured, you are outside it.
"As I recall, Christ had a lot to say about hypocrites."
Yes, he specifically called one Jewish sect such, or even two (Pharisees and Sadducees are two different sects).
"I suggest you read the epistles again, but imagine that Paul is writing to the catholic church instead. You'd be amazed at the parallels that may be drawn."
Did you miss the point that St Paul was speaking about people keeping the old law and even considering it a matter of salvation?
"Stop praying to Mary, angels and your saints. Stop praying for the dead. Stop confessing your sins to a man."
Would you mind being precise about where in the Bible you get that admonition from?
I am neither getting it from Apostolic tradition, nor from any verse in the Writings of either Testament, as it is understood by the Catholic Church.
"Stop performing your pagan rituals."
I am sorry, but no verse in the Bible calls Catholicism Paganism.
"Stop calling Sunday the Sabbath."
Even if Christ told the Apostles to use it as the new Sabbath?
"Stop forced priestly celibacy."
Never was all over the Church and Pope Michael already did.
"Stop counting your prayers on a rosary."
What verse do you get that from?
Where in the Bible do you find a definition of "fetishism" and how exactly do you apply that to Catholicism?
"Only God can point you in the right direction, please seek Him out in earnest."
I would probably need to for my sins, but being too plagued by Protestants like you whenever I set my nose on the net, I do not find peace to do so.
I can't pray a rosary, and it's not the Hail Mary, except perhaps the "now" in the final part, it's more like "as we forgive those who trespass against us".
Protestants of some sort (perhaps ranging to Freemasons and Jews) have surrounded me, as to my internet activity, poking at me when I simply discuss matters, and the fact that I am in a Church you count as a trap for my soul is no reason to be impolite and play the father confessor to me. But also my readership is very well organised, my blogs getting around 600-700 readers per day, and youth being carefully kept away from them where I am.
Protestants are in a position to organise things like that.
You are losing the discussion or debate on the arguments, and you play the one "concerned for my salvation". That is a trump card you have no right to and that is real hypocrisy.
[+ Notified DMW of the fact this is reblogged. Sorry, DNW.]
- When it comes to dynamic translations, I think very many of them have Genesis 11:4 with a tower which reaches heaven - or even so tall it reaches heaven.
Word for word, no tallness is mentioned, and it specifically mentions that it is its top which reaches heaven. One could perhaps also translate the Hebrew word for "top" as "height", i e tallness, but both LXX and Vulgate have words meaning top.
And, I think this is significant.