That's certainly true. Up until Luther and the Reformation the church kept bibles in Latin only, and most people couldn't read Latin (including the priests). The leaders in Rome told them what it said and what it meant and the priests passed that on to the people, while still giving services in Latin. Luther, along with having political and social issues with the church at large, read the Bible and thought it didn't agree with what the church was doing so he started pointing out problems and translated the thing into German.
That's certainly true. Up until Luther and the Reformation the church kept bibles in Latin only, and most people couldn't read Latin (including the priests). The leaders in Rome told them what it said and what it meant and the priests passed that on to the people, while still giving services in Latin. Luther, along with having political and social issues with the church at large, read the Bible and thought it didn't agree with what the church was doing so he started pointing out problems and translated the thing into German.
Originally posted by: datalink7
So, how do you like your steak?
I like mine medium-rare
When did this become a nef thread?
*nef*
Originally posted by: datalink7
So, how do you like your steak?
I like mine medium-rare
Same here, any more and you are ruining a perfectly good steak.
King James' scribes used a different version of the latin text than was used later by the scholars who compiled the NIV, iirc.
EA - I think you have a misconception in re: to biblical scholarship. Although the Vatican certainly wielded a lot of power at one point in time it is not the main source for biblical scholarship today. Most scholars can be found at "secular" colleges and universities, many to most archaeological digs are funded by universities and foundations which are not religious, most manuscripts are held by museums, universities and governments, not the Vatican.
There is no conspiracy...at least they haven't let me in on it
There is no conspiracy...at least they haven't let me in on it
Actually, if one does a real in-depth, serious check on the legitimacy of the Bible, then more points to it being written by God than man. This is the thing that gets me - most people who bash Christianity or the Bible - don't or haven't really studied deeply enough to make a serioous academic argument against it. (I'm not saying you personally - cause I don't know you or how much you have studied.) The little I have studied reveals more evidence pointing to the fact that the bible is the Word of God rather than written by man. One is entitled to their opinion on whether they want to believe the bible or not, but my thing is that they should have SOME academic basis for it. (I'm not talking about checking a website for a couple of minutes or reading some article by some crackpot organization like the Jesus seminar) Not just heresay or conjecture.
Now, I'm not saying I'm the expert on biblical academia, but from the little I have read and studied - a lot more points to the inerrancy and legitimacy of the Bible as being the Word of God. However, all the arguing and convincing doesn't really matter in the end. When it comes down to it - it is a person's choice whether to have faith and believe or not to believe.
In light of that i'm coming to realize that there are so many people who are EXTREMELY biased against Christianity and the Bible (especially on these forums) without really knowing why. More often than not - its not really a problem with Christianity per se, but most likely traces itself back to some type of relationship problem with a "Chrisitian." Please keeep the two seperate.
If people are going to disagree with something that is fine - everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if one is going to mock something or blast Christianity - at least have a studied, reasoned basis for why you are doing it. I'm not saying people are doing that in this thread (probably will happen tho :disgust: ) but lets have some INTELLIGENT DEBATES - none of these ridiculous FLAMEWARS. Just my two cents
EDIT: BTW I like my steak RARE - nice and pink all the way through
When it comes down to it - it is a person's choice whether to have faith and believe or not to believe.
How do you reconcile that argument with the rest of your post? How can we have an academic discussion or intelligent debate if that's how you determine the truth?
Another thing to consider... while the Vatican (and the Nicean council, 400 AD or something like that) had a great deal of power over the translation of the Bible, there are still copies of manuscripts (historally accurate) dating from around 100BC - there was a copy of the book of Isaiah and a majority of the Pentateuch. There are also fragments of the NT dating from 130AD on.
I think you misunderstand me - My point is this. Sometimes you can present all the hard facts backed by academia and scholarly work to support your views BUT no matter what you say or argue - there's no convincing someone. If a person really doesn't want to agree with it - they won't. Either you chose to believe or you don't. We COULD debate about the semantics that I used in my post - but most likely that will just disintegrate into a flame war (happens more often than not) - don't you agree?
Adding more: Faith should have basis in truth. True faith is not a "blind" faith in this sense. There will be times when you just simply "have to believe," despite what you might feel - but that belief is still based on SOME elements of truth.
When texts of the Old Testament had to be copied, Jewish scribes would undertake this. Here's how accurate they were...Let's say they were copying Genesis. They would first copy the entire book, by hand (obviously). They would then count each letter in the copy and in the original. They would then find the middle letter of each document. If the total number of letters and the middle letter of each document did not match, they would destroy the copy and make a new one. The Bible is regarded by archeologists and scholars around the world as the most historically accurate and most accurately preserved text ever.
Here's a great article regarding the reliability of the Bible. Read it, and let me know what you think.
So what about the *supposed* documents/scrolls referred to in the movie Stigmata? Whatever they're called. Do they exist? Where does one find more info about them, if they exist?
amish
amish
I believe another way to put it is the bible is the INSPIRED word of God. Scribes of old put down on tablets of brass,clay,gold, papyrus the stories and vestiges of things that happened contemporarily and as an historical record. It is a compliation of works by authors who where most assuredly inspired to express the things that are written.
I find it curious that so much importance to keeping records was evidenced in the old testement, such as family lineage. That supports much of what my Church holds as important and is foundation to what I believe, that families are important, that they should be remembered, that you should remember and honor your heritage. They where doing that 1000s of years ago. Why?
Because it is what our Lord wants us to do.
I find it curious that so much importance to keeping records was evidenced in the old testement, such as family lineage. That supports much of what my Church holds as important and is foundation to what I believe, that families are important, that they should be remembered, that you should remember and honor your heritage. They where doing that 1000s of years ago. Why?
Because it is what our Lord wants us to do.
I haven't seen Stigmata, so I might be wrong but I assume this is talking about non-canonical texts - other letters/gospels of that time that don't agree with the ones in the Bible and the church leaders decided to not include in the Bible at the council of Nicae. Whether those specific ones in the movie exist, there are many such as the Gospel of Thomas and II Infancy ... I would start with a search on google for non-canonical texts if you wanted to find out more about what they say, why they were left out, etc. -- you should definitely be able to find a copy of the Gospel of Thomas (basically a list of quotes that the author attributes to Jesus).
Trust in what the Bible says and that what was included was correct is definitely a matter of faith and one can argue how well that's grounded. Trust that the Bible hasn't really changed since it's been compiled is grounded in a study of history, and has about as much backing as historical fact as the existence of the Roman empire.
Stigmata was a Hollywood production, dramatized beyond any real level of historical importance. IIRC, there are only a few copies of the Gospel of St. Thomas (unlike the hundreds of near identical copies of the four main gospels).
The article covers some of that. But it is a general article regarding the reliability of the Bible. It's a really good read and covers both external and internal evidences that the Bible is reliable. The article is well researched.
I believe Stigmata was about the Gospel of Thomas...there's no secret there it's been kicking around for 2000 years.
I think you have stumbled on to a better point than the one you started with...namely the issue of what constitutes the Christian canon, even among Protestants and Catholics there is some disagreement. We are fairly certain that we have accurate copies of the books which make up the canon, whether other books should be included and for what reasons they are not considered 'inspired' is a much more contentious issue.
Also, as for the accuracy of Jewish scribes, yes they were extremely accurate, but they also made mistakes which are evident in some manuscripts (these are mistakes such as the wrong letter - such as a rosh instead of the daleth, or skipping an entire line).
I think you have stumbled on to a better point than the one you started with...namely the issue of what constitutes the Christian canon, even among Protestants and Catholics there is some disagreement. We are fairly certain that we have accurate copies of the books which make up the canon, whether other books should be included and for what reasons they are not considered 'inspired' is a much more contentious issue.
Also, as for the accuracy of Jewish scribes, yes they were extremely accurate, but they also made mistakes which are evident in some manuscripts (these are mistakes such as the wrong letter - such as a rosh instead of the daleth, or skipping an entire line).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter