Comments on: Unfounded Prejudice against the Bible http://thri.ca/archives/66 Veritas Pulchritudo Est Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:40:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: thrica http://thri.ca/archives/66/comment-page-1#comment-3179 thrica Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:55:24 +0000 http://www.thrica.com/blog/archives/66#comment-3179 As far as original manuscripts go, the New Testament was written recently enough so as to have reliable copies, if not the originals themselves. IIRC, there were dozens/hundreds (I forget the exact range, but it was a lot. I'll research it more) copies made of the original texts, so I don't think it's as easy to mistranslate as it seems. Also, where did you hear about transcribing into the different gospels? I'd never heard that before. As for the second comment - regarding the virgin birth, I would say that that's no less a miracle of divine intervention on Earth than water into wine and since it was one instance isn't really subject to scientific disproval if you believe in the miracles. Creationism is really subject to a lot more ridicule than it probably deserves, but http://answersingenesis.org/ is a good site about that. It's definitely a thought-provoking contrast to what usually gets thrown around. There's definitely culture evident in the Bible (Paul references a lot of Greek things and stuff like that, and also the Jewish culture in the entire OT), but as God-breathed scripture, I'd say one should be careful attributing elements of it to culture. I definitely agree that there can be reasoned arguments against the Bible (or at least against an orthodox interpretation), just that those first four in the article aren't. I enjoy talking about stuff like this a lot with people who use them (like right now). As far as original manuscripts go, the New Testament was written recently enough so as to have reliable copies, if not the originals themselves. IIRC, there were dozens/hundreds (I forget the exact range, but it was a lot. I’ll research it more) copies made of the original texts, so I don’t think it’s as easy to mistranslate as it seems. Also, where did you hear about transcribing into the different gospels? I’d never heard that before.

As for the second comment – regarding the virgin birth, I would say that that’s no less a miracle of divine intervention on Earth than water into wine and since it was one instance isn’t really subject to scientific disproval if you believe in the miracles. Creationism is really subject to a lot more ridicule than it probably deserves, but http://answersingenesis.org/ is a good site about that. It’s definitely a thought-provoking contrast to what usually gets thrown around.

There’s definitely culture evident in the Bible (Paul references a lot of Greek things and stuff like that, and also the Jewish culture in the entire OT), but as God-breathed scripture, I’d say one should be careful attributing elements of it to culture.

I definitely agree that there can be reasoned arguments against the Bible (or at least against an orthodox interpretation), just that those first four in the article aren’t. I enjoy talking about stuff like this a lot with people who use them (like right now).

]]> By: William Randolph http://thri.ca/archives/66/comment-page-1#comment-3178 William Randolph Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:22:25 +0000 http://www.thrica.com/blog/archives/66#comment-3178 Second, one argument that i've been hearing a lot is that the bible holds a lot of then current cosmology that makes absolutely no sense when looked at now. They use this as an example to show that despite our confidence in its historicity, it has a lot of things that are scientifically, physically or just generally wrong or not accepted as possible. Excluding miracles, there are examples of cultural biases throughout the old testament and these show that the bible, while maybe thought of as word of God back then, cannot be taken as such without putting it through the filter that it was written in a culture, by a culture. This, i have heard argued, shows that the bible cannot be taken literally (especially in the case of creationism, virgin birth, etc) Second, one argument that i’ve been hearing a lot is that the bible holds a lot of then current cosmology that makes absolutely no sense when looked at now. They use this as an example to show that despite our confidence in its historicity, it has a lot of things that are scientifically, physically or just generally wrong or not accepted as possible. Excluding miracles, there are examples of cultural biases throughout the old testament and these show that the bible, while maybe thought of as word of God back then, cannot be taken as such without putting it through the filter that it was written in a culture, by a culture. This, i have heard argued, shows that the bible cannot be taken literally (especially in the case of creationism, virgin birth, etc)

]]> By: William Randolph http://thri.ca/archives/66/comment-page-1#comment-3177 William Randolph Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:18:03 +0000 http://www.thrica.com/blog/archives/66#comment-3177 I think there are two problems with this post. Most of the "original manuscripts" that we take for our translations are actually a few centuries after. The problem with them, since they are so close, is that in different areas you find different passages included and excluded. The transcribing/translating process was so difficult back then that it was easy to mistranslate, transcribe passages that you have already translated in earlier gospels into different gospels (in the case of cannonical gospels) and insert what the scribe believed/had heard without anyone noticing. Even if you read a believing Catholic Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson, he'll admit that all of these can happen (though he also poses that it doesn't really matter). I listened to a wonderful lecture series by Johnson that i got from my father. I'll see if i can get it again and loan it to you. I think you'd really enjoy it. I think there are two problems with this post. Most of the “original manuscripts” that we take for our translations are actually a few centuries after. The problem with them, since they are so close, is that in different areas you find different passages included and excluded. The transcribing/translating process was so difficult back then that it was easy to mistranslate, transcribe passages that you have already translated in earlier gospels into different gospels (in the case of cannonical gospels) and insert what the scribe believed/had heard without anyone noticing. Even if you read a believing Catholic Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson, he’ll admit that all of these can happen (though he also poses that it doesn’t really matter). I listened to a wonderful lecture series by Johnson that i got from my father. I’ll see if i can get it again and loan it to you. I think you’d really enjoy it.

]]>