CNN: Passions over 'prosperity gospel': Was Jesus wealthy?

[AsburySkinsFan]

First I want to say it seems weird to be discussing this openly on the Skins forum, and yet I take joy knowing I have many brothers and sisters in Christ on this board. It brings a smile to my face to know this, and I offer the following in the hopes it will encourage and let you know you are not alone in seeing some of these things.

Every once and awhile we get a good theology thread rolling here, and its awesome, I love it so much; even the haters.

I really do encourage anyone reading this thread who is struggling with these same ideas, to take a good read through Romans, Ephesians, and Galations. When read in context, the whole of scripture, and the point of faith becomes very clear, in fact so clear that it becomes clear that even the patriarchs were saved by their faith, not so much by their works.

I agree completely, and I refer to it as listening to the whole chorus of scripture rather than piece-mealing pet passages, and when you hear the entire chorus then IMO Wesleyan/Arminian theology (free-will response to grace) seems the only conclusion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Do you know the history of Christianity? I mean the story outside the bible?

Nah, the Church History courses were optional so I took basket weaving instead. Yes, I know my church history.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually in the oldest manuscripts there is no definite article before the word root, so it may be better stated as a root of evil.

Wow, nice catch, had to look it up and you're right.

This is a rough translation, and probably needs some polishing.

Having the full verse in context helps too, imagine that.

BTW, don't look now but we're doing the community thing again.

KJV 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

Darn you King Jimmy!!!

The following are all contemporary translations (i.e. last 50 years), this should help us to answer the question about why there needs to be new translations.

ESV 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

NAU 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

NIV 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

I don't like the "at the root" here.

NLT 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.

NRS 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.

[DRSmith]

Not a big fan of the KJV but given the previous 1000 years and limited availability of bibles it served a purpose, finding older manuscripts helped. Also increases in the number of people who are educated and can understand Greek and Hebrew helped.

Very often a study of the original wording can make a difference espicially hebrew since large parts of the OT are quoted in the NT. To read what was written originally can really change ones Christology?

Never got that whole term, since in order to be a Christ one has to be anointed and if being a Christ made one God then people must rethink Moses.

[boobiemiles]

Nah, the Church History courses were optional so I took basket weaving instead. Yes, I know my church history.

Then you know the Christianity was an evolution not a creation in one single moment. Christianity was influenced by social and political pressure. I always felt religion was a quest to gain knowlegde, and be enlightened. A search for truth.

You are like my mother. She firmly base her religion on scripture. You can catch her in church catching the Holy Ghost. When I speak to her about things I learned, she will retort "where in the bible, is that?" That made me look for truth outside of the dogma I was born in. The fire and brimstone stuff didn't answer my questions. To say we are all saved by the blood of Christ didn't answer my questions. I didn't feel it in my heart. We are all beings that thirst for knowlegde. Sometimes that quest is condemned, like the story of Adam and Eve. If you think about it, we codemned Eve for defying god's will. She ate from the tree of knowlegde, what is wrong with trying to learn? What is wrong about trying to know more than you know today? How is that evil? How is it original sin, when you don't know what is sin in the first place. We all try to learn by doing. We are design that way.

[Mickalino]

Never got that whole term, since in order to be a Christ one has to be anointed and if being a Christ made one God then people must rethink Moses.

I don't follow you here, with the Moses reference.

Are you implying that Moses was referred to as "a Christ" in the Bible ?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not a big fan of the KJV but given the previous 1000 years and limited availability of bibles it served a purpose, finding older manuscripts helped. Also increases in the number of people who are educated and can understand Greek and Hebrew helped.

You're absolutely right, the hardest part is getting people to move beyond the KJV and stop lifting that one translation up as if it was the book Jesus carried.

Very often a study of the original wording can make a difference espicially hebrew since large parts of the OT are quoted in the NT.

You couldn't be more right. I love working with the languages, because you find stuff like the "a root of all kinds of evil" which completely reshapes the translation of the passage and its subsequent interpretation. (BTW, translation and interpretation are not necessarily the same thing. Although some interpretation inevitably happens during translation; the interpretation happens afterwards.

To read what was written originally can really change ones Christology?

Never got that whole term, since in order to be a Christ one has to be anointed and if being a Christ made one God then people must rethink Moses.

Being Christ/Messiah does not make one God, in fact all of the things that point to Jesus as Messiah are not extra-ordinary in and of themselves. What's more is that the Jewish Messianic expectation was not that the Messiah would be divine, but that the Messiah would be like Moses. However, God chose to send his only begotten to be the Christ/Messiah. This is why its called a high Christology, because it understands Jesus as the divine Messiah not just "the Messiah". Messiah simply means: anointed one, or deliverer.

[DRSmith]

I don't follow you here, with the Moses reference.

Are you implying that Moses was referred to as "a Christ" in the Bible ?

In Hebrews 11:

26 because he esteemed the reproach of the Christ as riches greater than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked intently toward the payment of the reward

The similarities between Jesus and Moses are numerous, including the fact both chose to leave a better life to suffer and help others.

[DRSmith]

Being Christ/Messiah does not make one God, in fact all of the things that point to Jesus as Messiah are not extra-ordinary in and of themselves. What's more is that the Jewish Messianic expectation was not that the Messiah would be divine, but that the Messiah would be like Moses. However, God chose to send his only begotten to be the Christ/Messiah. This is why its called a high Christology, because it understands Jesus as the divine Messiah not just "the Messiah". Messiah simply means: anointed one, or deliverer.

Actually two passages in the OT allow for him to come from above.

Psalms 8:5 which Paul quotes in Hebrews. And in Daniel where someone like the appearance the son of man is brought in before the Ancient of Days. Which also allows for a 2ND coming, since he is seen coming in the clouds in Daniel and on the ass in Zechariah.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't follow you here, with the Moses reference.

Are you implying that Moses was referred to as "a Christ" in the Bible ?

Yes, if not directly then indirectly. Moses was a deliverer which is a definition of Messiah/Christ. This involves expanding the usage of "Christ" to more than "the Divine son of God" to "A deliverer or anointed one". Which Moses was and as a matter of fact when reading Matthew its hard to miss how Matthew is showing us that Jesus is the perfection and the superior of Moses as deliverer.

Moses saved from death as an infant: Jesus saved from death as an infant

Moses called out of Egypt: Jesus called out of Egypt

Moses went into the wilderness: Jesus went into the wilderness

Moses gave the law: Jesus fulfilled the law

Then at the Transfiguration Jesus is there with Moses and Elijah, and Jesus is exalted above Moses.

[SnyderShrugged]

I learn so much from these really enjoyable threads.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Actually two passages in the OT allow for him to come from above.

Psalms 8:5 which Paul quotes in Hebrews. And in Daniel where someone like the appearance the son of man is brought in before the Ancient of Days. Which also allows for a 2ND coming, since he is seen coming in the clouds in Daniel and on the ass in Zechariah.

Sure, but that wasn't really the expectation of the people, or else Judas Maccabeus wouldn't have been thought by some to be the Messiah.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I learn so much from these really enjoyable threads.

As do we all. I love these things and the sad thing is they have been pretty rare lately.

[DRSmith]

Yes, if not directly then indirectly. Moses was a deliverer which is a definition of Messiah/Christ. This involves expanding the usage of "Christ" to more than "the Divine son of God" to "A deliverer or anointed one". Which Moses was and as a matter of fact when reading Matthew its hard to miss how Matthew is showing us that Jesus is the perfection and the superior of Moses as deliverer.

Moses saved from death as an infant: Jesus saved from death as an infant

Moses called out of Egypt: Jesus called out of Egypt

Moses went into the wilderness: Jesus went into the wilderness

Moses gave the law: Jesus fulfilled the law

Then at the Transfiguration Jesus is there with Moses and Elijah, and Jesus is exalted above Moses.

Both mediated a convenant.

Moses brought the passover, and Jesus the Lord's meal

[DRSmith]

Sure, but that wasn't really the expectation of the people, or else Judas Maccabeus wouldn't have been thought by some to be the Messiah.

There was also a time line given.

People do not change there were many looking to anyone to be their messiah to do what they wanted, some left off following Jesus because he did not fulfill their expectations.

Jesus from birth to death was fully human that is why he could be called son of man.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Moses brought the passover, and Jesus the Lord's meal

That kinda makes it sound like two different things; how about

Moses brought the passover: Jesus fulfilled the passover and focuses the seder on himself through the changes he made in the seder liturgy.

[DRSmith]

That kinda makes it sound like two different things; how about

Moses brought the passover: Jesus fulfilled the passover and focuses the seder on himself through the changes he made in the seder liturgy.

It was the first passover meal was part of the old covenant, Jesus brought the new one prophesied in Jeremiah and with it a new meal, the difference being the lamb that was eaten in the original passover was replaced by Jesus.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It was the first passover meal was part of the old covenant, Jesus brought the new one prophesied in Jeremiah and with it a new meal, the difference being the lamb that was eaten in the original passover was replaced by Jesus.

Oh I'm aware of that, but its not really new instead it the fulfillment of the passover where Jesus orients the bread to himself, and the Elijah cup (who already came in the person of John the Baptist) is now the blood of the offering.

[DRSmith]

Oh I'm aware of that, but its not really new instead it the fulfillment of the passover where Jesus orients the bread to himself, and the Elijah cup (who already came in the person of John the Baptist) is now the blood of the offering.

You can almost take the entire OT and lay the NT on top of it with the OT being the scale model to sort of help us understand.

Abraham offering up Issac is a good example.

[Veretax]

Oh I'm aware of that, but its not really new instead it the fulfillment of the passover where Jesus orients the bread to himself, and the Elijah cup (who already came in the person of John the Baptist) is now the blood of the offering.

ACtually Technically Jesus fullfilled the passover, by being the pass over lamb, with the rest of us in the position of being the freed one. The Lords Supper is probably more in line with the feast of unleavened bread, which happens around the same time as I recall.

ACtually now that I reread your statement, i realize that may be what you were trying to say., so apologies if I missed that.

[techboy]

Christianity has evolved since its inception. There was the apocrapha. I mean you can't be rigid and say "there is no understanding but this one". The Book of Thomas (an omitted book because it was seen as making Jesus a Nostic) make salvation a personal endevour.

We reject books like Thomas as valid for the same reason modern Jesus historians don't use them, which is the reason the early Christians themselves rejected them (and they're the ones who were in the best position to judge): they are very late, and often contradict things we know from earlier writings to be true.

The following quotations are taken from Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels, by Dr. Craig A. Evans.

First, on why the New Testament texts are considered to be the best sources of information about Jesus (pg.55):

Not only do the earliest New Testament Gospel sources date to the middle of the first century, Paul also refers to Jesus' teaching, to his words at the Last Supper, to his death and burial, and to his resurrection. This is important, for Paul, who was converted to the Christian faith in the 30s, knew some of the original disciples and apostles, such as Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. Consequently, the New Testament writings provide us with early information about Jesus. This is why writings believed to have originated in the first century, especially in the middle of the first century, are widely accepted as our best sources of information about the historical Jesus.

How do these compare to the Gnostic Gospels? From page 56:

When were the Gnostic Gospels and other extracanonical sources written? All of the Gnostic Gospels and extracanonical sources were written in the second century or later. Typical dates range from A.D. 140 to 160. Some scholars argue for earlier dates, such as 120 to 140 (and some argue for later dates). Although it is theoretically possible that early, reliable information about Jesus not found in the New Testament writings could be preserved in some of these second-century writings, it is not likely. This is why biblical scholars in the past have rarely appealed to writings such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mary for additional information about Jesus. These writings are viewed as simply too late- written at least one hundred years after the death of Jesus, or fifty to eighty years after the New Testament Gospels were written.

So what about the Gospel of Thomas specifically? From page 67:

Most of the codices that make up the Nag Hammadi Library have been dated to the second half of the fourth century, though of course many of the writings within these old books date to earlier periods. The codex that contains the Gospel of Thomas may date to the first half of the fourth century. In the case of the Gospel of Thomas itself we have the three Greek fragments from Oxyrhynchus that date to the beginning and middle of the third century. One of the fragments may date as early as A.D. 200. Although almost all scholars concede that Thomas could have been composed as early as the middle of the second century, the evidence strongly suggests that Thomas was not composed before A.D. 175 or 180.

Why A.D. 175 or 180? From page 76-77

Let me make this emphatically clear: This is where all of the evidence takes us: (1) the association of the Gospel of Thomas with "Judas Thomas," (2) the arrangement and order of the sayings explained by hundreds of Syriac catchwords that link the sayings, and (3) the coherence of the readings in Thomas, which differ from the Greek New Testament Gospels, with the readings either in the Diatessaron or other Christian Syriac works from this period compellingly argue for a late-second-century Syrian origin of the Gospel of Thomas. In short, it is this flood of factors that point to the Eastern, Syriac-speaking church, a church that knows the New Testament Gospels primarily- perhaps exclusively- through Tatian's Diatessaron, a work not composed before A.D. 170 , that persuades me that the Gospel of Thomas does not offer students of the Gospels early, independent material that can be used for critical research into the life and teaching of Jesus. Reliance on this writing can only lead to a distorted portrait of the historical Jesus.

Please note, even if one does not accept Evans' strong arguments about Thomas' late dating, scholars still don't place it earlier than the mid-second century.

What's more, there's usually a sense of conspiracy and sneakiness when some discuss how the Canon came to be (like the Vatican silliness earlier). People talk like a bunch of leaders got together in a smoky room and took a vote.

In point of fact, the formation of the canon occured by acclamation, and there was never really a vote at all. Eventually, pronouncements were made (seperately) by the Western and Eastern church as to what the canon was, but there was never a vote, and in point of fact, the Eastern Church kept the canon open longer, with some interesting implications, as discussed in Reinventing Jesus, pgs 131-132:

The canon of the New Testament was a list of authoritative books "that imposed themselves as such" (24) upon the early church. As early as the label Scripture was applied to any books of the New Testament, the four Gospels and Paul's thirteen letters were included. As well, Acts, 1 Peter, and 1 John were generally undisputed. The same can be said for the most part for Hebrews and Revelation. By the end of the fourth century, the canon was effectively, though not officially, closed in the West. In the East, certain influential voices argued for a canon of twenty-seven books, but some writers dissented. It is important to realize that their dissent did not move in the direction of a larger canon but a smaller one. Only a few books on the edges of the canon were disputed. These same writers rejected outright the heretical books, if they discussed them at all.

What are we to make of the fact that in the East the canon remained an open question for a long time? This belongs to the larger question of why no official churchwide council or no ancient creed made a pronouncement on the canon. We can draw at least three implications from this fact.

First, there was never any great pressure within the church to accept certain books as canonical (25). This makes it all the more impressive that the church came to such firm conclusions about the majority of books early on, and the rest in due time.

Second, because there was no pronouncement, some books naturally were debated, at least ina part of the church. the debates always related to apostolicity, catholicity, and orthodoxy. On this score, the shorter letters came up short on catholicity because their very brevity made them easy to overlook. 2 Peter was suspect because its apostolic authorship was questioned, and Revelation was doubted for reasons of orthodoxy. But Paul's letters and the Gospels were always the core on all three fronts. The very lack of a council's decree allowed the ancient church to wrestle with the legitimacy of these books. And on this score, the most important books were never doubted.

Third, that no decree ever announced what books were canonical also tells us implicitly that the canon was a list of authoritative books rather than an authoritative list of books.

As you can see, there was never a vote, never a decree. Eventually councils in the East and West made it "official", at different times, but it wasn't a top down process, and it wasn't an election. It was acclimation, and it certainly didn't have anything to do with Nicea.

You might be wondering why the early church did question certain books. I'm glad you asked.

On pages 148-149 of the same book we find...

Was the early church totally naive about which books belonged in the canon and which did not? Hardly. As we noted in chapter 9, the majority of New Testament books were accepted as authentic from the very beginning. the notion that all the books were disputed is a gross exaggeration. Although it is likely that someone could dig up a stray quotation here or there to this effect, it hardly represents the facts. (26)

We have seen that the ancient church did not instantly and uncritically assign apostolic authorship to anonymous books, even though that would have been a temptation. Even when a book had an apostle's name on it, the church could be very skeptical. Ultimately, they questioned whether the book was cited from the earliest era of the church, was accepted widely, and was orthodox. Most New Testament books made the cut without much ado- but precisely because they obviously met all three criteria. Others struggled for acceptance. This very struggle should put an end to the question of whether the early Christians were terribly gullible about their sacred books.

On the other hand, some unworthy books were accepted as Scripture in parts of the church for a limited time. But these books could not pull the wool over the church's eyes for long. (27)

Eventually, three kinds of literature were decisively rejected as noncanonical. (1) Those that were obvious forgeries; (2) those that were late productions (i.e, second century or later); and (3) those that did not conform to the orthodoxy of the core books already known to be authentic. That this method is not an antiquarian peculiarity- a curiosity from the past- is seen in the fact that the same three criteria are used by scholars today. One has to wonder, then, why some modern writers simply refuse to give the ancient Christians the benefit of the doubt. Indeed, one has to wonder who really is being naive about the canon

That is why some texts were rejected.

This is sort of off-topic, but related. Today at work I had a package of books that titled "New Revised Standard Version Bible", and something referring to how it was accurate and trusted. How can the Bible be revised? And how can a revised version of a historical document like the Bible be totally accurate?

The short version is that translations can be made better in two ways:

1. As Asbury noted, the English language itself changes. None of the texts of the Bible were written in English, so updates are required from time to time. Try reading the King James, and you'll see what I mean. Some of those words fell out of use so long ago that occasionally you'll see theological misunderstandings.

2. Scholars are still working on the exact wording of the various texts, through the process known as textual criticism. There are still a few trouble spots, but the texts we read today are still substantially identical to the originals, with no essential doctrines affected by the still questionable errors.

Want more detail? No? Better start scrolling down now.

The idea that the Bible is “corrupt”, and that we can’t trust the texts is one of the more common arguments I see. Frequently, the presenter of this argument will offer, by way of analogy, the “phone game” children play, wherein a message will be passed from child to child, and by the end, it is so garbled that a funny result almost always occurs. It turns out, however, that due especially to advances in the field of textual criticism, this could not be farther from the truth.

Before we go further, we should examine the “phone game” comparison. The situation is not analogous for a number of reasons.

First, in the case of the New Testament texts, as well as later transmission of the Old Testament texts, the transmission was written, not oral. Try the “phone game” again, but in writing, and see what happens.

Second, while the “phone game” provides a single line of transmission, in the case of the Biblical texts there are literally thousands of manuscripts (more on this later), so there are many lines of transmission, with the result that a mistake in one line does not affect any of the others.

Third, textual criticism compares all the sources with each other, while in the “telephone game”, there is no attempt to go back to previous transmitters.

Finally, the process of transmission of the texts of the Old and New Testament was literally a sacred duty. The Jewish transmission of the Old Testament, especially, involved a complex series of rites and steps, and even one mistake led to the destruction of the copy and starting over. No such care is taken with the “phone game”, obviously.

So, with the “phone game” safely out of the way, the question which then remains is, just how reliable are our copies of the Bible texts?

As I will elaborate on a bit later, we can be certain that the texts we read in our Bibles today (especially the New Testament) are substantially identical to the originals as written by the likes of Paul.

Consider first, the New Testament. As noted in this Q&A piece by Dr. William Lane Craig, of the roughly 138,000 words in the New Testament, only about 1400 are doubted in any way by scholars. Thus, if we do the math, we can see that scholars have pinned down with certainty the text of 98.5% of the New Testament .

Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an eminent textual critic and the author of the most widely used text on Biblical (Koine) Greek expands on this a bit in this article, where he notes:

Once again the reader should be reminded of a point made earlier. Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.

So, we already know 98% of the text precisely, and the other 2% is there too, we're just not sure exactly which it is. Yet.

Sometimes people note that there are thousands of variants between the various manuscripts of the texts of the Bible. This is true. What these people often don’t realize, however, is that any disagreement between any two manuscripts counts as a “variant”. Given that there are literally thousands of manuscripts, the fact that there aren’t more is amazing, frankly. In any case, virtually all of these variants are basically typos, and in almost all cases, it is a fairly trivial matter for scholars to consult the various manuscripts, and thus puzzle out the original text.

This brings me to the issue of manuscripts. As noted in the article Is the Bible Reliable?, there are over 5,000 ( I believe the latest number is around 5,700) Greek manuscripts, with another 19,000 or so in other ancient languages. These more than 24,000 manuscripts dwarf any other work of antiquity, both in number and in time seperation from the original (see, for instance, the chart in Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?).

With this vast wealth of source material, it becomes fairly easy in most cases to pin down the original wording, because when a scribe made an error or change (intentional or unintentional), it only affected one line of manuscripts, and scholars can compare these with the others, puzzling out the original meaning.

Further, even if all the manuscript evidence were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible, using quotations from the writings of the early Church fathers, to reconstruct the entire New Testament except for somewhere between 11 and 20 verses! (See either of my last two links for this information).

In terms of the Old Testament, the number is a little harder to pin down (because it's far older, and thus the copies we have are much more removed from the originals), but the evidence we do have, together with our knowledge of just how meticulous Jewish scholars were in copying their sacred texts (it's amazing to investigate... the process included a multitude of steps, and the tiniest error meant the copyist had to destroy the whole thing and start over), tells us that the copies of the Old Testament we have are substantially identical to the originals as well.

Consider the recent findings of scholars regarding the Book of Isaiah (as related in my last link):

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."{2}

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."{3}

17 letters over a period of 1,000 years. Now that's accuracy.

Issues of translation and manipulation simply fall away in the face of this evidence. It's not necessary for us to read a possibly flawed translation. The seriously interested individual need only turn to the original Greek and Hebrew to see what the original documents had to say.

Manipulation by later individuals is likewise irrelevant, because we can look past that to the earlier texts. The breadth and amount of manuscripts (see the Jimmy Williams article for a brief summary), from all areas of the world, make it easy to see when such manipulations occur. The change will show up in one line of manuscripts, but not the others, and so scholars know it to be a later interpolation. The Johannine Comma is one famous example of this.

But what about the few places we're not sure? Dr. Bruce Metzger is widely considered to be the greatest and most influential textual critic and translator of the last century (and perhaps ever): I think this passage from Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus (page 99) is telling.

As I drove away from Wallace's house, my mind flashed back to my interview several years earlier with a scholar who's universally acknowledged as the greatest textual critic of his generation. In fact, Bruce M. Metzger was Ehrman's mentor at Princeton. Ehrman even dedicates Misquoting Jesus to him, calling him "Doctor-Father" and saying he "taught me the field and continues to inspire me in my work." (32)

At the time we chatted, Metzger was eighty-three years old. He died in 2007, ten years later. What was fascinating to me was how much his remarks during our interview reflected what Wallace was now telling me years later. For instance, I remember asking Metzger, "So the variations [between manuscripts], when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?"

"Yes, yes, that's correct," Metzger replied, adding: "The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church."

Then I recall asking him how his many decades of intensely studying the New Testament's text had affected his personal faith. "Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, "it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very ancient."

Emphasis mine. No essential doctrines are affected by the few remaining trouble spots.

I remember when I used to go to church, one day the pastor suggested that instead of saying "and also with you" after the priest says "peace be with you" we should say "and with your spirit"(something like that) because it was a more accurate interpretation of the Bible. Why weren't we saying that in the first place then!?

That's actually a really good example of what I'm talking about. Scholars are constantly working on making the parts that are rough around the edges more accurate, but really, is this an issue which truly affects our understanding of God or His plan for us?

Ok, serious question here. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Son of God. Why is Jesus always considered the "Son" of God instead of just being called God?

You might want to read the link I posted earlier. Jesus is called just plain God several places in the text.

Also, does that mean that the Word, Jesus, and God all existed at the same time in the beginning, or did one come before the other?

John 1 is very clear that the Word (Jesus) was with God and was God. All are eternal.

Yeah, Techboy sent me a book, "The Case for Christ", and I have read many others too since, that basically claim that the newer interpretations are just as accurate (if not more so) than the KJV (if I'm not mistaken-been a while since I read these books). Maybe he or Asbury can confirm or correct this.

Generally, the newer translations are more accurate, because they benefit from all the great manuscript finds and advances in textual criticism that have occurred in the last few hundred years.

This is not to say that the King James is a bad translation. It has all the essentials, too. I personally wouldn't use it, though.

The other issue I am having is the whole salvation by faith or by faith and works. I used to fall into the Calvinistic view (shortly after my agnosticism), but I'm not so sure about that anymore. Does God really predetermine who he will save and does he do it completely randomly?

I think I've mentioned it to you before, but one possible solution to this quandry is that God, knowing who will freely choose him, places those who will do so in places they can.

That's one verse that I don't understand.

I can see how the love of money can motivate a whole lot of evil.

But all evil ?

Hyperbole was a common oratorical technique in 1st century Palestine. It's important to understand the culture and practices of the day to truly understand what's going on in the Bible.

Do you know the history of Christianity?

The great thing about Christianity is that it is an historical faith, which can be examined and tested in that light (impotent claims about the lack of evidence aside). I love that about the faith, and it's why we can reject the gnostic texts with confidence. Historically, they don't hold up.

[jnhay]

We reject books like Thomas as valid for the same reason modern Jesus historians don't use them, which is the reason the early Christians themselves rejected them (and they're the ones who were in the best position to judge): they are very late, and often contradict things we know from earlier writings to be true.

Thanks for the analysis. I've been considering reading the Bible, but have held off because I've questioned the validity of it. I just think that people with power have had every reason to corrupt the messages in their favor. Aren't there certain religions that refuse to read from certain Bibles? If they're all pretty much the same, what's the big deal?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Thanks for the analysis. I've been considering reading the Bible, but have held off because I've questioned the validity of it. I just think that people with power have had every reason to corrupt the messages in their favor.

The "corrupt people slanting message in their favor" thing is non-existent when you're talking about the translation of the Bible. I personally know to Ph.D's who worked on the Joshua translation team for the New Living Translation; I had classes in seminary with both of them. This is not a matter of stuff hidden in some vault in the basement of the Vatican, instead this is about honesty God loving men and women who have devoted their life to the study of God's word and want to do their best work in bringing the best translation to the Christian community. There are teams that work on each book and then those teams check the other team's work, and then all of the teams have their work checked by supervisory teams to insure the best translations, and for any variances in their translation work they must give account on why they made the translation moves that they did. No one is sitting in a small dark room with a gun to his head being forced to write favorably of the king or Pope...that crap happened a long time ago and is now in the past.

Aren't there certain religions that refuse to read from certain Bibles? If they're all pretty much the same, what's the big deal?

Contemporary translations are all pretty much the same, but are vastly more accurate than the translations that are a couple hundred years old.

There are some Christians, predominantly small, rural and poor churches that refuse to use anything of the than the King James, and I believe that the Mormons and JW's also refuse to use anything but King James, and that's because a lot of their theology hinges upon a very particular set of wording that is in the King James most of the times which ends up being translation mistakes. For instance:

There is a theology about a Pre-Adamic race (prior to Adam) and it is drawn from Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. The argument is that in order for the first couple to "replenish" the earth it had to be plenished previously.

But, the word is not replenish but instead it is simply "to fill". And a prime example of that is in:

Exodus 8:21 Else, if thou wilt not let my people go, behold, I will send swarms of flies upon thee, and upon thy servants, and upon thy people, and into thy houses: and the houses of the Egyptians shall be full of swarms of flies, and also the ground whereon they are.

The Hebrew word in 8:21 is the same exact word that is in Gen 1:28 and

These are each directly quoted from the King James Version.

Exodus 10:6 And they shall fill thy houses,

Psalm 96:11 Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad; let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof

Psalm 98:7 Let the sea roar, and the fulness thereof;

Isaiah 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures

Isaiah 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

Isaiah 27:6 He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root: Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.

Jeremiah 19:4 Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents;

Not to mention about 15-20 other places that all use the word "fill". When one translation makes a mistake like that and people build their theology off the English translation then when any other translation does not translate it in the same way then the faulty theology is put at risk, as such they will refuse to use anything other than the KJV. Whereas most churches today build their theology from the Greek and Hebrew rather than basing it soley on the English translation.

[Mickalino]

"Word" should be capitalized.

just sayin

[AsburySkinsFan]

"Word" should be capitalized.

just sayin

When in reference to Jesus, yes as it becomes a proper noun.

Werd :cool: