₦airaland Forum

Scholar8200:
I wish the author stated what period he describes as earliest; that gap is what you have filled and on that basis hastily dismissed the site as spurious!

We can clear that up right now. There were no early Greek and Syrian Christians left in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Since it is general knowledge that Erasmus lived in 16th century, what is there to gain saying TR was used in 2nd century especially when http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/ shows that there were other non-Greek Mss relating to that 2nd century period (to which the TR coming much later agrees with!

Yes, there were other non-Greek manuscripts relating to the 2nd century but since we know that all the present Gospels with the exception of the Hebrew Matthew were written in Greek, it therefore follows that all those levant versions you mentioned are translations of Greek originals or more likely translations of third, fourth or even fifth copies of Greek originals.

Like this link shows, http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html/, the TR agrees with the Syriac (157AD)etc meaning, God indeed preserved His Word. Why? I dont think Erasmus was in possession of those other non-Greek Mss when he undertook the job!

Heavens indeed help us all if the contents of the above link is what passes for biblical scholarship these days. Again, it is a nonsense to state that "The Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians"

^ is your user id from Saracen?

itstpia8:
^ is your user id from Saracen?

Nope, not at all.

Sarassin:
We can clear that up right now. There were no early Greek and Syrian Christians left in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Can you prove that?

Yes, there were other non-Greek manuscripts relating to the 2nd century but since we know that all the present Gospels with the exception of the Hebrew Matthew were written in Greek, it therefore follows that all those levant versions you mentioned are translations of Greek originals or more likely translations of third, fourth or even fifth copies of Greek originals.

Translated from Greek originals untainted by activities of Marcion and Origen.

[

Heavens indeed help us all if the contents of the above link is what passes for biblical scholarship these days. Again, it is a nonsense to state that [iThe Textus Receptus is the text that has been used for 2,000 years by Christians][/i]

If the TR agrees with/or has its source as the Greek Originals whence came those other mid-2nd century translations, then it is correct! Why? The TR is not a new production but a Translation of that which already existed centuries before!

Just like me saying the KJV has been in use by early Christians in Nigeria and you tell me that is false because there was no yoruba Bible till mid 1880s when Rev Crowther translated the English version!

Scholar8200:
Can you quote such here?

A LATER ADDITION TO VERSE 8


"But they reported hastily to Peter and those with him all they were told. And after this Jesus himself appeared to them and sent out through them, from the east to west, the sacred and incorruptible declaration of salvation"

lordnicklaus:
A LATER ADDITION TO VERSE 8


"But they reported hastily to Peter and those with him all they were told. And after this Jesus himself appeared to them and sent out through them, from the east to west, the sacred and incorruptible declaration of salvation"

Thankfully, this addition is not found in the KJV and I suppose in the TR and then I believe in the Original (pre-A/S/V) codexes, mss, hence the Word was indeed preserved!

Scholar8200:
Thankfully, this addition is not found in the KJV and I suppose in the TR and then I believe in the Original (pre-A/S/V) codexes, mss, hence the Word was indeed preserved!

There also exists an addition in between verses 14 and 15

lordnicklaus:
There also exists an addition in between verses 14 and 15

Like the other, I'm sure this addition is not found in the KJV and I suppose in the TR and then I believe in the Original (pre-A/S/V codexes) mss, hence the Word was indeed preserved!

Scholar8200:
Can you prove that?

Which of these two would you consider an early Christian.
A. St. Jerome 331CE -420CE
B. William Tyndale 1494 - 1536

Kindly indicate if you believe any Christian of the era of St. Jerome lived until the 15th Century.

Translated from Greek originals untainted by activities of Marcion and Origen.

You don't know this for a fact!

If the TR agrees with/or has its source as the Greek Originals whence came those other mid-2nd century translations, then it is correct! Why? The TR is not a new production but a Translation of that which already existed centuries before!

Are you aware that Erasmus who compiled the Greek Testament that forms the basis of the TR and the KJV could not find the Johannine comma 1 John 5:7-8 in any of the extant Greek manuscripts he had. He initially left it out of his version, there was hue and cry from the church and he agreed to replace it if the church would provide him a Greek manuscript with the verse. The wily and devious church hierarchy promptly handed over a Greek translated manuscript of the Latin vulgate to Erasmus and asked him to insert it and publish or face the consequences. This is how you come to have that verse in the KJV.

Just like me saying the KJV has been in use by early Christians in Nigeria and you tell me that is false because there was no Yoruba Bible till mid 1880s when Rev Crowther translated the English version!

This is just perverse. You know full well that a Yoruba version of the KJV is still the KJV and not say....the Geneva bible!

Take a break, have a kitkat.

Sarassin:
Which of these two would you consider an early Christian.
A. St. Jerome 331CE -420CE
B. William Tyndale 1494 - 1536

Both were early christians to we in the 21st century. If you ask which is the earlier of the two off course it is Jerome but bottom line is both are early christians.

Are you aware that Erasmus who compiled the Greek Testament that forms the basis of the TR and the KJV could not find the Johannine comma 1 John 5:7-8 in any of the extant Greek manuscripts he had. He initially left it out of his version, there was hue and cry from the church and he agreed to replace it if the church would provide him a Greek manuscript with the verse.

Underscores the fact that he was human but also very fastidious not willing to play to anybody's gallery!

The wily and devious church hierarchy promptly handed over a Greek translated manuscript of the Latin vulgate to Erasmus and asked him to insert it and publish or face the consequences. This is how you come to have that verse in the KJV.

before this time the verse was in the Syriac Bible 157 AD, meaning it was in the original greek. (of course the threat was not necessary). I am sure that is why Erasmus the compiler (not writer) included it. Besides, the acceptance of the TR by the reformers etc I believe was as a result of its agreement with the Original greek and/or non-greek Bibles translated from the Original Greek.

This is just perverse. You know full well that a Yoruba version of the KJV is still the KJV and not say....the Geneva bible!

Then a Greek Bible translated to either Syriac or Latin remains the same just as an English KJV translated to Yoruba remains a KJV Bible!

Scholar8200:
Again, where did you hear that only the 12 and Mary were in the upper room? Now read:
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
Acts 1:14,15

Mark was a disciple too and a close protege of Peter!


You could as well ask when Jehezkel became Ezekiel!

Anyway Marcus-Greek, Mark-English. see here;
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/5-13.htm

Okay. Let us assume that the Mark of the gospel and the Marcus of Peter's epistle are the same person.
Let us also assume that Mark was there with the apostles in the upper room when the 120 were counted. And we are assuming because apart from the apostles and a few other women, no other person was mentioned. So he might have been and then again, he might not have been.

But I also wonder how it came to be that Mark's was the first gospel to be written and then formed a template for the other synoptic gospels written by an apostle and a disciple who were much closer to Jesus than Mark was.


But let's get back to the issue of this post.
How does the inspiration of the Holy Spirit lead to the discrepancies between the reports of the times and lives of Jesus and his contemporaries?

Bear in mind that we have now moved from foolishly saying the Bible was "inspired" (even as you Christians interpret that term to mean "dictated word for word" ) to agreeing that the stories in the Bible are the results of oral transmission of the happenings during that period.

At least, that is a step in the right direction.

Scholar8200:
Both were early christians to we in the 21st century. If you ask which is the earlier of the two off course it is Jerome but bottom line is both are early christians.

Ok, if you say so.

before this time the verse was in the Syriac Bible 157 AD, meaning it was in the original greek. (of course the threat was not necessary). I am sure that is why Erasmus the compiler (not writer) included it. Besides, the acceptance of the TR by the reformers etc I believe was as a result of its agreement with the Original greek and/or non-greek Bibles translated from the Original Greek.

No. The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions including the Syriac you mention, the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, except their Latin translations and it is not found in the Old Latin in its early form or in the Latin Vulgate as issued by Jerome.

In fact, the verse seems to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.

Translated from Greek originals untainted by activities of Marcion and Origen.

I am not at all sure why you are so hung up on Origen and Marcion. I suspect it is a doctrinal issue. I am no fan of Origen’s allegorical system of interpretation but he was not the only one involved in “adding” or influencing the texts, it is Ireneaus who insists there are to be four Gospels because there are “four winds” and it is the views of Tertullian that is reflected in the Pastoral 1Timothy 2:12 that forbids women from teaching in church. Anyone and everyone had their say.

.

Visitor700:
Can you reconcile them instead?

Believe me, I have tried.
But tell me, how do you reconcile the report that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great whose reign was from 37-4 BC (he died in 4BC), as reported by Matthew; and the report that he was born during the Census of Quirinius, Governor of Syria, which census occurred in 6 AD as reported by Luke?
How do you reconcile the gap of 10 years?


How do you reconcile the report that Jesus had, for instance, 200 ancestors according to Matthew and, for instance, 150 ancestors according to Luke and still claim their reports were inspired by one and the same person?


How do you reconcile the fact that the terrain and topography of Judea in the narratives of the gospel are not in line with the correct terrain and topography of Judea at the time Jesus was said to have lived


So tell me, what actually convinces you people that the Gospels are accurate?
Nothing.
They fail to measure up in every way they are being measured.

nobilis:
Okay. Let us assume that the Mark of the gospel and the Marcus of Peter's epistle are the same person.
Let us also assume that Mark was there with the apostles in the upper room when the 120 were counted. And we are assuming because apart from the apostles and a few other women, no other person was mentioned. So he might have been and then again, he might not have been.

Ok.

But I also wonder how it came to be that Mark's was the first gospel to be written and then formed a template for the other synoptic gospels written by an apostle and a disciple who were much closer to Jesus than Mark was.

Are there any similarities between Mark and John, Mark and Luke or Matthew and Mark? Well, thus saying you are simply regurgitating the views of some.

But let's get back to the issue of this post.
How does the inspiration of the Holy Spirit lead to the discrepancies between the reports of the times and lives of Jesus and his contemporaries?

Inspiration does not necessarily confer omniscience thus making one an island independent of fellowship and its benefit!

Bear in mind that we have now moved from foolishly saying the Bible was "inspired" (even as you Christians interpret that term to mean "dictated word for word" ) to agreeing that the stories in the Bible are the results of oral transmission of the happenings during that period.

All Scripture is given by Inspiration, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost!
Inspiration is not dictation word for word!

Sarassin:
Ok, if you say so.


No. The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions including the Syriac you mention, the Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, except their Latin translations and it is not found in the Old Latin in its early form or in the Latin Vulgate as issued by Jerome.
In fact, the verse seems to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.

Prove this.

I am not at all sure why you are so hung up on Origen and Marcion. I suspect it is a doctrinal issue. I am no fan of Origen’s allegorical system of interpretation but he was not the only one involved in “adding” or influencing the texts, it is Ireneaus who insists there are to be four Gospels because there are “four winds”

But Ireneaus changed nothing?! Besides, if he actually said so, remember it was one of the Apostles who, by Inspiration, said what and what should be written to the disciples in Acts 15.

and it is the views of Tertullian that is reflected in the Pastoral 1Timothy 2:12 that forbids women from teaching in church. Anyone and everyone had their say.

That cannot be true. Tertullian came 1/2 centuries after the older version besides, did Tertullian also influence a similar statement in 1 Corinth 14?

nobilis:
Believe me, I have tried.
But tell me, how do you reconcile the report that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great whose reign was from 37-4 BC (he died in 4BC), as reported by Matthew; and the report that he was born during the Census of Quirinius, Governor of Syria, which census occurred in 6 AD as reported by Luke?
How do you reconcile the gap of 10 years?


How do you reconcile the report that Jesus had, for instance, 200 ancestors according to Matthew and, for instance, 150 ancestors according to Luke and still claim their reports were inspired by one and the same person?


How do you reconcile the fact that the terrain and topography of Judea in the narratives of the gospel are not in line with the correct terrain and topography of Judea at the time Jesus was said to have lived


So tell me, what actually convinces you people that the Gospels are accurate?
Nothing.
They fail to measure up in every way they are being measured.

There is a discussion between Sarasin and myself on this in this thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/2308335/did-anyone-mentioned-bible-actually/1#33754401.

Besides, the other link given to the op on genealogy might be helpful.

Scholar8200:
Prove this.

Nothing to prove.

But Ireneaus changed nothing?! Besides, if he actually said so, remember it was one of the Apostles who, by Inspiration, said what and what should be written to the disciples in Acts 15.

It changed a lot. Ireneaus did actually say so (against heresies) the matter was decided at the council of Nicea that there would be no more and no less than four Gospels, there were obviously a lot more gospels kicking around.

That cannot be true. Tertullian came 1/2 centuries after the older version besides, did Tertullian also influence a similar statement in 1 Corinth 14?

"........because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell." –Tertullian.

With that fine quote above, I introduce you to Church Father Tertullian. There can and should be no doubt that Tertullian was an original misogynist who considered women a menace to society. We know that he was incensed by the prominence granted to women in the forged “Acts of Paul” and declared the book heretical precisely because of this. Other than that, the forgery would have formed a part of the present day canons.

1 Corinthians 14:33-36 is an interpolation, it interrupts the flow of the context and appears to contradict what Paul has been saying about women praying and prophesying in the congregation. The verbal and thematic parallel between that verse in 1 Corinthians and 1 Tim 2:11-13 have long been demonstrated.

Without a doubt, the interpolation is by Tertullian and ratified at Nicea.

Scholar8200:
Ok.

Are there any similarities between Mark and John, Mark and Luke or Matthew and Mark? Well, thus saying you are simply regurgitating the views of some.

Inspiration does not necessarily confer omniscience thus making one an island independent of fellowship and its benefit!

All Scripture is given by Inspiration, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost!
Inspiration is not dictation word for word!

Obviously, you're the first Christian I'm coming across who actually realises that inspiration doesn't mean verbatim dictation.

For that, I say, Bravo.

Inspiration doesn't confer omniscience. We agree. But inspiration, by a divine being, for the purpose of teaching his followers and revealing himself and his ways to his followers (even as described by Paul in his epistle to Timothy), has no excuse for not being perfect.
For example, every scientist, although imperfect, meticulously records his findings and discoveries for the exact purpose of instructing his protégés and the generations to come.
So, I keep asking, how come it that the "holy" men of God who wrote under the perfect inspiration of God could come out with imperfect works.

Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica with its many volumes is totally coherent from the letter A to the last entry.
So how come it that the stories of different men of God, inspired by one and the same God could have some discrepancies and in some places, outright antitheses.

As for you asking me if the Gospel of Mark has any resemblance to that of John is accusing me of what I didn't say. John isn't one of the synoptic Gospels. I didn't mention John's gospel
But if you deny that the gospel of Matthew and Luke have no resemblance to that of Mark and to each other, then I'll be convinced that you're deliberately trying to conceal an open truth.

As for the other post where you gave me a link to another argumentative post where Josephus was mentioned, I just want to inform you that that particular 4-5 sentence paragraph about Jesus in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews was not part of Josephus' original work. That passage was added by St Eusebius of Caesarea. After which he destroyed all other copies of the work that were available and made sure that only his adulterated version survived. The "saint" himself surreptitiously acquiesced to that fact during one of his debates with one of the "pagans" of his day.

And moreover that your link doesn't answer the question of how it is that there is a 10 year gap between the date of Jesus' birth in Matthew and that in Luke.
It doesn't also explain why the descriptions of Judea in the bible do not correspond with the actual land of Judea during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived.

And there is no explanation you can give that can explain how Jesus had more ancestors according to Matthew than according to Luke.

U guys should just stop trying to justify things that are wrong. Abeg. It's just appalling.

And lest I forget, since we have agreed that Inspiration doesn't mean Verbatim dictation and at best, implies the prompting of the mind by the spirit, then it means that the words they wrote are not the words of God but their own words.

For example, if I have a girlfriend who is a poet and I am her inspiration for a lot of her works, it doesn't mean the words she used are my words. No. Those words are entirely her words.

So if we agree that Inspiration doesn't mean dictation, we should agree that the writers wrote their own words. And if we agree to that and the bible also says that man in imperfect and is, at best, trying to be perfect, it also means that the words written in the bible are imperfect, seeing as they are the products of imperfect humans.

And if we agree on the above fact, we also have to agree that it is then wrong to make the bible the standard for didactics. Meaning that the portion of Paul's "Timothian" epistle that suggested otherwise is also in error, which continues the endless cycle of errors contained in the Bible.

.

.

...

JMAN05:
it is evident that God meant that he manifested himself to them in the capacity of Jehovah only in a limited way. To illustrate this, those who had known the man Abram could hardly be said to have really known him as Abraham (meaning “Father of a Crowd (Multitude)”) while he had but one son, Ishmael. When Isaac and other sons were born and began producing offspring, the name Abraham took on greater meaning or import. So, too, the name Jehovah would now take on expanded meaning for the Israelites.

To “know,” therefore, does not necessarily mean merely to be acquainted with or cognizant of something or someone. The foolish Nabal knew David’s name but still asked, “Who is David?” in the sense of asking, “What does he amount to?” (1Sa 25:9-11; compare 2Sa 8:13.) So, too, Pharaoh had said to Moses: “Who is Jehovah, so that I should obey his voice to send Israel away? I do not know Jehovah at all and, what is more, I am not going to send Israel away.” (Ex 5:1, 2) By that, Pharaoh evidently meant that he did not know Jehovah as the true God or as having any authority over Egypt’s king and his affairs, nor as having any might to enforce His will as announced by Moses and Aaron. But now Pharaoh and all Egypt, along with the Israelites, would come to know the real meaning of that name, the person it represented. As Jehovah showed Moses, this would result from God’s carrying out His purpose toward Israel, liberating them, giving them the Promised Land, and thereby fulfilling His covenant with their forefathers. In this way, as God said, “You will certainly know that I am Jehovah your God.”—Ex 6:4-8

wrong interpretation here.its a no for me

charlyxx9:
wrong interpretation here.its a no for me

Why?

nobilis:
And lest I forget, since we have agreed that Inspiration doesn't mean Verbatim dictation and at best, implies the prompting of the mind by the spirit, then it means that the words they wrote are not the words of God but their own words.

For example, if I have a girlfriend who is a poet and I am her inspiration for a lot of her works, it doesn't mean the words she used are my words. No. Those words are entirely her words.

So if we agree that Inspiration doesn't mean dictation, we should agree that the writers wrote their own words. And if we agree to that and the bible also says that man in imperfect and is, at best, trying to be perfect, it also means that the words written in the bible are imperfect, seeing as they are the products of imperfect humans.

And if we agree on the above fact, we also have to agree that it is then wrong to make the bible the standard for didactics. Meaning that the portion of Paul's "Timothian" epistle that suggested otherwise is also in error, which continues the endless cycle of errors contained in the Bible.

What if you were the one who told ur girlfriend to produce the poem for you, which u plan to send to ur parents back home to cheer them up. You guided her on what to write, dictated some, and allowed her in some parts to use her own words under ur guide.

Who could we view as the author?