Misquoting Jesus in the Bible

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

you know that I am a bible scholar myself with a DTh. I know that the Psalms are sung. However counting syllables and adding numbers and multiplying them is not what the psalms nor the rest of scriptures are for.

It would seem you do not know what the Bible is for.

I could care less about what any Hebrew word is I am not an Israeli for one and there are no preserved originals of any Hebrew text.

If it is in the trade language of today, English, that is all I need and I have it in my hand with all the words of God in it. Go on have your fun it wont count, no pun intended, for anything.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

you know that I am a bible scholar myself with a DTh....

I could care less about what any Hebrew word is I am not an Israeli for one and there are no preserved originals of any Hebrew text.

Whether we're discussing the heptameter or not, your last reply would have been less awkward if you had not revealed yourself to be a scholar.

And Christians wonder why no one takes us seriously...

Believe whatever makes you feel good. You don't have to leave your comfort zone if you don't want to. If you won't fulfill your responsibilities as a scholar, others will.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Apparently reading the bible qualifies people as scholars in some Christian circles these days

a reply to: Akragon
Never mind. No sense in beating a dead horse.

a reply to: Akragon
You don't get a Doctorate in Theology for just reading the bible. You get it for regurgitating Trinitarian eisegesis. But "scholar" is still an appropiate terminology. Here are some other terminologies:
Public Instructor: Insight, Volume 2

One who has been educated in a particular field of knowledge and who teaches others publicly. The expression “public instructor” is translated from the Greek word gram·ma·teusʹ. The New English Bible renders this “teacher”; Knox uses the expressions “scholar” and ‘man of learning.’ A footnote in the New World Translation reads: “learned person.” (Mt 13:52, ftn; Mt 23:34) The same Greek word is usually rendered “scribe”; but to make clear that it is not the Jewish religious group known as the scribes to which reference is being made, the expression “public instructor” is used in the New World Translation when the passage refers to Jesus’ own disciples.

When Jesus was on earth, the scribes (gram·ma·teisʹ) were men versed in the Law and teachers of the people, but they had become corrupted by traditions of men and pagan doctrines. The term “scribes” was used toward them more as a title, designating them as a class, rather than having to do with their original copyist duties.

Jesus came to bear witness to the truth. To get the good news of the Kingdom preached, he prepared his disciples to be teachers, public instructors, respecting the Kingdom of God. He magnified their office and the importance of listening to their teaching when he spoke of them as public instructors; he likened each of them to a learned man having a veritable treasure store from which to draw. (Mt 13:52) These he sent forth to Israel, but Israel’s own scribes did not discern the treasures that God, through these men, was holding out to them. On the contrary, they opposed the public instruction and took part in scourging, persecuting, and killing Jesus and his associate public instructors, thereby proving themselves to be false instructors. Nevertheless, many persons of Israel and of the nations were taught by Jesus’ instructed ones, and in turn, they themselves became public instructors in God’s Word.—Mt 23:34; 28:19, 20.

Scribe: Insight, Volume 2

...
Scribes as Teachers of the Law. At first the priests served as scribes. (Ezr 7:1-6) But great stress was laid on the need for every Jew to have a knowledge of the Law. Therefore those who studied and gained a great deal of knowledge were looked up to, and these scholars eventually formed an independent group, many not being priests.
...
They were generally associated with the religious sect of the Pharisees, for this body recognized the interpretations or “traditions” of the scribes that had developed in course of time into a bewildering maze of minute, technical regulations.
...
The scribes of the Pharisees zealously defended the Law, but additionally upheld the traditions that had been developed, and they held sway over the thought of the people to an even greater extent than the priests.
...
The scribes were looked up to by the people and were called “Rabbi” (Gr., rhab·beiʹ, “My great one; My excellent one”; from Heb., rav, meaning “many,” “great”; a title of respect with which teachers were addressed). The term is applied to Christ several places in the Scriptures. At John 1:38 it is interpreted as meaning “Teacher.” Jesus was, in fact, the teacher of his disciples, but he forbade them, at Matthew 23:8, to covet that designation or to apply it to themselves as a title, as was done by the scribes. (Mt 23:2, 6, 7) The scribes of the Jews along with the Pharisees were strongly condemned by Jesus because they had added to the Law and had provided loopholes by which to circumvent the Law, so that he said to them: “You have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition.”

Things haven't changed much, including the love for using titles of respect and to distinguish oneself from the laity.

Laity: lay people, as distinct from the clergy.
ordinary people, as distinct from professionals or experts. (google dictionary)

a reply to: whereislogic

In any case i highly doubt someone with said credentials would rely so heavily on one single passage for all of this arguments

Funny thing about the internet... One can claim to be anything they want

i have a PhD as well... in bullsh!t detection

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I believe scholarship is in no way indicative of any ones ability to know and understand scripture. I pointed out my Bible education so you would understand that I know all about Psalms being poetic songs and sung as ascents to Jerusalem during the seven yearly feasts. All Songs are set to music and music has scores.

I have faith in God and believe he preserved his words. Faith is my mind/heart set belief is the out working of that faith in my life.

However counting syllables does not indicate any knowledge or understanding of Scriptures as well.

a reply to: whereislogic

You are correct you get it because you went to their schools, study dead Languages, and speak their talk. In the end if the person has any brain figures it out and realizes it is all a scam just to get money and give you a degree to be a pastor of a church. Many churches today will not take anyone without a ThD (my bad as I inverted it earlier to DTh).

I started a thread and expose these schools for what they are www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Akragon

i have a PhD as well... in bullsh!t detection

That is not polite debating at all. I am very disappointed in you Akragon. I had placed you far above most all here on ATS and well above that sort of behavior. You have a good mind and are very well educated but it is common practice to give anyone the benefit of any doubt. Chester does have most of all very good points also and by his past performance I would not believe he would claim that which he is not. I have no doubt that he does have a doctorate in theology. I came to that conclusion in his past threads and posts.

This Mr. Ehrman convinces me that the universities will give most anyone a degree and professorship. Simply join their club and your in like Flynn. Then go out and teach the mush minds that which you don't believe in the first place. Out of 49 countries which Finland and South Korea are the top two academia centers in the world with the United States being 25 th in math and 17th in science. And get this -- Berkely rated the top of the U.S. dummies. Yep the same dummies who wear masks, tear up the university and forbid free speech. And you don't believe Chester John and yet thread this Bart Ehrman? WoW ----

a reply to: ChesterJohn

My point is that Christian "scholars" should be held to a higher standard of objectivity than the rest of the believers. I have not seen that level of objectivity in your replies. Given the resources that are available to the Church today, I don't believe a man has any business being a Pastor unless he is fluent in the Bible along with Hebrew, Chaldean, and Koine Greek at the very least.

But by all means, ignore me. Clearly you are satisfied with the flawed AV.

Luke 5:39 AV

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

a reply to: Seede

That is not polite debating at all. I am very disappointed in you Akragon. I had placed you far above most all here on ATS and well above that sort of behavior. You have a good mind and are very well educated but it is common practice to give anyone the benefit of any doubt. Chester does have most of all very good points also and by his past performance I would not believe he would claim that which he is not. I have no doubt that he does have a doctorate in theology. I came to that conclusion in his past threads and posts.

This really has nothing to do with debating Seede... Mr. chester has been around ATS almost as long as i have, and as far as i've seen, him being a "scholar" has never been mentioned before... i could be wrong but i keep my eye on all the same topics he does regardless of IF i decide to reply... when someone just pulls the "im a scholar" card out of no where, its a little fishy... and as i've said... a Scholar would not rely so heavily on a single passage for every argument as he does.

I have had debates with quite a few pastors with doctorates in Christian theology... all of which did the whole seminary thing... one that even lasted over a year every sunday... but not one used such tactics in their discussions.

I've had many discussions with Chester over the years, but recently he changed his platform to this nonsense, which, in his opinion is a reason to just dismiss any and all arguments... IF you don't believe God preserved his words then you don't believe in God's power, so why are you arguing something you don't believe in?

This is not something any scholar/pastor/minister would do... its more Ken Ham ish

Generally yes i usually give the members of this forum the benefit of the doubt... but on any other forum on the internet... hell no.

This happens to be an exception to that rule... when someone i've spoken to tons of times in the past makes a claim like this out of no where, while in the same post states clearly, "I could care less about what any Hebrew word is" Which is not only unscholarly from a biblical stand point.. but grammatically incorrect... what else am i to think?

And by the way... yeah i believe Doctor Ehrman... likely because not a single person he's debated with... nor a single person in any of his lectures have called his information on the NT incorrect... because they know as well that he is correct... Perhaps not from a christian point of view... but most definitely based on the material in quesiton

But im sorry i didn't live up to your standards...

and i appreciate the kind words regardless

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Akragon

Lol. I'm willing to bet that Jesus enjoyed fine wine, and there is no evidence to suggest that the alcohol content of ancient wine was any weaker than that of today. Thats just a ridiculous assertion. I'm sure Jesus drank the hard stuff from tome to time.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I gave all that up when I realized the biggest lie those schools promote. That we have to go to the original documents and study in a dead language to know and understand the Bible.

When I dug and dug not one professor could chow me an actual original document MMS, Textus Receptus and all the papyrus they so cling to as originals are in fact copies, unverifiable copies.

Now why should I continue to study unverifiable copies when in fact, by God's own word, he will and has preserved ALL his words to every generation and not in a multitude of unverifiable copies.

I hold in my had this morning the preserved word of God in English for this generation just as God's word states he would do. In English at its finest, not the American slang type of English that has generalized terms with no real show of respect unless you consider Sir, Mr or Dr a term of respect. The AV uses Thou, Thee as terms of respect and they were of such when that Preserved version was inspired of God for this generation. And are still recognized as ssuch by British persons.

So you see there is a wearing of the soul in much study of unverifiable copies that elevate men and their opinions above God and his power to preserve his words. Once I became convinced of the Preservation of the words of God as found in the AV, I found I could teach from that one Bible all of the ideas and thoughts, found in the other man made 350 plus incomplete and uninspired Bibles, just by know the meanings of the English words as they are preserved for us today.

You see now I can teach the Bible without exhaustion and bring to the hearers sound doctrine and applicable teachings for man today.

a reply to: Akragon

you are wrong I have mentioned it a few times.

I have from day one advocated for the preserved word of God as found in the AV.

I do not give care or regard to Languages of any document that are not verifiable by the originals. Why? Because there are no originals to compare and verify Hebrew, Koine Greek, or Chaldean. So If I say I could care less about any language it is because I have God's preserved word in English and have no need for any so called unverifiable copies in any of those language.

Dr Ehrman makes himself god in God's stead and those who trust in him shall perish just like this god the admire. As for me I trust int he Living God and my Saviour Jesus Christ, in him I have approval and blessing forever. Do you not think Dr Ehrman only post videos that favor him, like fake news on CNN only reports that which favors their view.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Dr Ehrman makes himself god in God's stead and those who trust in him shall perish just like this god the admire. As for me I trust int he Living God and my Saviour Jesus Christ, in him I have approval and blessing forever. Do you not think Dr Ehrman only post videos that favor him, like fake news on CNN only reports that which favors their view.

Bart Ehrman casts doubt upon the accuracy of the copyists of the NT. But neglects to tell you the rest of the story.

The Masoretic text is known as the Aleppo Codex of which was introduced in the 9th century. It was the oldest Hebrew text known to exist at that time. As you read the KJV bible you are reading the Alleppo Codex.

The DSS revealed almost the complete Allepo Codex word for word ---

The dead sea scrolls consisted primarily of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek scrolls. Example one is in the Isaiah scroll which is chosen because it is complete in comparison to the Masoretic text of the KJV bible.

Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word 'light' which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX [Septuagint] and IQ Is [first cave of Qumran, Isaiah scroll]. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage. 5

Now let’s argue or better yet let’s be reasonable. Fact one – these scrolls and codex copies were found in the very same libraries with various dates of the materials. Naturally the dates of material are not the only important things to consider but this is the start.

The Isaiah scroll of the dead sea is over one thousand years older than the KJV bible and yet it is well over 95 percent word for word correct with 17 letters not in agreement which are satisfactorily explained and does not detract from the contextual message.

Was any of the NT found in the DSS? There is ongoing arguments for and against a fragment of Mark found in cave 7 which would date Marks fragment before 50 ce if it were accepted. That would place Mark being copied within 18 years of Jesus’ death and in context of the Gospel of Mark.

Nevertheless we are now back to accurate copying and here is the way it works. Let us say that you dig up ten MSS from ten different locations of the same account. Eight of those MSS are within 95 to 98 percent word for word of each other while two of those MSS contain only 80 percent word for word in comparison to the other eight MSS. The formula would be to shelve the two MSS that do not agree with other eight and use the 8 to interlace as copy.

Now that is oversimplifying the matter but is somewhat the method used. Naturally we are also determining an author’s work by fragments as well as pages, sentences, and paragraphs which are then pieced together. Not an easy task by any means.

These eight MSS are then called the majority text with the elimination of the two minority text. The minority text are not destroyed but are shelved for perhaps other uses such as historical etc..

Now out of all of this I want you to note that Ehrman will not venture into the OT which, by the way, must also be judged in the same manner as that of the NT. (by his standards). He will not ague the OT because he knows better than try to argue the very same tactics he used on the NT when the DSS will prove him a liar and atheist. It would be impossible to argue corrupt copy of OT when in fact for over two thousand years it has proven him wrong even without his autographs,

In real life the AV bible has undergone more critical observation than any other piece of literature in this world and has been proven to be the inspired words of God. It has been born by the majority of over 25,000 MSS and nothing in this world has destroyed its words. I believe you are correct.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Not sure what school you're talking about that I supposedly went to. I went to what we call in Europe a gymnasium (school) comparable to what is called a "university-preparatory school" in the US or a "grammar school" in the UK. After that I studied economics.

Even in a Dead Language, the Bible Is Alive

OVER the past few centuries, at least half of the world’s languages have disappeared. A language dies when it no longer has native speakers. In that sense, Latin is usually defined as “a dead language,” even though it is widely studied and remains the official tongue of Vatican City.

Latin is also the language of some of the first and foremost Bible translations. Could such renderings into an obsolete tongue be “alive” today, affecting Bible readers now? The fascinating history of such translations helps to answer that question.

The Oldest Latin Translations

Latin was the first language of Rome. When the apostle Paul wrote to the Christian community in that city, though, he wrote in Greek.* That did not present a problem, as it was common for people there to speak both languages. Because many of Rome’s inhabitants came from the Greek Orient, it was said that the city was becoming Greek. The linguistic situation of the Roman Empire differed from region to region, but as the empire grew, so did the importance of Latin. As a result, the Holy Scriptures were translated from Greek into Latin. This process seems to have begun in the second century C.E. in North Africa.

The various texts that were produced are known as the Vetus Latina, or the Old Latin version. No ancient manuscript containing a complete Latin translation of the Scriptures has come down to us. The parts that have survived as well as the parts quoted by ancient writers seem to indicate that the Vetus Latina was not a single, united piece of work. Rather, it was apparently produced by several translators who worked separately at different times and places. So instead of being a single text, it is more precisely a collection of translations from the Greek.

Independent initiatives to translate parts of the Scriptures into Latin created some confusion. At the end of the fourth century C.E., Augustine believed that “every man who happened to get his hands on a Greek manuscript and who thought that he had any knowledge—be it ever so little—of the two languages ventured upon the work of translation” into Latin. Augustine and others thought that there were too many translations in circulation and doubted their accuracy.

Jerome’s Version

The man who attempted to end this translation confusion was Jerome, who at times served as secretary to Damasus, the bishop of Rome, in 382 C.E. The bishop invited Jerome to revise the Latin text of the Gospels, and Jerome completed that task in just a few years. Then he began a revision of the Latin translation of other Bible books.

Jerome’s translation, which later came to be called the Vulgate, was a composite text. Jerome based his version of the Psalms on the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures completed in the second century B.C.E. He revised the Gospels, and he also translated a good part of the Hebrew Scriptures from the original Hebrew. The rest of the Scriptures were probably revised by others. Sections of the Vetus Latina were also eventually merged back into Jerome’s Vulgate.

Jerome’s work initially received a cool response. Even Augustine criticized it. Yet, it slowly established itself as the standard for single-volume Bibles. In the eighth and ninth centuries, such scholars as Alcuin and Theodulf set about correcting linguistic and textual errors that had crept into Jerome’s version because of repeated copying. Others divided the text into chapters, making it easier to consult the Scriptures. When printing with movable type was invented, Jerome’s version was the first Bible to go to press.

It was at the Council of Trent in 1546 that the Catholic Church for the first time called Jerome’s version the Vulgate. The council declared this Bible “authentic,” making it a reference text for Catholicism. At the same time, the council also called for a revision. The work was to be overseen by special committees, but Pope Sixtus V, impatient to see it completed and evidently a little overconfident regarding his own abilities, decided to finish the job himself. Printing of his revised edition had just begun when the pope died in 1590. The cardinals immediately repudiated what they considered to be a work full of errors, and they recalled it.

A new version published in 1592 under Pope Clement VIII eventually became known as the Sixtine Clementine edition. It remained the Catholic Church’s official version for quite some time. The Sixtine Clementine Vulgate also became the basis for Catholic translations into the vernacular, such as Antonio Martini’s translation into Italian, completed in 1781.

A Modern Bible in Latin

Textual criticism in the 20th century made it clear that the Vulgate, like other versions, needed revision. To that end, in 1965 the Catholic Church established a Commission for the New Vulgate and gave the commission the responsibility to revise the Latin translation on the basis of updated knowledge. The new text was to be used for Catholic services in Latin.

The first section of the new translation appeared in 1969, and in 1979, Pope John Paul II approved the Nova Vulgata. The first edition contained the divine name, Iahveh, in a number of verses, including Exodus 3:15 and 6:3. Then, as one member of the committee put it, the second official edition, published in 1986, “repented . . . Dominus [‘Lord’] was put back, in place of Iahveh.”

Just as the Vulgate was criticized centuries before, the Nova Vulgata was criticized, even by Catholic scholars. While it was initially presented as a translation with a strong ecumenical flavor, many viewed it as an obstacle to religious dialogue, particularly because it was proposed as a binding model for current language versions. In Germany, the Nova Vulgata was at the center of a controversy between Protestants and Catholics in connection with the revision of an interdenominational translation. Protestants accused Catholics of insisting that this new translation conform to the Nova Vulgata.

Even though Latin is no longer commonly spoken, the Bible in Latin has had both a direct and an indirect influence on millions of readers. It has shaped religious terminology in many languages. Regardless of the language in which it is produced, however, God’s Word continues to exert power, changing the lives of millions of people who obediently strive to act in harmony with its precious teachings.—Hebrews 4:12.

[Footnote]

For more information on why the Christian Scriptures were written in Greek, see the article “Did You Know?” ...

RENDERINGS THAT MADE HISTORY

The Vetus Latina, translated from Greek, contained many renderings that were to make history. One of these was the translation of the Greek word di·a·theʹke, “covenant,” as testamentum, or “testament.” (2 Corinthians 3:14) As a result of that rendering, many people still refer to the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures as the Old Testament and the New Testament respectively.

...

a reply to: ChesterJohn

A DEBATED INSTRUCTION

In 2001, after four years of work, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments published its Liturgiam authenticam (Authentic Liturgy) instruction. It has been harshly criticized by many Catholic scholars.

According to this instruction, since the Nova Vulgata is the church’s official edition, it should be used as a model for all other translations, even if it alters what is indicated in the ancient originals. Only by conforming to such direction can a Bible be accepted by the Catholic hierarchy. This instruction says that in Catholic versions, “the name of almighty God expressed by the Hebrew tetragrammaton (YHWH)” should be rendered into “any given vernacular by a word equivalent in meaning” to Dominus, or “Lord,” as does the second edition of the Nova Vulgata—even though the first edition used “Iahveh.”*

[Footnote]

See the article “Vatican Seeks to Eliminate Use of the Divine Name,” ...

Or the video that some people perhaps are afraid will melt their faces off or something, since some people don't want to get anywhere near this information, acknowledge it as being factual/certain/true/unambiguous/clear, certainly not talk about it in that manner or draw attention to it, or respond to it in any rational or honest manner when they are talking about their God and their theology on forums such as this one. Can't have people waking up to these enemies of God on a conspiracy site of course:
Jeremiah 23:27a (KJB):

Which think to cause my people to forget my name...
NW:
They intend to make my people forget my name...
NASB:
who intend to make My people forget My name...

And since no one else wants to quote these type of verses from the King James Bible when they are expressing their peculiar view of the KJB or AV*, theology or their God... (*: that matches the arguments made by those that are part of the King James Only Movement, or almost matches them)
Psalms 83:18 (KJB):

That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

Isaiah 12:2 (KJB):

Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

Darby Bible Translation
Behold, God is my salvation: I will trust, and not be afraid; for Jah, Jehovah, is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation.

"Jah" doesn't mean "LORD" either, that would not be an honest accurate translation. The Hebrew shows that "Jah" is the accurate honest translation there. But that's a bit of a side issue. Just making sure nobody gets the wrong impression cause the KJB has some issues with consistency in translation when it comes to God's name, about 7000 inconsistencies and mistranslations, errors that provide evidence for the effect caused by those described at Jeremiah 23:27 and the reliability of that description:


But this is why I really brought up Isaiah 12:2 earlier (not to get sidetracked on the "Jah" thingy or the inconsistency of the KJB when it comes to God's name):


Psalms 18:2 (ASV)
Jehovah is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; My God, my rock, in whom I will take refuge; My shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower.
Song 49 - Jehovah Is Our Refuge

a reply to: whereislogic

I was using the word you in general term not directed at you personally, when talking about these schools.

a reply to: Seede

When I read the AV I am reading the preserved words of God in my generation. It may have similarities to the Allepo Codex and other documents only in the fact that God inspired their prayerful study correctly when translating it into English. Where there was doubtful translation they waited on God to give them the correct interpretation into our language today.

Basically I am agreeing with you on many points. The problem with Koine Greek though is we have a lot of secular documents, which I am against using when it comes to the Word of God. Another point is there is no Koine Greek dictionary, not one has ever been found. When we read Vine's or Strong's Greek Dictionaries we are reading classical Greek meanings being made to be Koine, but like the copies no way to verify that the meanings are the same.

I think we both agree that the AV had put forth a more dutifully study of the available Manuscripts when it was being put together than any of the translations created since 1830.

I prefer the AV but I like the Geneva Bible and I also like the Bishops Bible. But as I don't consider either of them to be a preserved Bible as I do the AV.

You made some great points of which I do agree.