 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: The word "scripture" in the Bible. |
 |
|
When I first started posting on forums I had 2 Tim. 3:16 in my signature, until someone told me that "scripture" only meant the Old Testament. So I removed the signature because I didn't know enough to defend it. I would like to take this post as the opportunity for us that do believe this; to defend that it refers to the New Testament also.
| Quote: | | All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; |
2 Tim. 3:16 (NASB)
| Evee wrote: | | Dartman, Do you realize that every time the word "scripture" is used in the Bible, it refers to the OT? That was the only "scripture" back then. Correct? |
| Quote: | | and regard the patience of our Lord {as} salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all {his} letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as {they do} also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. |
2 Pet. 3:15-16 (NASB)
Peter is referring to Paul's writings as Scripture.
There is also a point where Paul puts NT scripture on the same level as OT scripture.
| Quote: | | For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages." |
1 Tim. 5:18 (NASB)
Notice that Paul meshes Deut. 25:4 and Matt. 10:10 referring to them both as scripture. So Evee I would disagree with you about your belief that "every time the word "scripture" is used in the Bible, it refers to the OT."
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman wrote: | 2 Pet. 3:15-16 (NASB)
Peter is referring to Paul's writings as Scripture. |
Okay, this I'll give you. But let me also ask this -- Paul was a preacher correct? Why don't we consider the sermons or letters of preachers scripture today? Because that's what Paul's letters were. Encouragement to the churches to whatever he was writing them about.
| ragman wrote: | There is also a point where Paul puts NT scripture on the same level as OT scripture.
Quote:
For the Scripture says, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."
1 Tim. 5:18 (NASB)
Notice that Paul meshes Deut. 25:4 and Matt. 10:10 referring to them both as scripture. |
Do you really believe Paul would elevate himself to include his own letters as scripture? And he quoted Luke 10:7 btw, not Matthew, FYI.  So what Paul could be doing is elevating the gospel accounts w/the OT as scripture. Again I ask, why would Paul elevate himself in this way to refer to his own letters as scripture?
_________________
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking you know everything God has to say b/c you've read the Bible. Remember, God is STILL speaking. And surprisingly, through people we DON'T expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why don't we consider the sermons or letters of preachers scripture today? I don't know why you don't but I believe the Cannon to be closed. The Bible is a special revelation from God, all that is needed for our salvation is included in the Bible.
| Evee wrote: | | Do you really believe Paul would elevate himself to include his own letters as scripture? |
I never said he did. God inspired Paul's writings I take the intended meaning of scripture to refer to Paul's writings even if Paul did not understand it that way. Peter qualified Paul's writings as Scripture. Who are we to say that they are not?
| Evee wrote: | | And he quoted Luke 10:7 btw, not Matthew, FYI. Wink |
I was just going by the footnote in my Key Word Study Bible sorry. 
My question; is this statement true?
| Evee wrote: | | Dartman, Do you realize that every time the word "scripture" is used in the Bible, it refers to the OT? |
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evee
Moderator
Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 661
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ragman,
Should I rewrite that to say usually refers to OT? 
_________________
Don't get caught in the trap of thinking you know everything God has to say b/c you've read the Bible. Remember, God is STILL speaking. And surprisingly, through people we DON'T expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2658
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is plenty of difference between even the greatest of writing today and making it "scripture."
No I cant identify the exact ending of the "gospel"period but there simply is no other people anywhere today who have the same experience of Jesus as those who wrote the "Scriptures." (well maybe in their own imaginations)
None of the great writing down through the ages is any less great and that great writing can in fact be influential even, its just not canonized and will not become scripture.
_________________
My boss is a Jewish carpenter.
Read the
www.Christian-Thinktank.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: Re: The word "scripture" in the Bible. |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: | | Peter is referring to Paul's writings as Scripture. |
With all due respect, ragman, he isn’t.
Although the NASB uses the phrase “the rest of the Scriptures” the KJV is more explicit to say “the other scriptures”. Indeed, while the NASB merely implies that Paul’s writings are scriptures, the KJV rendition overtly states it. Yet both are wrong.
First, the word “scripture” (or γραφας) is NOT in the genitive case to show possession. One cannot write “of the scriptures.” Rather the word is in the accusative case and stands as the object of the verb “twist” (i.e. “wrest” in the KJV and “distort” in the NASB). I find this very disturbing as I have often recommended the NASB. One should not invent possession where it does not exist.
Second, while the KJV at least does not invent possession, it drops out the time quantity found in the object’s modifier. (Bear with me.)
The Greek phrase written in 2 Peter. 3:16 is τας λοιπας γραφας (the remaining writings). λοιπας (G3062 – loipos) is not used to indicate set-identification (these with those) but is rather used to indicate set-discrimination (these from those) a set of things yet to deal with.
The first entry in the Liddell Scott lexicon for loipos is “A. remaining over.” Loipos is used to indicate - descendants not yet killed (e.g. "his remaining children"), arguments not yet completed (e.g. “it remains to be shown”), actions that are pending (e.g. “what remains for us is to…”). Now when used with the article (tas) one can gloss the word as “the rest” (which is what the NASB does) but this drops out the time element (e.g. “furthermore”). In the time of Pindar, Slater finds the word loipos to refer exclusively to a future condition (e.g. doxan pheriei loipon – suppose the future will bring…)
There are two schools of thought regarding this passage, the first is that Peter is referring to his expectation that the unlearned and unstable not only “distort” what Paul wrote but shall also do likewise to his future writings. πασαις επιστολαις (all letters) is contrasted with λοιπας γραφας (future writings – those which remain to be written – the remaining writings).
In this case, 2 Peter. 3:16 would read - ως και τας λοιπας γραφας – in the same manner as the (his) future writings...
The second school of thought is that the early church rejected scripture as a basis for ecclesiastical authority outright.
ONE) Act 2:42 KJV And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
TWO) Paul wrote that we are to be led of the Spirit, not of the scriptures.
Rom 8:14 KJV For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Gal 5:18 KJV But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
THREE) Peter relied upon his vision to teach that the gentile Cornelius was also of God’s chosen, and didn’t need to be Jewish, something contrary to the Hebrew scriptures.
Act 10:45 KJV And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 15:8 KJV And God (not scripture), which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
To that end, the early church threw out the entire Jewish canon (such as the book of Enoch) and that the phrase λοιπας γραφας refers to the scriptures which remain (after the culling out of the crap) or “the rest that hadn’t been rejected”.
In this case, 2 Peter. 3:16 would read - ως και τας λοιπας γραφας – in the same manner as the remaining writings...
Regardless of which school you think more correct, the word λοιπας cannot be used to indicate that Paul's writings are to be included in the set of "other" writings considered "scripture". The word was just never used that way.
Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Yehushuan,
| Yehushuan wrote: | | With all due respect, ragman, he isn’t. |
This is why I missed you. You force me to look into the text.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | First, the word “scripture” (or γραφας) is NOT in the genitive case to show possession. One cannot write “of the scriptures.” Rather the word is in the accusative case and stands as the object of the verb “twist” (i.e. “wrest” in the KJV and “distort” in the NASB). I find this very disturbing as I have often recommended the NASB. One should not invent possession where it does not exist. |
I understand the above quote.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | The Greek phrase written in 2 Peter. 3:16 is τας λοιπας γραφας (the remaining writings). λοιπας (G3062 – loipos) is not used to indicate set-identification (these with those) but is rather used to indicate set-discrimination (these from those) a set of things yet to deal with. |
This quote above I don't understand.
λοιπὰς
| Quote: | | λοιπός, ή, όν, (λείπω) remaining, the rest, Lat. reliquus, Hdt., etc.; in Att. the Art. may either be in the same case as the Noun or have the Noun in gen. dependent on it, τὴν λοιπὴν ὁδὸν πορεύεσθαι Xen.; αἱ λοιπαὶ τῶν νεῶν Thuc.; also, τὸ λοιπὸν τῆς ἡμέρας Xen. |
Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (477).
Sorry I only have the Abridged Linddell Scott's  I will look it up this coming semester.
| Quote: | | 63.21 λοιπός, ή, όν; ἐπίλοιπος, ον; κατάλοιπος, ον: pertaining to the part of a whole which remains or continues, and thus constitutes the rest of the whole—‘rest, remaining, what remains, other. |
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996, c1989). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition.) (1:613). New York: United Bible societies.
| Quote: | | other scriptures—Paul’s Epistles were, therefore, by this time, recognized in the Church, as “Scripture”: a term never applied in any of the fifty places where it occurs, save to the Old and New Testament sacred writings. Men in each Church having miraculous discernment of spirits would have prevented any uninspired writing from being put on a par with the Old Testament word of God; the apostles’ lives also were providentially prolonged, Paul’s and Peter’s at least to thirty-four years after Christ’s resurrection, John’s to thirty years later, so that fraud in the canon is out of question. The three first Gospels and Acts are included in “the other Scriptures,” and perhaps all the New Testament books, save John and Revelation, written later. |
Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (2 Pe 3:16).
| Yehushuan wrote: | | Now when used with the article (tas) one can gloss the word as “the rest” (which is what the NASB does) but this drops out the time element (e.g. “furthermore”). In the time of Pindar, Slater finds the word loipos to refer exclusively to a future condition (e.g. doxan pheriei loipon – suppose the future will bring…) |
I have a problem with this also If this were true why is 2 Cor. 12:13 not translated in an aspect of time? Loipos is in the feminine in 2 Pet.3:16. It is my understanding that if is to mean a future event it would be in the neuter.
| Quote: | | 3. often of Time, ὁ λ. χρόνος the future, Pind., Att.; πρὸς τὸν λοιπὸν τοῦ χρόνου Dem.; τὸν λ. χρόνον for the future, Soph; τοῦ λ. χρόνου Id.;—so in neut., τὸ λοιπόν henceforward, hereafter, Trag.; so, τὰ λοιπά Ib. |
Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (477).
Please remember that I am only as knowledgeable as the research material that I have at my disposal.
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: | | Yehushuan wrote: | | The Greek phrase written in 2 Peter. 3:16 is τας λοιπας γραφας (the remaining writings). λοιπας (G3062 – loipos) is not used to indicate set-identification (these with those) but is rather used to indicate set-discrimination (these from those) a set of things yet to deal with. |
This quote above I don't understand. |
One of the basic tenets in linguistic communication is to try and establish whether what is said is meant to be inclusive or exclusive. To assert that Peter means to include Paul’s writings with scripture one would need to establish that the words he used are inclusive by nature. For example, the word “with” is inclusive vocabulary, while “from” is exclusive vocabulary.
As shown in your Louw and Nida citation, loipos is exclusive. It is meant to identify that certain pieces parts are excluded “from the remainder,” “from that which remains”. The dead children are excluded from the ones still living. The old arguments are excluded from what is yet to be discussed. The things done are separated from the things still yet to be done. Loipos is an excluding modifier, not an including one, so we can’t say Peter used this word to include Paul’s writings in this thing known as a canon of scripture.
Link to Slater
Link to Liddell Scott (also see A.4.)
| Quote: | | Men in each Church having miraculous discernment of spirits would have prevented any uninspired writing from being put on a par with the Old Testament word of God; |
EXACTLY what the Roman Catholic Church says about the Popes.
So since I am not familiar enough with the work of Fausset, Fausset, Brown and Brown, I can hardly render a conclusion about their presuppositional framework. But to say “fraud in the canon is out of the question” is self serving polemic. Which canon? The Muratorian canon? The Canon of the Syriac Church? The Canon of Iraneus? That of Athanasius? There was no canon which matches that of the modern day until 367 AD, well after Nicea. The book of Revelation is in the canon only because Athanasius had enough bully clout to get it in.
I would suggest two books by Bart Ehrman, his New Testament survey and “Misquoting Jesus.” I AM familiar with his work and that of his mentor Bruce Metzger. (And I also know where Bart’s mistakes lie.)
| ragman13 wrote: | | Loipos is in the feminine in 2 Pet.3:16. It is my understanding that if is to mean a future event it would be in the neuter. |
Loipos is in feminine since the gender of the modifier must agree with the noun. It’s feminine because graphas is feminine.
Check the above link to Liddell, A.3. In the first example, chronos is masculine, and “ho loipos chronos” (the loipos time) is rendered “the future” i.e. the remaining time. In the second example (ton loipon chronon) time is masculine accusative singular. There is no requirement to have a neuter gender that I can see.
| ragman13 wrote: | | If this were true why is 2 Cor. 12:13 not translated in an aspect of time? |
Good question. I didn’t have the time to track down other occurrences of G3062, so let me go see what we got here……41 uses of the word.
Mat. 22:6 – remnant
Mat 25:11 – the left over virgins (the remaining ones)
Mat 27:49 – those who remained standing there and didn’t get a sponge.
Mark 4:19 – not used as a modifier.
2 Cor. 12:13 – For what is it which weakened you over the assemblies remaining (to be considered) if not that I myself did not burden you…
| ragman13 wrote: | | Please remember that I am only as knowledgeable as the research material that I have at my disposal. |
I hear ya brother. I hear ya. That’s why we are to rely upon the living God as the spirit leads 
Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Yehushuan,
Thanks for the links.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | I would suggest two books by Bart Ehrman, his New Testament survey and “Misquoting Jesus.” I AM familiar with his work and that of his mentor Bruce Metzger. (And I also know where Bart’s mistakes lie.) |
Yeah I have heard of Bart Ehrman. I read a few reviews of Misquoting Jesus. The mistakes you spoke of are the reason I have avoided it. Here is a section from one of those reviews. [EDIT] I know it's pigheaded of me to judge an author without reading the work for myself. I will go and check it out today.
| Quote: |
Ehrman asserts that the existing mss4 are “error ridden,” and that “we don’t have the originals!”5 and yet time and again throughout his book he argues, based on manuscript evidence, that such and such a reading was not in the original. For example, on page 64 Ehrman argues, “As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John.”6 On page 157 he argues that in 1 Tim. 3:16, a scribe “had altered the original reading.” On page 159, concerning a variant in Luke 22, Ehrman dogmatically declares, “‘Today I have begotten you’— is indeed the original.”7 A particularly strong assertion about the original text is made by Ehrman concerning one variant: “We have seen one instance already in a variant we considered in chapter 5, Hebrews 2:9, in which Jesus was said, in the original text of the letter, to have died ‘apart from God.’”8 In this instance he even goes so far as confidently to assert, “Most scribes had accepted the variant reading . . . even though that was not the text that the author originally wrote.”9 However, if Ehrman is correct when he says we do not have the originals, then how does he know what is and what is not original? Obviously, it is self-defeating for Ehrman at once to say we do not have the original words and then to claim that the copies we have are incorrect or ridden with errors. How does he know any copies are incorrect if he does not have the original by which to make such a comparison? In fact, the only way he could judge that any copies were copied incorrectly is if he actually possessed the originals or assumed that the original is preserved in the copies, which he could then use as a standard of measure by which to measure specific instances of variation. This is only a sample of the kind of self-contradiction, exaggeration, selective reporting, and misrepresentation found within the book. It seems more accurate to characterize Ehrman’s book as “error ridden” than it is of the New Testament mss. |
Southern Evangelical Seminary. (2006; 2007). Christian Apologetics Journal Volume 5 (vnp.5.2.2-5.2.3). Southern Evangelical Seminary.
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Tiger
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 865
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Inspired scripture
One question that might be asked is this: “Does pasa mean all or every”in this text?
Most modern translations use all. This dramatically affects the outcome of the meaning of this text.
Bernard believes that it should be every on the basis of the absence of the article.
Simpson on the other hand, points out analogous cases where pas is used in a semi-technical phrase and where the meaning "every" is ruled out, Acts 2:36 where "all the house of Israel" is clearly demanded (also Eph 2:21; 3:15; Col 4:12). Yet it may well be in all these exceptions the pas draws attention to the partitive aspect of the expression, and, if that is so, the present phrase may mean Scripture as viewed in each separate part of it.
Although the American Revised Version and The New English Bible translated pasa "every" in 2 Timothy 3:16, they did not always translate it that way. In Matthew 3:15; Acts 2:36; 7:22 they translate it "all." A study of graphe in its more than fifty occurrences in the Greek New Testament reveals that it was considered a technical term or proper noun. Thus when it occurred with pa'" it did not need the article and therefore was translated "all" or "the whole.
Another thought on the subject of 2 Timothy 3:16 is whether this word is in the attributive position or the predicate position. Either one is grammatically permissible, so the decision ultimately must be made by determining how this word relates to its context.
In the Greek construction pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimos, the word "is" may be understood immediately before theopneustos thus making it a predicate adjective (with the clause translated "All Scripture is God-breathed and also profitable"), or immediately after theopneustos thus making it an attributive adjective (with the clause translated, "All God-breathed Scripture is also profitable"). However, a verb is not necessary for an adjective to be classified as a predicate adjective.
pas when used with an anarthrous noun is translated "every" in order to call attention to the individual members of the class denoted by the noun. However, when the noun accompanying pas is a proper noun or collective term, the adjective may be translated "the whole" or "all.
Could it go either way?
JB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ragman,
I don’t think the author of your quote quite understands what Dr. Ehrman is trying to convey. When I see a review that is mostly an emotional knee-jerk reaction, I have to question the presuppositional motivations. Indeed the following question shows a strong lack of understanding.
| Quote: | | How does he know any copies are incorrect if he does not have the original by which to make such a comparison? |
We can historically date the variants by quite a number of means, that of region (when did Christianity arrive there?), the style of handwriting (are spaces used?), which church maintained the copies? (various churches differ in theology), dating of the physical ink and paper, etc. Certainly your quote can’t realistically assert we DON’T have variants, no? Or that there are variants that significantly contradict one another theologically? So what valid academic conclusions can be drawn from these variants?
Ehrman’s book was written as a popular introduction, and was never meant to replace the dry and tedious academic thesis work that tracks down each and every fragment to find its place on the manuscript tree. Dr. Bruce Metzger (link) did most of this work over his 93 year life.
The only real mistake Bart makes in his book “Misquoting Jesus” is his brief interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11, although in trying to make an emotional impact of his own on the reader, his statement that we have more errors than all the words in the NT, doesn't consider whether such errors are merely misspellings or something of greater impact. Dr. Metzger doesn't think the quantity of the errors should change our view of the veracity of the manuscripts.
Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we have here a classic case of conceptual fusion.
In 2nd Timothy verse 15 we see the KJV reads “holy scriptures” with the word “scripture” used once more in verse 16 (“all scripture”).
People read “scripture” they think “scripture”. Yet in verse 15 the object is G1121 (gramma) while in verse 16 the word G1124 (graphe) is used. The KJV translation fuses these two words together, and the author’s intent to contrast (or compare) gramma to graphe is lost. Such a contrast, by the way Ragman, would show graphe in verse 16 was NOT meant to indicate the Septuagint (or the Hebrew Scripture) and hence the claim that verse 16 means the Old Testament fails. The contrast Would equate new writings (graphe) with traditional scripture (gramma).
Then again, in that one may reasonably conclude 2nd Timothy is a forgery (an epistle written by a Catholic priest but attributed by its author to Paul) whose theme is to prove the new writings to be Holy Scripture, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Do you really think Paul cared about whether his epistles gained the religious stature of holy writ or not?
Rom 8:14 KJV For as many as are led by the Writings of Paul, they are the sons of God.
I neither embrace the Catholic doctrine of Salvation nor the Catholic doctrine of Canon.
Yehu
“All God-breathed writing is also profitable…” I like it.
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago.
Last edited by Yehushuan on Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plotinus
Big Lion
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 986
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ragman13 wrote: | | When I first started posting on forums I had 2 Tim. 3:16 in my signature, until someone told me that "scripture" only meant the Old Testament. |
This has started an interesting discussion. Thanks to all who have contributed.
It strikes me that it is almost impossible to know exactly what each NT writer considered inspired. To say that it was restricted to the OT seems unlikely, because the OT canon did not exist at the time of the NT writings. For example the author of the epistle of Jude quoted from Enoch which is not part of the canon.
_________________
One would never discover the limits of soul, should one traverse every road -- so deep a measure does it possess.
Heraclitus, fragment 45, quoted in Diogenes Laertius 9.7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yehushuan
King Kong
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Charismatic
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plotinus wrote: | | because the OT canon did not exist at the time of the NT writings. |
Well certainly not the Christian OT canon.
Yet we do have evidence of what can be considered Jewish canon at the time. Certainly Jesus held to a Jewish concept of scripture and did not automatically reject all Hebrew Scriptures as Marcion did.
The two pieces of evidence that give us a reasonable indication of what Jesus meant by scripture would be the Septuagint (in that New Testament writers quoted from this source) and the Dead Sea Scrolls which most likely comprised the library from the temple, secreted away during the looting of the legions under Titus.
Yehu
_________________
There must be a God; Natural Selection would have gotten rid of you a long time ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ragman13
German Shepherd
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Yehushuan,
Sorry I misspoke it was not a review it was a response to the book. I believe you missed the point.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | I don’t think the author of your quote quite understands what Dr. Ehrman is trying to convey. When I see a review that is mostly an emotional knee-jerk reaction, I have to question the presuppositional motivations. Indeed the following question shows a strong lack of understanding. |
Dr. Ehrman goes to extremes to make the point that we have no original manuscripts and that the copies that we have are "error-ridden". Yes it is true that we do not have the originals, but if the copies are as error-ridden as he presents how can he know what's in the originals. He repeatedly states "this was not in the original" while implying that we can't know what was in the originals. So the question "How can he know that"? is a good question.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | Certainly your quote can’t realistically assert we DON’T have variants, no? |
No there are variants, Dr. Ehrman is however misleading the reader by stating that the text is error-ridden. 200,000 variants in almost 6000 copies. If I am not mistaken when a variant is found both are counted so one variant becomes two, and so forth. With over 90% of the text variant free I would hardly say that it is error-ridden. Also, the majority of textual critics tend to disagree with Dr. Ehrman's view that these variants as theologically based.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | Ehrman’s book was written as a popular introduction, and was never meant to replace the dry and tedious academic thesis work that tracks down each and every fragment to find its place on the manuscript tree. |
Yes I am aware of this. I thumbed through the book today. He seems to provide a bias interpretation of the variants, I didn't read in any of his examples where he gave any alternate view of the variant. It suggests to the reader that there is no other choice but his. That is incorrect.
| Yehushuan wrote: | | The only real mistake Bart makes in his book “Misquoting Jesus” is his brief interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 |
If you really believe this I can start a thread where we can discuss the book.
_________________
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify him. They would ask him to dinner, and hear what he had to say, and make fun of it. —Thomas Carlyle
Shh. Don't tell anyone that I am a Fundamentalist! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
