Pope backs civil unions

ramcam2

Member
My home office library also includes the books of sirach, tobit, and baruch along with marriage records, land ownerships , and recipes.

If you were dig it up 1000 years from now ; you would be wrong to assume I considered those important writings as God-breathed
the early christians read the greek translation of the old testament and this included the deuterocanonicals. the authors of the new testament freely quoted from the septuagint.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
the early christians read the greek translation of the old testament and this included the deuterocanonicals. the authors of the new testament freely quoted from the septuagint.
yep: Greek was the most common language in that area at the that time:
So much so that even the common Palestinian Jews had lost the ability to read Hebrew.
The LXX was a translation of writings the Jews considered Sacred AND other writings they consider as important (but not sacred)

A writing being included in the LXX does NOT mean it was considered God-breathed:
If it did then the RCC should have even a larger OT than it does
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
yep: Greek was the most common language in that area at the that time:
So much so that even the common Palestinian Jews had lost the ability to read Hebrew.
The LXX was a translation of writings the Jews considered Sacred AND other writings they consider as important (but not sacred)

A writing being included in the LXX does NOT mean it was considered God-breathed:
If it did then the RCC should have even a larger OT than it does
This is true. Siniaticus had the epistle of barnabas and the shepherd. Why aren't those in their n.t.?
 

balshan

Well-known member
fyi, the originals were long gone that even the scrolls are just copies of the original writings and the dead sea scrolls include copies of the deuterocanonicals like sirach, tobit, and baruch.
FYI everyone knows that fact. But we can still trust God's word. Why RCs always want to throw doubt on God's word is amazing to me. It is doing the devil's work for him. He wants God's word doubted.

In terms of quantity, the New Testament is represented far more than any other piece of ancient literature. Consider the known manuscripts of four well known Greek and Roman works: Homer was the earliest and most popular author of the ancient Greek world. His book, The Illiad, dates to 750 BC. To date, 647 manuscripts of this book have been found. Only 190 contain a complete copy. When compared to other classical Greek writing, Homer’s work is an exception. Copies of his work are much more plentiful than other ancient books. For example, Caesar’s Gallic War, dates to 50 BC. Only 9-10 manuscripts exist with the earliest copy dating to 900 AD. Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War dates to 450 BC. Eight manuscripts have been found with the earliest copy dating to 900 AD. (There are some fragments of this book that date to the time of Jesus.) Finally, Tacitus’ Histories was written in 100 AD. Only two manuscripts are available. One dates to 800 AD, the other to 1000 AD.

In light of this, the number of ancient writings containing the New Testament is staggering. To date, over 5800 Greek New Testament fragments have been found (Taylor, 2012). Over 10,000 Latin New Testament manuscripts dating from the 2nd to 16th century have been located. The earliest are in fragments that cover a substantial amount of the New Testament. Some manuscripts have also been found in a number of other languages, including Coptic, Syriac, Gothic, and Arabic. Taking all languages together, over 25,000 handwritten copies of the New Testament have been recovered. But there is more. Almost the entire New Testament could be reproduced by quotes from the ancient church fathers. “So extensive are these citations that if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, they would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament” (Metzger & Ehrman, 2005).

The ways ancient manuscripts are judged to be authentic.

Number of copies in original language

the University of Munster in Germany, currently lists the official number at 5,856 partial and complete manuscript copies written in the Greek language.1 These include handwritten copies of the New Testament papyri, parchment and lectionaries. If we add to this number more than 18,000 New Testament manuscripts written in other languages (translations) besides Greek, the overall count swells to more than 24,000 New Testament manuscripts! ...

time span between copies and originals

Usually, the shorter the time span, the more dependable the copy. The longer the interval between the original and the copy, the more room there is for errors, embellishments, and distortions to creep in as the text is copied and recopied...
the earliest manuscript copies currently ranging from 30-300 years from the original texts....
graph shows our documents and their originals
Plato 150 year gap
Homer 450 year gap...

accurate transmission and variant readings

Technically speaking, any deviation from the base accepted text is an error, but the kinds of “errors” represented in the New Testament text are not errors of historical, geographical, spiritual, or scientific fact. Instead, they are rather trivial. Therefore, the term “variant(s)” has been employed by scholars to avoid this confusion, since misspellings, omissions, differing word orders, updated words (substitution), and additions are much different in nature than errors of fact that would threaten biblical inerrancy or the truth value of the message...

There is no doubt that the scribes who copied the texts introduced changes. These scribal changes can be broken down into two basic types: unintentional and intentional. The greatest numbers of variant readings found in the New Testament manuscripts are unintentional variants...

Thus, the intentional variations, for the most part, were the work of scribes attempting to make the text more readable, not change the meaning....

On the whole, it must be admitted that…New Testament specialists… not to mention laypersons, tend to be fascinated by differences and to forget how many of them are due to chance or normal scribal tendencies, and how rarely significant variants occur— yielding to the common danger of failing to see the forest for the trees.13

Whatever manuscript tradition we use as the basis for a given translation, the outcome will be substantially the same because the text is basically the same...

Despite these variants, scholars have recognized the great accuracy with which the New Testament manuscripts were copied.


In other words we can trust and defend the inerrancy of scripture.

As to your other claim the dead sea scrolls held many different scrolls, so the fact that those non scriptural books are included is no surprise.
 

balshan

Well-known member
even martin luther have the deuterocanonicals in his first german translation of the bible. it is also in the first bible to be printed, the gutenburg bible. it was the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society that excluded the deuterocanonicals in 1825.
So what, he is just a man. I would prefer to follow Jewish traditions and they are not considered scripture but a second level. RCs either love or hate Luther, make up your minds. He is either wrong or right. Confusion comes from one source. I don't follow Luther.
 

balshan

Well-known member
as mentioned several times, only god is infallible but it does not mean he cannot give the gift of infallibility to men. an example are the writers of the bible. if they were not given the gift of infallibility, for sure the bible will have errors on faith and morals.
He could, He didn't. This fact is shown in the fallibility of your leaders and their love of power, wealth and sin.
 

mica

Well-known member
ramcam2 said:
even martin luther have the deuterocanonicals in his first german translation of the bible. it is also in the first bible to be printed, the gutenburg bible. it was the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society that excluded the deuterocanonicals in 1825.
so what? do you now follow Luther? he was a catholic, wasn't he?
 

ramcam2

Member
yep: Greek was the most common language in that area at the that time:
So much so that even the common Palestinian Jews had lost the ability to read Hebrew.
The LXX was a translation of writings the Jews considered Sacred AND other writings they consider as important (but not sacred)

A writing being included in the LXX does NOT mean it was considered God-breathed:
If it did then the RCC should have even a larger OT than it does
True, a writing in the septuagint is not automatic inspired. The Jews have no closed canon and it was the church, not the Jews, but the new people of god that has the authority to determined the canon of the Bible. A Christian at that age follows the Christian church not the anti-Christian Jews who rejects the New Testament but also the deuterocanonicals.
 

ramcam2

Member
so what? do you now follow Luther? he was a catholic, wasn't he?
Luther, as well as all Catholics, followed the church on the canon and not the anti Christian Jews.. Individual Catholics do not determine the canon of the Bible but it is the councils of the church that determined it. I follow the church, not any individual especially Luther who is a declared a heretic.
 

ramcam2

Member
So what, he is just a man. I would prefer to follow Jewish traditions and they are not considered scripture but a second level. RCs either love or hate Luther, make up your minds. He is either wrong or right. Confusion comes from one source. I don't follow Luther.
You would rather follow the anti Christian Jews of that time rather than the Christian church, correct?
 

balshan

Well-known member
You would rather follow the anti Christian Jews of that time rather than the Christian church, correct?
The Jews accepted God, they were not anti Christian because there was no Christianity at the time. The Jews missed their Messiah because of false teachings and your institution is not the Christian church, it is the false church.

Jesus was Jewish, the apostles were Jewish. You post rubbish.

Don't put words into my mouth.
 

1Thess521

Well-known member
True, a writing in the septuagint is not automatic inspired.
True: so don't ever appeal to inclusion in the LXX as a proof

The Jews have no closed canon and it was the church,
that means different things to different people: there was a collection of sacred Scrolls kept in God's Holy Temple that did not include your deuterocanonicals.
not the Jews, but the new people of god that has the authority to determined the canon of the Bible.
Hebrew Scriptures were given tot the Jews

A Christian at that age follows the Christian church not the anti-Christian Jews who rejects the New Testament but also the deuterocanonicals
Jesus , the Apostles, the writers of the NT never once mentioned the deuterocanonicals as Scripture

Your Church and it unique Canon are in error.
 
Last edited:
Top