The Bible can it be trusted?

balshan

Well-known member
Thread after thread we have some RCs throwing doubt on God's word. Question its accuracy etc. by making statements we don't have the originals. The translations are they God's words blah, blah, blah.

What is the point of doing so? For a new believer it would be disconcerting, as they would be questioning whether they can rely on the scriptures they read.

We all know that the originals are mislaid. We all know the scripture is coming from copies. But is has been shown that there are a few minor differences that really don't make a difference to the context and that there are only a few mistakes that a minor.

The catechism is clear:


102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.


accuracy of the OT:

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah was found from 125 B.C.11 When it was compared with a scroll of Isaiah from A.D. 900, a scroll copied 10 centuries later, it was found to match in 95 % of its contents. The material that did not match included simple misspellings or slips of the pen. No doctrinal material was affected by the discrepancies. And it can be certain that the Masoretes and their Jewish counterparts played a great role in the accuracy of that text. And there are other examples from ancient history that show the exactness of the copying of the Old Testament.

 

balshan

Well-known member
The NT

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 Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

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


I am hoping we can see God's word can be trusted.
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
The NT

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 Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

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


I am hoping we can see God's word can be trusted.
Not only that but as time went on (since the first century) a treasure trove of manuscripts and codexes have been found. It wasn't until the 1800's that codex siniaticus was found dating from approx 350ad and vaticanus roughly the same time. Gods word is absolutely trustworthy and its the devil that ever seeks to sow doubt in the minds of those seeking God and those who are already His.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Not only that but as time went on (since the first century) a treasure trove of manuscripts and codexes have been found. It wasn't until the 1800's that codex siniaticus was found dating from approx 350ad and vaticanus roughly the same time. Gods word is absolutely trustworthy and its the devil that ever seeks to sow doubt in the minds of those seeking God and those who are already His.

I remember this came up as part of my course the inerrancy and accuracy of scripture. I thought don't we just accept, do we need to worry. However, I have found I had to use it more than I thought. One day having a conversation with my mother this came up and she said people told her parts of the bible weren't real. We went through the facts and we discussed just accepting God's word as real all of it and then you don't have to worry about what to believe.

I agree with your sentence His word is absolutely trustworthy and doubt only comes from one area. So I have been surprised by the fact that some RCs are constantly throwing doubt on the veracity of God's word. It is only being done, in my opinion, to try and boost their institution's false claims.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Active member
Thread after thread we have some RCs throwing doubt on God's word. Question its accuracy etc. by making statements we don't have the originals. The translations are they God's words blah, blah, blah.

What is the point of doing so? For a new believer it would be disconcerting, as they would be questioning whether they can rely on the scriptures they read.

We all know that the originals are mislaid. We all know the scripture is coming from copies. But is has been shown that there are a few minor differences that really don't make a difference to the context and that there are only a few mistakes that a minor.

The catechism is clear:


102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.


accuracy of the OT:

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah was found from 125 B.C.11 When it was compared with a scroll of Isaiah from A.D. 900, a scroll copied 10 centuries later, it was found to match in 95 % of its contents. The material that did not match included simple misspellings or slips of the pen. No doctrinal material was affected by the discrepancies. And it can be certain that the Masoretes and their Jewish counterparts played a great role in the accuracy of that text. And there are other examples from ancient history that show the exactness of the copying of the Old Testament.

Sacred Scripture can be trusted. The most accurate English translation is the Douay Rheims Bible.

Individual interpretations of Sacred Scripture cannot be trusted as is clearly evidenced by the thousands of contradicting Protestant sects, each following their founder's interpretation of scripture. The reality is that each individual

Protestant interprets scripture for themselves and believes whatever they want based upon their fallible and limited knowledge, all the while, of course, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Sacred Scripture can be trusted. The most accurate English translation is the Douay Rheims Bible.

Individual interpretations of Sacred Scripture cannot be trusted as is clearly evidenced by the thousands of contradicting Protestant sects, each following their founder's interpretation of scripture. The reality is that each individual

Protestant interprets scripture for themselves and believes whatever they want based upon their fallible and limited knowledge, all the while, of course, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
The RCC falsely interprets scripture for itself and believes whatever it wants based on their false fallible teachings and limited knowledge. So the RCC translation cannot be trusted at all. Though they ignore most of scripture.

The Douay Rheims would be one of the least trustworthy translation as it uses the Latin Vulgate. It replaces the word repentance with penance for example.



The Douay-Rheims Version is not a poor translation, but the problem is that it is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, not a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. Meaning and clarity are always lost in translation from one language to another. The Douay-Rheims takes this a step further, being a translation of a translation. In addition to this fault, the Douay-Rheims translators, on occasion, allowed their Catholic theology to influence their translation choices.

 

Maxtar

Active member
Non - Catholic Christians falsely interpret the scriptures because as many non - orthodox denominations as currently exist, there are as many interpretations. So none of these interpretations can be trusted - they all get it terribly wrong.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Non - Catholic Christians falsely interpret the scriptures because as many non - orthodox denominations as currently exist, there are as many interpretations. So none of these interpretations can be trusted - they all get it terribly wrong.
You cannot trust the RCC who has false doctrines to interpret anything at all. They constantly change the meanings of words, they ignore scripture and even go against scripture, they add to scripture. They also do not agree on a lot of things. It just gets things terribly wrong.
 

mica

Well-known member
Non - Catholic Christians falsely interpret the scriptures because as many non - orthodox denominations as currently exist, there are as many interpretations. So none of these interpretations can be trusted - they all get it terribly wrong.
yes, including false ones like that of the RCC men.

how do you know? because it doesn't match up w/ what the RCC teaches?

The RCC version doesn't match up with scripture, which is God's version.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Thread after thread we have some RCs throwing doubt on God's word. Question its accuracy etc. by making statements we don't have the originals. The translations are they God's words blah, blah, blah.

I am one of the Catholics who argued that we no longer have the originals. I argued that most Protestants agree that inspiration and infallibility apply only to the originals. They do not apply to translations.

But you are jumping to conclusions when you say that RCC's who argue in this manner are trying to cast doubt on God's Word. I was not attempting to cast doubt on God's Word. I was attempting to show that those who adhere to Sola Scriptura do not really adhere to Sola Scriptura. They trust Tradition as much as Catholics do.
That is the point of doing so? For a new believer it would be disconcerting, as they would be questioning whether they can rely on the scriptures they read.

Again, the point is to show that Sola Scriptura is not workable. Note that what is absolutely trusted is God's Word. I am attempting to cast doubt on Sola Scriptura, not God's Word.
We all know that the originals are mislaid. We all know the scripture is coming from copies. But is has been shown that there are a few minor differences that really don't make a difference to the context and that there are only a few mistakes that a minor.

You are absolutely correct in everything you said. Note, however, that in order to make the argument you are making, you have to appeal to reliability of the mechanism of Tradition. THAT is my point. Put another way--you just proved Catholics right.
The catechism is clear:

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.


accuracy of the OT:

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah was found from 125 B.C.11 When it was compared with a scroll of Isaiah from A.D. 900, a scroll copied 10 centuries later, it was found to match in 95 % of its contents. The material that did not match included simple misspellings or slips of the pen. No doctrinal material was affected by the discrepancies. And it can be certain that the Masoretes and their Jewish counterparts played a great role in the accuracy of that text. And there are other examples from ancient history that show the exactness of the copying of the Old Testament.


Amen: the mechanism of Tradition is reliable. That is the point I was making and you just proved my point--which means you proved Catholics right.
 

mica

Well-known member
...
Again, the point is to show that Sola Scriptura is not workable. Note that what is absolutely trusted is God's Word. I am attempting to cast doubt on Sola Scriptura, not God's Word.
...
that clearly shows lack of belief in the truth of scripture.

You are absolutely correct in everything you said. Note, however, that in order to make the argument you are making, you have to appeal to reliability of the mechanism of Tradition. THAT is my point. Put another way--you just proved Catholics right.


Amen: the mechanism of Tradition is reliable. That is the point I was making and you just proved my point--which means you proved Catholics right.
no, tradition and the catholic Tradition are not the same things. that's something catholics continually use to deceive others.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
Thread after thread we have some RCs throwing doubt on God's word. Question its accuracy etc. by making statements we don't have the originals. The translations are they God's words blah, blah, blah.

What is the point of doing so? For a new believer it would be disconcerting, as they would be questioning whether they can rely on the scriptures they read.

We all know that the originals are mislaid. We all know the scripture is coming from copies. But is has been shown that there are a few minor differences that really don't make a difference to the context and that there are only a few mistakes that a minor.

The catechism is clear:


102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.


accuracy of the OT:

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, a complete copy of the Book of Isaiah was found from 125 B.C.11 When it was compared with a scroll of Isaiah from A.D. 900, a scroll copied 10 centuries later, it was found to match in 95 % of its contents. The material that did not match included simple misspellings or slips of the pen. No doctrinal material was affected by the discrepancies. And it can be certain that the Masoretes and their Jewish counterparts played a great role in the accuracy of that text. And there are other examples from ancient history that show the exactness of the copying of the Old Testament.


 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
I firmly believe in the indwelling and guidance of the Holy Spirit of God in every born-again believer, and in what Jesus Christ Himself said regarding the authoritative standard of truth being the Word of God - the Bible. Speaking of the Bible, Christ Himself said, "Thy word is truth.." John 17:17
In settling issues of spiritual controversy the Lord Jesus always appealed to the Word of God as an authoritative standard by which to judge truth and falsehood.
 
Last edited:

RayneBeau

Well-known member
Sacred Scripture can be trusted. The most accurate English translation is the Douay Rheims Bible.

Individual interpretations of Sacred Scripture cannot be trusted as is clearly evidenced by the thousands of contradicting Protestant sects, each following their founder's interpretation of scripture. The reality is that each individual

Protestant interprets scripture for themselves and believes whatever they want based upon their fallible and limited knowledge, all the while, of course, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
It is the Roman Catholic Church alone that answers the question as to whether or not the Bible can be trusted and the Roman Catholic Church emphatically declares that "it is NOT from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed." In that "authoritative" statement alone contained in the documents of Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church is acknowledging and teaching, that Sacred Scripture CAN NOT be trusted.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
that clearly shows lack of belief in the truth of scripture.

No; it shows a lack of believe in Sola Scriptura.

You apparently seem unable to make the distinction between the Word of God as it is preserved and handed in and through the Church, Scripture, and Sola Scriptura.

The Word of God is absolutely trustworthy. The Scriptures are absolutely trustworthy. The mechanism that has preserved the Scriptures and handed them on (Tradition) is absolutely trustworthy.

What I am challenging is the man made doctrine of SOLA SCRIPTURA; not the Scriptures, not God's Word.
no, tradition and the catholic Tradition are not the same things. that's something Catholics continually use to deceive others.

No, Tradition is the mechanism that preserves and hands on the Word of God.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Sacred Scripture can be trusted. The most accurate English translation is the Douay Rheims Bible.

Individual interpretations of Sacred Scripture cannot be trusted as is clearly evidenced by the thousands of contradicting Protestant sects, each following their founder's interpretation of scripture. The reality is that each individual

Protestant interprets scripture for themselves and believes whatever they want based upon their fallible and limited knowledge, all the while, of course, claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Correct me if I am wrong, but, my understanding is that the Douay Rheims Bible is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate is considered the official translation of the Bible for the Latin West. It may be the most accurate translation of the Vulgate. However, there are a lot of manuscripts on which translations are based. One of the issues with the Douay Rheims is that it is a translation of a translation. Direct translation from the manuscripts is better.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
Non - Catholic Christians falsely interpret the scriptures because as many non - orthodox denominations as currently exist, there are as many interpretations. So none of these interpretations can be trusted - they all get it terribly wrong.
If you believe your own false notions and those of the Roman Catholic Church then please explain why do Roman Catholics constantly transgress the Word of God for the sake of your pope and your church's ignorant unbiblical teachings?
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
The Douay Rheims would be one of the least trustworthy translation as it uses the Latin Vulgate. It replaces the word repentance with penance for example.
Yes, and isn't it also the Douay-Rheims translation for the Roman Catholic Church that omitted one of God's original 10 Commandments about idols, changed the words, and re-numbered God's 10 Commandments given to Moses?
 
Top