Is your faith shaken by close...

...scrutiny of Scripture? This article, regarding exactly this question, has interesting implications, yet the final statement in the last paragraph indicates a bold confidence that minute examination will not alter the spiritual truths or principles of godly living.

Thoughts???

The link is not working. Are you talking about the article mentioned in the AAA forum?

Could be. Have not checked the AAA yet. Was an AP article about the 50+ year project by Jewish scholars to make correction to the OT based on more recent manuscripts that predate the more traditional, but later ones.

Found the AAA thread.... same article, but Yahoo, not MSNBC.
I'll fix the link.

Re:

I read the article and the answer to the question is an emphatic NO.

I also don't expect the creeds of the Christian faith to be modifed one bit by what someone might change or find to change. The truth of scriptures will still hold fast, that is, Jesus is Lord and He came to save us and write his law on our hearts. And He did! And that cannot be changed.

I have to admit that I'm usually a bit suspect when I hear that a modern day scholar is going to improve what we already have.

But I'm also aware that many of the words our present Bibles contain just don't jive with the meanings of the original word or intent. That's why we have problems in some of our discussions.
The word "Elect" is just an example.

But I'm with all of you, they're not going to change the Gospel.

Good grief.

Jesus never wrote anything. His followers were mostly illiterate.

The earliest Christian writings were basically letters from the likes of Paul (who never MET Jesus) to various churches. Four portraits of Jesus, which were certainly pseudographical - were produced.

The question isn't "is this verse scientifically correct" or "does that verse contradicting that one negate the whole?" The Bible isn't the Koran - which was supposedly dictated literally by God and therefore any defect therein is serious cause to negate the whole.

It's books, written by people, scribed in many cases in the first few initial hundred years by people who couldn't read what they were copying. And the texts were written without any word breaks. That leads to some very, VERY intriguing situations...

Take for example

WEKNOWFORSURETHATMIKEISNOWHERE

Is that

We Know For Sure That Mike Is Now Here

or

We Know For Sure That Mike Is Nowhere?

An argument could be made that the words were meant to be parsed either way.

I'm reading a fascinating book talking about how the Bible's been compiled and modified and it's a quite illuminating read. I thought a note in a margin saying "FOOL AND KNAVE! DON'T CHANGE THIS, IT SHOULD BE THIS" was funny.

The Episcopal tradition says that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation and aims to take the messages of the Bible seriously, but not literally. You'd have to be categorically insane to believe it literally. The Nicene Creed sums up what one believes - but one isn't required to believe that Panocrenetians 30:93 is the literal dictated word of God and any changes to a single letter are cosmos-changing.

Jesus never wrote things down because his message can be pretty much summed up thusly-

1) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Find a loophole there, Pharisees.
2) God loves you and gives you much. Pay it forward.
3) God's prepared paradise for those who believe and would follow, and destruction for the rest. Pick a path.

G. Billy, please understand that I fully appreciate your contribution, however, the second line caught my attention.

Unless your Bible has a significant deletion, Jesus was teaching rabbis at twelve years of age, stood in the synagogue and read from the scroll we call Isaiah, as an adult, and from the reaction of the pharisees when Jesus encountered an attempted stoning, it is highly unlikely that He was just doodling in the sand. I'll concede that the last part is personal conjecture. This side of heaven, we will not know what He formed in the sand.


All that to say, we tend to assume things not in evidence. The absence of writing in His own hand, at this late date, cannot be construed to prove He wrote nothing or that He was not educated to the extent that He could do so.

And, btw, I really liked the condensed version you posted at the end, and the comments appended to each line.

gtparts said:

G. Billy, please understand that I fully appreciate your contribution, however, the second line caught my attention.

Click to expand...

Gah!

I wasn't suggesting the man was illiterate.
I was suggesting that there is no extant body of work that we know of that he published. He didn't distribute leaflets. There is no book with his name attached as authorship.

If anything he taught by parable and example - he knew what people would do with a codified Scripture - after all, he spent the better part of his life arguing with the Pharisic element.

Oh, and thanks for the compliments about the end. It's pretty much what I understand about Christianity. The rest is for all intents and purposes nit-picking.

Greaserbilly said:

Gah!

I wasn't suggesting the man was illiterate.
I was suggesting that there is no extant body of work that we know of that he published. He didn't distribute leaflets. There is no book with his name attached as authorship.

If anything he taught by parable and example - he knew what people would do with a codified Scripture - after all, he spent the better part of his life arguing with the Pharisic element.

Oh, and thanks for the compliments about the end. It's pretty much what I understand about Christianity. The rest is for all intents and purposes nit-picking.

Click to expand...

There was no offense intended, Friend. I do know that He "penned His will with His own blood", that we might be heirs of His salvation. And to me, that is far more significant than :swords:.

Agreed, Mr. Parts.