Paul an Apostle?

[Starise]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

What specific evidence do you have that some of the Bible is missing?  Not generalities about people making mistakes, but actual evidence.

Whenever we ask for historical "evidence"we always base our ideas on something someone else usually long dead left. All of the people who were involved in the information process are no longer with us( no live witnesses). We weren't around then, so we are left with only the scraps we can glean from supposed historically accurate writings of others passed along through multiple generations. We can see how stories are changed around in 24 hours time in the 2oth century. Don't you suppose that happened then as well?

Proof is only proof if it was be reasonably supported and sometimes asking for "evidence" is simply a lead into a defense for a subject that has no clear winner. In essence we can be asking for something that doesn't exist and demanding something we know deep down can't be reasonably brought forth.

In the case of the Bible, this is even more testament to the solidity of the book itself since it has stood the test of time when compared to translations from multiple sources. 

The best evidence we have for some misunderstanding of text or tampering actually  having happened is in looking at the book itself across time and translations. A few examples I'll list here. There are more.

Look John 5:4- Some early manuscripts omit the reference to the disturbance of the water (John 5:3b-4). 

This was a deliberate omission IMO not a "mistake".

In a case of adding to the Bible. How do you mistakenly add something to the text?

Look at the story of the woman taken in adultery. This didn't become a part of the Bible until 100 years after the gospel of John was written. John 8:1-11

The idea of canon differs depending on who or where you study. My opinion is that in order to be safe as possible church leaders might have culled just a little more than we should have from the Protestant Bible. This I'm pretty sure you disagree with, yet its still open to debate by minds greater than mine. Any comparison of books outside of the Protestant canon would obviously  need to line up exactly with everything else. Men determined the canon. Not God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Starise

[Starise]

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

As long as God is leading you to do that, from a firm foundation of faith; otherwise, it's a very bad idea.

In reference to my comment about Christians challenging themselves with doubt. I can see the wisdom in this and something I had not considered. Josheb said something similar which is noted. 

OTOH, The devil will not hesitate to hit believers with these kinds of things as arguments for why their belief is all messed up. It's actually to his advantage if they are not prepared. 

If you look at that link superficially you can see several things happening immediately that ties in well with the Paul debate.

- Hitting the opponent with a lot of information at once and inferring determinations about those incorrect comparisons. The whole argument is based on incorrect comparisons taken largely out of context. This would result in "overload" for some people. You have to eat it like an elephant. One bite at a time.

- The whole jist of it is God can't make up His own mind and does the very things He tells us not to do. The end goal being, if God isn't really God as we thought Him to be then He doesn't deserve to be acknowledged. It's a whole case based on false pretense in the first place.

- Directs focus away from the things that would explain to us who God really is. Magnifies only certain bits of information only relevant to the goal. To make God a fool. They are the true fools.

For new recent believers though....maybe that's something for later. Yet The devil gives no such slack.

[Alive]

C'mon guys--topic not bickering.

Please.

[SisterWells]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Whenever we ask for historical "evidence"we always base our ideas on something someone else usually long dead left. All of the people who were involved in the information process are no longer with us( no live witnesses). We weren't around then, so we are left with only the scraps we can glean from supposed historically accurate writings of others passed along through multiple generations. We can see how stories are changed around in 24 hours time in the 2oth century. Don't you suppose that happened then as well?...

 

The idea of canon differs depending on who or where you study. My opinion is that in order to be safe as possible church leaders might have culled just a little more than we should have from the Protestant Bible.

 

I love to glean the scraps. The Acts of Paul and Thecla, considerd a forgery by Tertullian but interesting.

[Marathoner]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

What specific evidence do you have that some of the Bible is missing?  Not generalities about people making mistakes, but actual evidence.

I know you addressed this to @Starise but I thought I might answer the question you raised because it's a good one, brother. Before I furnish an answer it's worth pointing out that I don't put much stock in allegations of translation errors; a number of excellent translations are available to us today such as the NASB which I enjoy reading. 

Secondly, we should remember that references to "the scriptures" are subject to temporal modification. The scriptures prior to the destruction of the 2nd temple (those known to the disciples when Christ walked in this flesh) are not equivalent to what we recognize as the scriptures in the present day. The LXX comprised the bulk of the scriptures known to the disciples and continued in this capacity centuries after the Lord rose from the dead and ascended to sit with our Father upon His throne.  

All of this is an indication that the subject matter is more nuanced than "portions of the bible are missing." I think it's more appropriate to say that portions of scripture have been lost over time. The example I will cite is Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, referred to in the following passage from Colossians:

Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and Demas does also. Greet the brothers and sisters who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house. When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part, read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. Tell Archippus, “See to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, so that you may fulfill it.” (Colossians 4:14-17 NASB)

This isn't inferring that what we possess now is lacking in some way, only that there is more to the scriptures than we realize. Hence "lost" is more appropriate.  

Edited January 7, 2021 by Marathoner

[David1701]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Whenever we ask for historical "evidence"we always base our ideas on something someone else usually long dead left. All of the people who were involved in the information process are no longer with us( no live witnesses). We weren't around then, so we are left with only the scraps we can glean from supposed historically accurate writings of others passed along through multiple generations. We can see how stories are changed around in 24 hours time in the 2oth century. Don't you suppose that happened then as well?

Proof is only proof if it was be reasonably supported and sometimes asking for "evidence" is simply a lead into a defense for a subject that has no clear winner. In essence we can be asking for something that doesn't exist and demanding something we know deep down can't be reasonably brought forth.

In the case of the Bible, this is even more testament to the solidity of the book itself since it has stood the test of time when compared to translations from multiple sources. 

The best evidence we have for some misunderstanding of text or tampering actually  having happened is in looking at the book itself across time and translations. A few examples I'll list here. There are more.

Look John 5:4- Some early manuscripts omit the reference to the disturbance of the water (John 5:3b-4). 

This was a deliberate omission IMO not a "mistake".

In a case of adding to the Bible. How do you mistakenly add something to the text?

Look at the story of the woman taken in adultery. This didn't become a part of the Bible until 100 years after the gospel of John was written. John 8:1-11

The idea of canon differs depending on who or where you study. My opinion is that in order to be safe as possible church leaders might have culled just a little more than we should have from the Protestant Bible. This I'm pretty sure you disagree with, yet its still open to debate by minds greater than mine. Any comparison of books outside of the Protestant canon would obviously  need to line up exactly with everything else. Men determined the canon. Not God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

 

None of this is evidence.  Opinions are not evidence.

[David1701]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

In reference to my comment about Christians challenging themselves with doubt. I can see the wisdom in this and something I had not considered. Josheb said something similar which is noted. 

OTOH, The devil will not hesitate to hit believers with these kinds of things as arguments for why their belief is all messed up. It's actually to his advantage if they are not prepared. 

If you look at that link superficially you can see several things happening immediately that ties in well with the Paul debate.

- Hitting the opponent with a lot of information at once and inferring determinations about those incorrect comparisons. The whole argument is based on incorrect comparisons taken largely out of context. This would result in "overload" for some people. You have to eat it like an elephant. One bite at a time.

- The whole jist of it is God can't make up His own mind and does the very things He tells us not to do. The end goal being, if God isn't really God as we thought Him to be then He doesn't deserve to be acknowledged. It's a whole case based on false pretense in the first place.

- Directs focus away from the things that would explain to us who God really is. Magnifies only certain bits of information only relevant to the goal. To make God a fool. They are the true fools.

For new recent believers though....maybe that's something for later. Yet The devil gives no such slack.

The devil uses all kinds of deceptive tactics, some of which you have noted; but, to try to prepare for all of them, by studying them, would take a lifetime and would distract us from the Lord and his word.

The best way to tell a counterfeit, is by studying the real thing.  That is what bank clerks do...

[Starise]

1 hour ago, SisterWells said:

I love to glean the scraps. The Acts of Paul and Thecla, considerd a forgery by Tertullian but interesting.

Hi SisterWells,

Are you sure this is the right link?

46 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

All of this is an indication that the subject matter is more nuanced than "portions of the bible are missing." I think it's more appropriate to say that portions of scripture have been lost over time. The example I will cite is Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, referred to in the following passage from Colossians:

Interesting. Thanks.

16 minutes ago, David1701 said:

None of this is evidence.  Opinions are not evidence.

Eh.....the references on real paper in black and white I mentioned won't do it for you? This goes a little further than mere opinion me thinks.

The devil takes the real thing and presents it in bits and pieces completely changing the meaning of it.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Starise

[David1701]

46 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

I know you addressed this to @Starise but I thought I might answer the question you raised because it's a good one, brother. Before I furnish an answer it's worth pointing out that I don't put much stock in allegations of translation errors; a number of excellent translations are available to us today such as the NASB which I enjoy reading. 

Secondly, we should remember that references to "the scriptures" are subject to temporal modification. The scriptures prior to the destruction of the 2nd temple (those known to the disciples when Christ walked in this flesh) are not equivalent to what we recognize as the scriptures in the present day. The LXX comprised the bulk of the scriptures known to the disciples and continued in this capacity centuries after the Lord rose from the dead and ascended to sit with our Father upon His throne.  

All of this is an indication that the subject matter is more nuanced than "portions of the bible are missing." I think it's more appropriate to say that portions of scripture have been lost over time. The example I will cite is Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, referred to in the following passage from Colossians:

Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and Demas does also. Greet the brothers and sisters who are in Laodicea and also Nympha and the church that is in her house. When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part, read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. Tell Archippus, “See to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, so that you may fulfill it.” (Colossians 4:14-17 NASB)

This isn't inferring that what we possess now is lacking in some way, only that there is more to the scriptures than we realize. Hence "lost" is more appropriate.  

Just because there was a letter to the Laodiceans, does not mean that it was intended to be Scripture.

There is much debate about the Septuagint, as I'm sure you know.  The examples of it that we have (primarily, but not only, from Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), contain some very dubious books and additions to some of the OT books.

I have read some of the additional parts and books in the Septuagint, and they do not come across as inspired at all (e.g. compare psalm 151 with the rest of the psalms - its character is much poorer, or read 2 Maccabees, which contains several false teachings).

We should generally rely upon the Hebrew, rather than the Greek translation of the Hebrew, as the basis for translating the OT, only using other translations where the Hebrew is uncertain.

The body of believers in general, is the custodian of the word of God; and so, acceptance and usage, throughout the centuries, and at times of epochal change for the better (e.g. the Reformation), should be an excellent indicator of soundness.

There is huge agreement between the majority of Greek NT manuscripts, although there is a very small number of significantly different ones, which are from Egypt (a hotbed of error), in the early centuries.  These earliest manuscripts probably survived in legible form, precisely due to their untrustworthy character, so that they were relatively unused, did not wear out and were not copied.

 

[SisterWells]

36 minutes ago, Starise said:

Hi SisterWells,

Are you sure this is the right link?

Whoops