Quote:
Originally Posted by Bible-believer
Kindly define 'have been damaged by the truth,' and "truth,' please. Did you mean when the truth of "something" is revealed, it damages people?
|
An example of “truth”, from Wikipedia:
The Masoretic Text[a] (MT or ��; Hebrew: נֻסָּח הַמָּסוֹרָה, romanized: Nūssāḥ Hammāsōrā, lit. 'Text of the Tradition') is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in Rabbinic Judaism. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the mas'sora. Referring to the Masoretic Text, mesorah specifically means the diacritic markings of the text of the Hebrew scriptures and the concise marginal notes in manuscripts (and later printings) of the Tanakh which note textual details, usually about the precise spelling of words. It was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE). The oldest known complete copy, the Leningrad Codex, dates from the early 11th century CE.
The differences attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that multiple versions of the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the end of the Second Temple period.[1] Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, as is whether such a singular text ever existed.[2] The Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to as early as the 3rd century BCE, contain versions of the text that are radically different from today's Hebrew Bible.[3] The Septuagint (a Koine Greek translation made in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE) and the Pe****ta (a Syriac translation made in the 2nd century CE) occasionally present notable differences from the Masoretic Text, as does the Samaritan Pentateuch, the text of the Torah preserved by the Samaritans in Samaritan Hebrew.[4] Fragments of an ancient manuscript of the Book of Leviticus found near an ancient synagogue's Torah ark in Ein Gedi have identical wording to the Masoretic Text.[5]
The Masoretic Text is the basis for most Protestant translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, English Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and New International Version. After 1943, it has also been used for some Catholic Bibles, such as the New American Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible. Some Christian denominations instead prefer translations of the Septuagint as it matches quotations in the New Testament.[6]
This is not the whole truth, but it raises serious questions about the authority of both the Hebrew and Greek texts that we consider canonical today.
Could say a lot more, especially about the last sentence, but I will stop here. I do not think Nell had this in mind when she entitled this thread.
The damage done to me is when I realized that the foregoing was common knowledge, withheld from me by my spiritual leaders who drilled into me that I had in my hands a “holy” Bible, infallible and inerrant. I came close to walking away. Actually, I did walk away. When I came back for another try, it was on my terms, not theirs. I have been blessed beyond measure by studying the Bible from this viewpoint.
And it is not Dangerous to do so.