Nuclear Testimony

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Here's the problem with the phrase "a Biblical worldview" as I see it. Some of the Bible is missing, and some of it's wrong, and some is corrupted. So what view should one take from the Bible?

Missing: When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, there was a verse in Psalm 145 that had long been missing that was found, and re-inserted in the "modern text", including, ahem, the RecV. The reason they knew it was missing was that the Psalm was an 'acrostic' with each verse starting with a new letter in sequence. But there it was in the DSS. This shows that the text has been remarkably well-curated if the 2,000 year-old DSS and the medieval copies agree so well, but one can't be too sure that some other bits aren't missing. We just don't know. So a bit of circumspection might be in order, in formulating and holding one's views.

Wrong: I already covered the fate of Judas in another post. He's listed as dying in two different ways, which doesn't seem possible.

Corrupted: I toted around the KJV for years as proof of my "orthodoxy". One day I read the verses from 1 John 5 aloud in my study group, and everyone looked at me blankly. Evidently this section was called the "Johannine comma" and most modern versions don't have it. Someone in the Middle ages tried to "prove" the trinity concept biblically and inserted it into the manuscript. Again, this is the exception not the rule. But corruption exists. Older texts have remarkable agreement. But there's evidence of deliberate corruption in at least some variants (e.g., KJV).

Another case is with Jewish historian Josephus. His text mentions that Jesus was the Christ and was seen on the third day, risen from the dead. "Most scholars currently incline to see the passage as basically authentic, with a few later insertions by Christian scribes." Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, page 249. Paula Fredricksen.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

The text was probably corrupted by later Christians who wanted independent textual witness that Jesus was Christ and resurrected on the 3rd day. Of course any textual narrative, when copied by hand over centuries, will endure some unintentional corruption. But the question is, how much deliberate corruption was done at the hands of Christian apologists? I see two cases, outlined above. There may be more, some even egregious. So circumspection is in order.

That's all I'm trying to say here. A "Biblical worldview" doesn't mean that you have to believe that every single word is literally true. Some fundamentalists work that way, and I feel bad for their children who must put up with such nonsense to survive. Just to cite one case, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has produced a sea-change in Biblical studies, but other than supplying one verse to the RecV, it's had no discernible impact in the LC. If that's what's meant by the phrase above I agree. But there are Biblical worldviews that differ greatly from the LC variant. Some are quite obliging to scientific methods.

I remember serving in a children's meeting, and the elder's wife scoffed, "Everybody knows dinosaurs didn't exist" and I was like, "Huh!?" But of course I didn't say anything because in the LC one didn't profitably argue with the elder's wife.

Thanks for the tip on "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." I think I'll put that on my future life reading. My reading load is full up right now.

"SerenityLives" has me reading a very sweet book : "The Forgotten Creed." The basis of the book is Galatians 3:28 : "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (ESV) ; no ethnicity, no race, no gender ; "All are Children of God in Christ." This creed, the author, Patterson, says, Paul borrowed from an earlier baptism liturgy, meaning this is how earlier Christians than Paul saw concerning being in Christ. It's really beautiful when you think about it.

And concerning the Bible being questionable, due to meddling down thru the manuscript copies, I hope you continue your studies. There are more variations in the manuscripts of the NT, than there are words in the NT. Yes, a lot of them are innocent human error. Scribes are human too.

But then there are deliberate changes, besides the Johannine comma in 1 John 5 -- again scribes are human -- there's also the adulterous women (throw the first stone), and the last 12 verses in Mark. Also, almost half of books attributed to Paul are disputed. Most scholars consider them pseudepigraphal.

Bro aron, you might want to add to your reading list : "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture."