29 Mar 11
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
If you are one of the people who thinks the Bible is the direct word of God (and therefore unaffected by the human nature of those that physically wrote it), how would you interpret the findings of this new book if they reveal some important contradictions with the known texts?
For the others, how would you react if it strongly gave evidence towards resolving some of the disputes among Christians (Protestants, Catholics, etc) in favour of a denomination which is not your own?
29 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI cannot see how it has any relevance, we cannot even be certain if they are Christian, the evidence being based on the fact that the plates contain a symbol of the Jewish seven-branch menorah, a map of Jerusalem, what appears to be a Tau cross and what appears to be a sepulchre, which the article claims is Christ's. Why would the early Christians write in coded Hebrew when Greek was the international language of the day unless of course they were Jewish converts. Also there is debate as to whether the method of Roman execution did involve a crossbeam or a simple stake, crux simplex. Its hardly likely that the early Christians, many of whom were Jewish converts would adopt the symbolism of an essentially pagan deity, the Tau cross, associated with the God Tammuz, that came much later. One must remember, that the ancient Jewish copyists, the Masorets took scrupulous measures to make sure that every letter of the Hebrew text was accounted for which makes up more than three quarters of the text which we process today, how these plates can significantly change our perceptions of our own denomination, based upon their content will be extremely minimal, for they are too deeply rooted in what we have already for any significant reappraisal to take place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
If you are one of the people who thinks the Bible is the direct word of God (and therefore unaffected by the human nature of those that physically wrote it), how would you interpret the findings of this new book if they reveal some important contradictions with the known texts?
For the others, how wo ...[text shortened]... mong Christians (Protestants, Catholics, etc) in favour of a denomination which is not your own?
29 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, we'll need to decode them first, obviously.
I cannot see how it has any relevance, we cannot even be certain if they are Christian, the evidence being based on the fact that the plates contain a symbol of the Jewish seven-branch menorah, a map of Jerusalem, what appears to be a Tau cross and what appears to be a sepulchre, which the article claims is Christ's. Why would the early Christians w ...[text shortened]... ey are too deeply rooted in what we have already for any significant reappraisal to take place.
But I see you're already preparing mentally to deny what you expect is coming. Interesting. I particularly like it how you attack the use of Hebrew in the beginning and then say that the Jewish copists went to great pains to make sure every Hebrew letter was accounted for.
29 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSure, it's early for now and that's why I posed the questions as hypotheticals.
i maintain a health scepticism based on the article, which itself, was pure conjecture.
Do you not even think it's possible that there are earlier books? Much has been said about the possibility of a Q source.
29 Mar 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Palynkaearlier books than the Christian Greek scriptures apart from the Hebrew text and what is extant, well its hard to say. What is really interesting is the choice of media, for it is well understood that almost all codex were papyri or animal skin. I have never heard of nor read of a metallic one. Whether this proves to be significant or not i cannot say, but yes, it is interesting and i shall probably be made to eat my words and my hat, gulp. I think the earliest known complete writings are the Sinatic Coptic text which are dated to 2 century Alexandria, others i think are fragmentary.
Sure, it's early for now and that's why I posed the questions as hypotheticals.
Do you not even think it's possible that there are earlier books? Much has been said about the possibility of a Q source.
29 Mar 11
Originally posted by Palynkano worries, is that a ziggurat in your avatar?
Ok, sorry if I sounded a bit harsh on my first reply to you.
Just that this interests me (for historical reasons) and I'm an atheist. I think if I was a Christian I would be on the edge of my seat!
29 Mar 11
Originally posted by PalynkaI eagerly await the translations. Little is known of the history of the early church, perhaps this will shed light on it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
If you are one of the people who thinks the Bible is the direct word of God (and therefore unaffected by the human nature of those that physically wrote it), how would you interpret the findings of this new book if they reveal some important contradictions with the known texts?
For the others, how wo ...[text shortened]... mong Christians (Protestants, Catholics, etc) in favour of a denomination which is not your own?
30 Mar 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynka=========================================
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421
If you are one of the people who thinks the Bible is the direct word of God (and therefore unaffected by the human nature of those that physically wrote it), how would you interpret the findings of this new book if they reveal some important contradictions with the known texts?
For the others, how wo ...[text shortened]... mong Christians (Protestants, Catholics, etc) in favour of a denomination which is not your own?
If you are one of the people who thinks the Bible is the direct word of God (and therefore unaffected by the human nature of those that physically wrote it), how would you interpret the findings of this new book if they reveal some important contradictions with the known texts?
====================================
The Dictation School is only one fringe hyper conservative theory of inspiration.
Most Christians scholars who believe in inspiration recognize that human style and individuals' personality effects the various books of the Bible.
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEdit: "What is really interesting is the choice of media, for it is well understood that almost all codex were papyri or animal skin."
earlier books than the Christian Greek scriptures apart from the Hebrew text and what is extant, well its hard to say. What is really interesting is the choice of media, for it is well understood that almost all codex were papyri or animal skin. I have never heard of nor read of a metallic one. Whether this proves to be significant or not i cannot ...[text shortened]... the Sinatic Coptic text which are dated to 2 century Alexandria, others i think are fragmentary.
Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician and Aramaic material on bronze plates is a limited but common practice. For starters, Exodus 28:36 shows that Moses was ordered to make a plate of pure gold and engrave upon it: “Holy to Yahweh”. And among the artifacts discovered at Ketef Hinnom there were found two silver plates of the seventh century BC, containing the priestly benedictions found in Numbers 6:24-26. Also, the Copper Scroll from Qumran contained a list of hidden temple treasures; and Sefer ha Ratzim, dated around 3C BC, contains references to writing on metal plates, whilst Maccabaeus’ treaty with the Romans in 161BC was engraved by the Romans on bronze tables and was sent to Jerusalem as a record to be kept by the Jews.
In addition, there are many Semitic, Greek and Italic writings (some of them are sacred texts) on metal plates as well.
However BBC's text regarding the essence of the writing looks to me just a well written feature story... When we 'll get the translation we ‘ll see
😵
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by black beetlei was unaware dear beetle, really, i had never read of or known they existed 🙂
Edit: "What is really interesting is the choice of media, for it is well understood that almost all codex were papyri or animal skin."
Hebrew, Canaanite, Phoenician and Aramaic material on bronze plates is a limited but common practice. For starters, Exodus 28:36 shows that Moses was ordered to make a plate of pure gold and engrave upon it: “Holy to ...[text shortened]... ks to me just a well written feature story... When we 'll get the translation we ‘ll see
😵
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by jaywillThe question is to what extent, I guess. I find that most people would agree to that, but then relapse into a "the Bible is the Truth" mode when pressed on particular issues. And I don't mean literally, but scenes of the life of Christ are all assumed to be true. I'm guessing that if important contradictions arise, most would reject the new book writings and keep the traditional books. This is why I'm asking, to see if I am correct in my guess.
Most Christians scholars who believe in inspiration recognize that human style and individuals' personality effects the various books of the Bible.
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaIt would depend, of course, on who wrote the new offerings. If it was an apostle (or someone who knew Christ), then it would hold more weight than a writing by "some fruit seller on the corner".
The question is to what extent, I guess. I find that most people would agree to that, but then relapse into a "the Bible is the Truth" mode when pressed on particular issues. And I don't mean literally, but scenes of the life of Christ are all assumed to be true. I'm guessing that if important contradictions arise, most would reject the new book writings and keep the traditional books. This is why I'm asking, to see if I am correct in my guess.