- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (5/2)
- Next Post »A La Carte (5/3)
The Language of the Bible
- 05/02/07
- 16
Last year I spent quite a few months reading and studying the early books of the Old Testament. Though I've since turned back to the New Testament in my personal devotions, as a family we've been reading through 1 Samuel so I continue to spend time in both portions of the Bible. While I do not know how to read Hebrew, I often hear people speak of the poetic nature of the language which leads even the prose to have poetic qualities. It seems to me that the ESV does an admirable job of capturing that though admittedly it must be even more beautiful in the original.
I have come to love those little literary devices, the metaphors and phrases used by the ancient writers and feel that they add so much to the reading of the text. Without a translation that accurately rendered these sayings we would lose so much of the flow and meaning of the text. I love language and the English language in particular. While I have always enjoyed using words and studying language, I found that my love of English was forged during the time I spent studying other languages, primarily those from which English is derived - Latin, Greek, and to some extent, French. I also studied linguistics and, of course, the English language itself. I came to love understanding how people use words to craft ideas. There is a good reason that people continue to study Shakespeare in high school despite increasingly antiquated language. Shakespeare was a master of the language, a master word crafter, and it benefits anyone to learn from his example. The same is true of Dickens or any other number of authors. What I learned is that words are important. Who would want to read a modern translation of Shakespeare? We would be left with nothing but a second-rate story. And author's words are important. That may come as no great surprise and may even seem obvious, but the translators of dynamic equivalent translations would have to disagree, at least somewhat, as their translation philosophy proves that they feel ideas are more important than words.
As I read three chapters this morning I was struck by how much beauty there is in the prose of the Old Testament and I found myself profoundly thankful to have access to a translation that accurately renders the metaphors and phrases used by the original authors. Let me provide you with a few examples. I am going to use the ESV as my standard essentially-literal translation. I do this not necessarily to indicate that it is superior to the others within the category, but simply because it is the translation I use for my devotional and study work.
Let's begin with 1 Kings 2:2 where King David gives his final wishes to his son Solomon. The ESV renders this "I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man." The other essentially literal translations agree with this translation as the NASB, KJV and NKJV are all very similar. There are two constructs here that I feel are essential to the text. "I am about to go the way of all the earth," and "show yourself a man." Let's see how several other common translations render this particular verse:
- "I am about to go the way of all the earth," he said. "So be strong, show yourself a man." (NIV)
- "I am going where everyone on earth must someday go. Take courage and be a man." (NLT)
- "My son, I will soon die, as everyone must. But I want you to be strong and brave." (CEV)
- "I'm about to go the way of all the earth, but you--be strong; show what you're made of!" (Message)
As we see, the NIV renders the verse in a way that is consistent with the original text. The NLT deviates a little bit, expanding the meaning of "the way of all the earth" to "where everyone on earth must someday go." It also says, "be a man" rather than "show yourself a man." The CEV further interprets the verse, removing any sort of literary device in both parts. The Message does a little better, maintaining the first half of the verse but removing the "show yourself a man."
What is lost in the NLT and the CEV is the metaphor "the way of all the earth." It is an important term, beautifully poetic, and surely one that is worth some time in meditation. There is a depth of meaning to that phrase that is clearly missing in words like "I will soon die, as everyone must." Readers of the NLT and CEV have no access to this phrase and miss out on the wonderful opportunity to meditate upon it and learn from it.
Another example comes only one verse later. 1 Kings 2:3 continues David's instruction to his son. David exhorts Solomon to follow God and "walk in His ways." The ESV translates the verse as "...and keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn." Let's see how other translations render "walking in his ways."
- ...and observe what the LORD your God requires: Walk in his ways, and keep his decrees and commands, his laws and requirements, as written in the Law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all you do and wherever you go, (NIV)
- Observe the requirements of the LORD your God and follow all his ways. Keep each of the laws, commands, regulations, and stipulations written in the law of Moses so that you will be successful in all you do and wherever you go. (NLT)
- Do what the LORD your God commands and follow his teachings. Obey everything written in the Law of Moses. Then you will be a success, no matter what you do or where you go. (CEV)
- Do what GOD tells you. Walk in the paths he shows you: Follow the life-map absolutely, keep an eye out for the signposts, his course for life set out in the revelation to Moses; then you'll get on well in whatever you do and wherever you go. (Message)
The term "Walking in his ways" is a wonderful metaphor for living a life that honors God. We seek to emulate Him by following carefully in the footsteps of God. I am reminded of a song by the Smalltown Poets, "Call me Christian," where they sing, "As a boy I'd put my steps / In my brother's bigger tracks / To match his stride / And just like that I follow Jesus / Jesus is my guide." That type of imagery is absent from the New Living Translation as well as the CEV. The Message is quite close and the NIV is, once again, accurate.
Moving along we come to 1 Kings 2:9. David asks Solomon to exact revenge against Shimei, a man who had cursed David. "Now therefore do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol." The metaphorical phrase here is "bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol." Again, this is a wonderfully descriptive phrase that has more meaning than simply "kill." Yet several translations provide only this meaning.
- But now, do not consider him innocent. You are a man of wisdom; you will know what to do to him. Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood." (NIV)
- But that oath does not make him innocent. You are a wise man, and you will know how to arrange a bloody death for him." (NLT)
- Now you must punish him. He's an old man, but you're wise enough to know that you must have him killed. (CEV)
- But neither should you treat him as if nothing ever happened. You're wise, you know how to handle these things. You'll know what to do to make him pay before he dies." (Message)
The NIV does a good job, only changing Sheol to grave. The NLT writes about a bloody death. This seems to miss the point for the verse is not primarily concerned with the mode of death, but with the reason for the death. The Message misses the mark altogether. Neither the NLT, the CEV or the Message see fit to render the word "grey" or "hoary" (as the King James renders it). Is that not a word God placed in the text? Is it not an important word? I do not understand why they would knowingly remove a word God saw fit to include.
One of the most beautiful and oft-repeated phrases in the Old Testament is found in 1 Kings 2:10. "Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David." Several essentially literal translations render "slept" as "rested" but the meaning remains the same. The Bible Knowledge Commentary says of this verse, "The picturesque phrase rested with his fathers beautifully describes David's death and suggests that his activity did not cease forever. Indeed, the bodies of all believers who die simply 'rest' until they are resurrected to live with God and serve Him eternally." David entered a temporary rest as he, along with the rest of Creation, awaits the final consumation. Here is how other translations render that verse:
- Then David rested with his fathers and was buried in the City of David. (NIV)
- Then David died and was buried in the City of David. (NLT)
- David was king of Israel forty years. He ruled seven years from Hebron and thirty-three years from Jerusalem. Then he died and was buried in Jerusalem. (CEV - combines verses 10-11)
- Then David joined his ancestors. He was buried in the City of David. (Message)
The NIV remains consistent with the text. The NLT and CEV say simply that David died. The Message extends the verse by saying that David joined his ancestors, something that is a bit of a stretch but at least somewhat true to the meaning of the verse. The NLT and CEV do not allow their readers to see the beauty of "resting with his fathers." Instead, David simply died. What a tragic loss! Readers of these translations will not see any hope beyond the grave. They will not know that David has gone to be with his fathers and that he is merely resting. Once more, are these not words that God deliberately placed in the text? Should readers not have access to them?
In 1 Kings 2:12 Solomon has assumed his father's throne. In fact, according to an essentially literal translation, "Solomon sat on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established." While the meaning of the phrase "sat on the throne of David his father" is clear, meaning that Solomon succeeded his father as ruler, there is an interesting sense of continuity in the original words. Doing more than simply replacing his father, Solomon actually assumed his throne. This may seem a small distinction, but I feel it is important nevertheless. It is similar to verse 3 (above) where David exhorted solomon to walk in God's ways. Now Solomon is sitting on his father's throne. Let's see how other translations have rendered this verse:
- So Solomon sat on the throne of his father David, and his rule was firmly established. (NIV)
- Solomon succeeded him as king, replacing his father, David, and he was firmly established on the throne. (NLT)
- His son Solomon became king and took control of David's kingdom. (CEV)
- Solomon took over on the throne of his father David; he had a firm grip on the kingdom. (Message)
Once more the translations are varied with the NIV being most literal and the CEV straying furthest from the text. The NLT, CEV and Message see fit to explain the verse while the NIV, along with the essentially literal translations, leave the words as they are. Through reading a literal translation we can picture Solomon ascending his father's throne and taking over his responsibilities. This imagery is foreign to the dynamic equivalent translations.
As I indicated earlier, I am exceedingly grateful that I have access to such a solid translation of Scripture. While I do not know Hebrew, I still have access to an accurate translation of the author's original words, complete with the phrases, words and metaphors that set one author apart from another. I have access to the full meaning, or as close as I can come without access to the original language, of what was written so long ago. I simply can't understand how anyone would be satisfied with anything less.
Complete disclosure: I posted a version of this article a couple of years ago. But, when thinking about these issues again, I was drawn back to the same thoughts as before and thought I'd update it and post it again.
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (16)
Thanks for the examples. I think the figures of speech are rich and there for a reason. Although as a pastor, I still feel the necessity to explain them, I am appreciative of how they stand alone as great word pictures for truth.
This is a great post to illustrate not only the variations across translations, but the wealth of translations that we have today. Like you, I am grateful for a solid translation such as the NIV or ESV but also immensely grateful for other versions such as the NLT which make access to the Scripture very straightforward.
One thing though ... haven't yet worked out whether I am grateful for the colloquial style of the Message! It has some powerful expressions which I have been really stirred by but the style is often not very comfortable, particularly here in the UK!
What a privilege to have such choice, breadth and quality ... if only I could finally settle on just one!
Great Post! One of the best you have written. I don't know Hebrew either, but I imagine translating poetic language to another language is a very difficult task.
How long until we see a Bible using instant messaging language? Lol JK.....hopefully never, but it won't surprise me
I've only taken a couple of summer intensives in Hebrew language, but it is striking to see how, sometimes, even the best translations cannot capture the original sense of text. This is true of all translations, and though it does not make the text incapable of understanding, it does require more explanation and interpretive rigor. This is particularly true of idioms and euphemisms. One favorite of mine is the Hebrew euphemism "covered his feet." The passage is in 1 Samuel 24:3 where Saul is in a cave and David has the chance to kill him. The phrase in question is referring to Saul's relieving himself (this is how it is commonly translated). The euphemism "covering his feet" is a visual metaphor, since one would have to lower one's robes to the ground (covering the feet) in order to defecate.
A more important euphemism is the uncovering of feet, which is a sexual metaphor, used derogatorily at times to indicate (symbolic) emasculation, but also connected to the responsibilities of marriage, such as in the case of Ruth and Boaz. The feet and sandals were used as metaphors for male and female sex organs respectively and the removal of one's sandals could indicate impotency, or in the case of Ruth, a poignant reminder to Boaz that she needed to be redeemed and he was the right man for the task.
These sort of euphemisms and other idioms simply cannot be translated into vernacular languages because the use of euphemism or idiom is conveying an idea not directly, but symbolically, related to the word construction. Of course, some idioms and euphemisms are unknown or require significant conjecture to determine the referent for the symbolic usage. Still, understanding these parts of the language reveal a great deal about the cultures of God's Word, the way in which God deals with them within their culture, and can prevent improper or only partial exegesis of passages where such euphemisms and idioms occur.
I have a few questions i hope some of you can answer to me. When was Christianity formed? Was it 300 or so years after Christ's departure? Who is Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John? What family are they from and what are their last names? If Jesus was not a man or a prophet, then what's the point of Moses, Noah, Adam, etc. Why suddenly God is sending him self down to earth after sending a series of Prophets? Why did He send prophets to carry his message first? Why are there so many versions of the bible, and if the bible IS the word of God, then how come the originals havent been preserved? Why is there a new version of the bible? who wrote that? If you have to be saved by accepting Jesus as your savior to go to Heaven, then what happens to all those people who came before Jesus. Do they go to hell? When did the concept of the trinity come about and please explain this to me as i am confused. How come babies are born as sinners? They look so pure! Since Jesus never married I am wondering who to follow as an example. How come Jesus never claimed divinity during his lifetime? These are just some questions I have. I hope you can answer them clear and concise. Thanks a bunch.
Have time to answer some...
When was Christianity formed?
Christians were first called Christians in the city of Antioch around circa 55AD. But "Christianity" as a theology of grace extends back to the promise of Christ in Genesis 3:15 after Adam and Eve fell into sin.
Who is Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are the writers of the 4 NT gospels. They are not related. Only Mathew and John were apostles(directly commissioned by Christ). Mark was a companion of the apostle Peter. Luke took the approach of an investigative researcher interviewing witnesses. They bring different views to the single gospel message that Christ is the saviour of the world from sin.
what's the point of Moses, Noah, Adam?
They are 'types' of Christ and acted as God's intermediary. In this respect they spoke of and point to Christ.
Why suddenly God is sending himself down to earth after sending a series of Prophets?
Because only God Himself could atone for man's sin.
If the bible is the word of God, then how come the originals havent been preserved?
The fact that we have over 5,366 NT manuscripts in the original Greek with the oldest going back to the 125AD(time gap of 50 years to the original) does testify to God's preservation. Compare this to Plato, 7 copies (time gap is 1350 years to the original) and Ceasar’s Gaellic Wars 10 copies (time gap to earliest 1000 years) which no one seems to question.
If you have to be saved by accepting Jesus as your savior to go to Heaven, then what happens to all those people who came before Jesus?
As mentioned above, faith in the Savior saves one by grace. Those believers before Christ were saved by faith and those believers after Christ are saved by faith. The difference is aspect of time to the event.
How come babies are born as sinners?
Because sin is not something we do, sin is what we are. We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are born sinners. (Rom 3:10-18, Psa 51:5 as examples)
How come Jesus never claimed divinity during his lifetime?
He did. See Luke 4:21, John 6:29, John 14:6-9 as examples.
Thanks,
Pete
Don't feed the trolls!
Pete:
Even though I am not sure of Concerned's sincerity in his/her questions, I must say you answered them skillfully. Thanks for your heart for defending the truth!
thanks.....I had some of the same thoughts as others, but decided to just go ahead and answer the questions.... ;-)
i often think about how blessed we are (spoiled, even) that english is a language so closely related to greek (even if it doesn't always seem like it to greek students). since the two languages share so much common 'ancestry' (even a few idioms have endured), we actually have the luxury of choosing between a fairly "literal" translation versus a "dynamically equivalent" one. there are many languages in the world that look nothing like either greek or english & there is basically no way they could ever have anything like a comprehensible word-for-word translation. meanwhile, basically any english speaker can still derive much (not all) of the original syntax and sentiment of the greek simply by reading an english translation. cool.
as for hebrew, english isn't so much like it. although some english translations beautifully capture the poetic sounds and vivid images of hebrew poetry, i wonder if some of our favorite lines might not have been the favorites of the original audience, and lines we might not pay much attention to might have sounded (because of alliteration, for example) gorgeous in hebrew.
Hugh, I think that's the beautiful part: you don't need to settle on just one.
There are various translations that are useful for various reasons. If you have to read a passage to a group of relative newcomers to the faith, or to unbelievers, then the NLT can be very useful. The Message can be useful to hand someone who doesn't read much and say "here, look at this".
The biggest "but..." on the "simpler" versions is to make sure that they aren't all you read. They have a purpose, but that purpose is definitely not word-study.
I am quickly becoming a huge fan of the NET bible for study. Where there are phrases that aren't easily translatable, the translators chose what they felt was most appropriate, but then made copious notes on alternate possibilities and why they chose what they chose. It gives a real sense of the inadequacy of English to get the entire meaning of the Hebew.
The Song of Songs (to follow on Joshua's sexual metaphor comment) is, in places, three or four lines of scripture and the rest of the page in notes and commentary on the translation.
Fascinating and useful in word-study for those of us who don't speak Hebrew or Greek.
Carissa, that's a beautiful thought you expressed. We ARE privileged indeed to be able to have our choice of translations-- and all of them beautiful in their own right.
I think this puts some of the "translation wars" to rest when I consider that the majority of the world's languages have, at most, one translation, and it may not be so skilfully done as the ones I have in my home. Yet all these translations are done by someone who is convinced that God's Word needs to be heard in the language of the people. (So props to all the folks with Wycliffe, et al, who are working hard to that very end.)
And more on the topic at hand-- while it's true that the NLT, for example, or the International Children's Bible may not possess the same poetic qualities as some other translations, think of the magnificent ways in which they are opening the Bible to people who otherwise would be confused. We're encountering God through His Word, and that's always beautiful.
Tim,
Thanks for an excellent post. I would like to link to it when I get back to blogging. This is a prime example of why the NIV and the TNIV should not strictly be called dynamic equivalent translations. The TNIV accords with the NIV in your examples.
Oddly at the Northbrook Conference recently the speaker from the CBMW labeled the TNIV a dynamic equivalent translation, but you clearly show the opposite.
"Gray" or "hoary" is not the word God chose to use in 1 Kings 2:9. He used a Hebrew word, of which "gray" and "hoary" might be dynamic equivalents, alongside other meaningful equivalents that refer to his age. To say that God chose some English word is bad theology.
Of course, I'm supposed to know what you meant in spite of what you wrote, but I'm just approaching it from the strictly formal equivalence philosophy the way the ESV does with its translation. What you meant when you said, "'grey' or 'hoary'... Is that not a word God placed in the text?" was different from what you wrote, but I wouldn't be able to understand your meaning without reading this blog from a more dynamic approach. You don't mean that God chose "gray" or "hoary" but actually some Hebrew word, neither of us has heard or knows.
Besides, the ESV has dynamic elements in its translation just like every other one. It doesn't reflect the grammar and syntax of the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. For that you need an interlinear Bible, where you'll read the English in a very garbled syntax, so that the meaning is all but lost. The ESV, like other translations, does you the service of reworking the text to be intelligible to English syntax and grammar.
The difference between Biblical languages and English makes the differences between various English translations appear miniscule by comparison.
Thank you Pete for answering some of my questions. My comments are below. I 've included the original questions with your answers for "easy reading". - Concerned For Truth
CFT: When was Christianity formed?
Pete: Christians were first called Christians in the city of Antioch around circa 55AD. But "Christianity" as a theology of grace extends back to the promise of Christ in Genesis 3:15 after Adam and Eve fell into sin.
To graft a theology of a triune god and savior incarnation upon the Hebrew Bible, concepts found to be in direct contradiction and anathema to Judaism and Mosaic theology, is fallacious and untenable. The Jews do not believe in Trinity, original sin, or vicarious atonement. The Greco-Romans of the first three centuries revered antiquity, therefore, in order for "proto-orthodox" Christianity to find more acceptance among the Hellenized populace, the early church fathers promoted the notion that the Christian dogmas had been foreshadowed in the ancient texts of the Jews but that adherence to such texts was no longer necessary. The Marcionite Christians rejected this view, as did the Ebionites. The original "Christians" were not Christians at all, they were called Nazarenes. It was the Nazarenes who went to Galatia to correct Paul's deviant teachings in circa 55 CE. The original believers in Christ were practicing Jews who simply believed that Jesus was the Messiah, not God, and certainly not one of three in a Trinity.
CFT:Who is Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Pete: Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John are the writers of the 4 NT gospels. They are not related. Only Mathew and John were apostles(directly commissioned by Christ). Mark was a companion of the apostle Peter. Luke took the approach of an investigative researcher interviewing witnesses. They bring different views to the single gospel message that Christ is the saviour of the world from sin.
The vast majority of scholars today (Christian or otherwise) reject that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the books that have been ascibed to them. These "Gospels" were written between 70-100 CE (at least 40 years after the ascension of Christ), in a foreign language to Jesus who spoke Syriac, and none of the authors ever identify themselves and none ever claim to be writing while inspired by the Holy Spirit. According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, sometime in the 2nd century, the proto-orthodox Christians realized the importance of apostolic authorship (because Gospels in the name of Thomas, Philip, and Peter were being heralded as authentic by other groups of "heretical" Christians) so they pseudnonymously ascibed these four books to two disciples of Jesus, a disciple of Peter, and a pupil of Paul. The first theologian to name these four books was Irenaeus of Lyons in 190 CE. For arguments sake, let's grant that Matthew wrote Matthew. Why would he copy 90% of Marks' Gospel? - Mark who never even saw Jesus? Why would an eye-witness to the ministry of Jesus do that? If John the son of Zebedee wrote the Gospel of John, why did he wait almost 70 years before writing his Gospel? And when he did, he wrote it in Greek, not Aramaic or Syriac? History teaches us that the vast majority of Jews living in Palestine in the first century were illiterate. It is highly implausible to claim that John the son of Zebedee (an illiterate first century Palestinian fisherman) would suddenly identify Jesus with the Logos, the Platonic concept of the divine word of wisdom that initiates creation!
CFT:what's the point of Moses, Noah, Adam?
Pete: They are 'types' of Christ and acted as God's intermediary. In this respect they spoke of and point to Christ.
They spoke of Christ, yes - but never in the sense that Christians claim. Moses wrote in the Torah that "God is not a man" (Exodus 23:19); a man shall be put to death for his own sin; whoever is hanged on a tree is accursed by God; and that blood is NOT kosher. Yet Christians believe that God killed His Son (essentially Himself) - because he became a man, to expiate the sins of mankind, by hanging him on a tree, and this event is celebrated by drinking his blood! The Prophets were sent as reformers - to give glad tidings and to admonish. If Jesus died for the sins of Moses then how can Moses be a "type" of Christ? Who's sins did Moses die for. This concept of a soter man-god dying and rising for the sins of mankind has nothing to do with the Abrahamic Prophets, but is rather a recycled mythos from ancient Paganism. The solar deities and soters Osiris, Horus, Dionysis, Mithras, Attis, etc. all have simiiar Passion narratives and are the true sources of orthodox Christology.
CFT:Why suddenly God is sending himself down to earth after sending a series of Prophets?
Pete: Because only God Himself could atone for man's sin.
This Christian dogma severely puts limitations on God. The "only way" for God to forgive sins is to incarnate into a man? Certainly not. God has absolute power over all - He does not "need" anything. Sure, anything is possible with God, but God's nature cannot be compromised. It is against God's nature to become a man, beause God cannot be limited to a 6 foot 185 lb frame. It is against His nature to die like we die, because He cannot die. True atonement is granted by God to those who approach Him with sincere hearts; His Mercy is the ONLY thing that saves us. For Christians who continue to make the argument that God can do anything so why not become a man, I ask: Can God create another all-powerful God and cause Him to die for our sins again. They say no. Why not? Why are they limiting God? No, you see, it is against the nature of God to create another all-powerful God.
CFT:If the bible is the word of God, then how come the originals havent been preserved?
Pete: The fact that we have over 5,366 NT manuscripts in the original Greek with the oldest going back to the 125AD(time gap of 50 years to the original) does testify to God's preservation. Compare this to Plato, 7 copies (time gap is 1350 years to the original) and Ceasarâs Gaellic Wars 10 copies (time gap to earliest 1000 years) which no one seems to question.
The answer above is wrong. The 5,500 or so manuscripts date from the 3rd century to the Middle Ages. The vast majority of these were written in the Middle Ages (over 5,200 of them according to eminent New Testament scholar Dr. Bruce Metzgar). The oldest COMPLETE New Testament codices are dated to the end of the 4th century (Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), 350 years after Jesus walked the earth. The oldest complete copy of any BOOK of the NT we have in existence dates to 200 CE, 170 years after Jesus. The oldest FRAGMENT of any NT text found thus far dates to 125 CE - 150 CE. This is called John Rylands P52. This is the size of a credit card and contains only 6 verses of the Gospel of John. Futhermore, out of all of those 5,500 manuscripts in Greek, NO TWO ARE IDENTICAL. Some have estimated that there are between 200,000 - 300,000 differences in those 5,500 manuscripts (Dr. Bruce Ehrman). In other words, there are more differences in those manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament! Again, according to Dr. Metzgar, only 306 of those manuscripts are dated no earlier than the 3rd century, yet we have only 600 copies of Homer's Illiad from before this period. Obviously, since the Church ruled Europe in the Middle Ages, there would be much more demand for copies of the New Testament than Homer's Illiad, hence the 5,500 manuscript total.
CFT:If you have to be saved by accepting Jesus as your savior to go to Heaven, then what happens to all those people who came before Jesus?
Pete: As mentioned above, faith in the Savior saves one by grace. Those believers before Christ were saved by faith and those believers after Christ are saved by faith. The difference is aspect of time to the event.
The answer above is illogical. It states that faith in the Savior (Soter in Greek) saves one by grace, but then states that those BEFORE the Savior were saved by faith in him? Those before him did not know him, and to claim that they did is laughable.
CFT:How come babies are born as sinners?
Pete: Because sin is not something we do, sin is what we are. We aren't sinners because we sin, we sin because we are born sinners. (Rom 3:10-18, Psa 51:5 as examples)
All of us have a propensity to sin, a potential to sin. But saying that a baby is a "sinner" when he or she has never sinned is to condemn the innocent. Jesus says according to the synoptics: "If you had learned what this text means 'I require Mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent" (Matt. 9:6). Saying "Sin is not something we do" is utterly incorrect. We have been given free-will by God to choose good or evil, when we choose the ladder it is called sin. WE are to blame for our choices, we can't simply sit back and say "Well, that's how God made me, inherently depraved!" and shift the blame unto Him. We must take personal responsibility for our actions, and try to rectify ourselves by asking for God's Grace and hoping for His Mercy, not by claiming that we don't sin and that our original sin was atoned for by someone else.
CFT:How come Jesus never claimed divinity during his lifetime?
Pete: He did. See Luke 4:21, John 6:29, John 14:6-9 as examples.
Never does anywhere. Where does he say "I am God" or "worship me?"
Concerned for the truth.
CFT: When was Christianity formed?
You call Paul's teachings deviant so you reject scripture as the inspired word of God, hence we do not have that as a common reference point. Your comments are subjective, not factual and in some cases simply wrong. Regarding Marcion, he rejected
all of the OT and much of the NT; essentially rejecting the Law. As far as some of your other comments regarding Nazarenes, etc, I apologize, but I am not sure what your point is.
CFT:Who is Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John?
Again, you reject verbal inspiration of scripture. I disagree with your premise. You give no credit to the work of the Holy Spirit. You give no account to oral
tradition. And, there are scholars who have earlier dates than what you state. Furthermore, you jump from one assumption to another making a conclusion.
CFT:what's the point of Moses, Noah, Adam?
Again, you reject verbal inspiration of scripture and reading of OT in light of the NT. Essentially, Christ told us how to read the OT and testified to by His
miracles and eyewitness testimony. But, given you reject the NT (and Christ as the atonment for Sin), the rest of the dominos fall as well.
CFT:If the bible is the word of God, then how come the originals haven’t been preserved?
I am not sure what in my post was inconsistent with your comment except you increased my NT manuscript count 5,366 to 5,500. As far as a lack of identicalness, I agree with you. The question is, do the differences change the message of the Gospel?
Have you personally compared say Nestle-Aland Greek with Byzantine(Majority Text Type) Greek? The differences are trivial. When reading scripture I usually keep the ESV, Nestle-Aland Greek and Byzantine Greek up. I am an engineer and look for
details. I have rarely seen a difference which is significant. Furthermore, lower textual criticism is a science which can reconstruct the original with incredible accuracy if you have enough copies. It is used not just for scripture, but all ancient text.
CFT:If you have to be saved by accepting Jesus as your savior to go to Heaven, then
what happens to all those people who came before Jesus?
Again, you reject verbal inspiration of scripture and reading of OT in light of the NT.
CFT:How come babies are born as sinners?
I didn't say we don't sin. I said we sin because we are sinners. Sin is a condition.
CFT:How come Jesus never claimed divinity during his lifetime? Never does anywhere. Where does he say "I am God" or "worship me?"
Given you disregard the NT as flawed and not to be trusted, I don't see what difference it would make to you what it says. Your position is not logical. On the one hand you make the case that the NT can't be trusted, but on the other hand you challenge the precision of content. Which is it? If Christ would say in the NT exactly what you want Him to say, would it
matter to you? Who do you say Jesus is?
-Pete