These things are simply untrue. Stating incorrect facts demonstrates ignorance. If you are unwilling to do the proper research before forming your opinions, then you are ignorant. Me being a ‘judgemental asshole’ isn’t going to change that fact.
What is this ‘wide spread “original”’ you speak of? Even the early English bibles were not based on the same set of sources. The Douay–Rheims is based on the Vulgate, the King James is based on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text with corrections from LXX and the Vulgate, and most modern translations are based on the Nestle-Aland New Testament and the Masoretic text with corrections from the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX.
These are sources, an ideal copy of the text which a translation is theoretically based on, and must first be constructed from raw manuscripts. There are several manuscripts of the various sources from Roman times or earlier, with the exception of the Dead Sea Scrolls of which there exists only one set. Editing of these manuscripts is a largely solved problem. You can buy critical editions for them which are full of notes and context, and literal translations for them are available to compare to any bible. Furthermore, the Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches have used the LXX and Byzantine majority text liturgically for over a thousand years. These churches are in communion with English-speaking and Russian-speaking Orthodox Churches which use mainly the KJV and the Elizabeth bible respectively. The Greeks have never questioned the authority of these translations nor have they ever demanded the bible only be read in Greek.
So it doesn’t surprise me that someone who has no understanding of the sourcing of the bible would also lack the understanding of the historical reasons for why four gospels were written in the first place.
So it doesn’t surprise me that someone who has no understanding of the sourcing of the bible would also lack the understanding of the historical reasons for why four gospels were written in the first place.
So you gonna opine on what exactly those reasons are, or you content to just judge me as wrong?
What is this ‘wide spread “original”’ you speak of?
So you admit the bible isn't even a single work, but an amalgam of different human authors, and somehow this makes it less fallible and human?
Most copies of biblical texts did not exist as written word, but were memorized orally. The ability to memorize entire works orally is not something that exists today, but has existed for centuries, and was the primary medium of exchange for writing before the Middle Ages.
Thus in the early church few priests had scriptures. They may have had a page or too of a single book, or an abbreviated list of scriptures. Bishops would have had more complete manuscripts, and indeed most of the manuscripts we have are from sees.
The four gospels had four separate purposes. The first three were written to give a synopsis of Jesus’ life. The fourth, John’s, was written as a theological argument.
Matthew was written to appeal to the Jews, particularly Jewish scholars, containing a genealogy and several references to LXX that Christ was the Messiah.
Mark was written based off St. Peter’s sermons. St. Mark traveled with St. Peter. It is the shortest, and omits many details. This is because it was meant for live ‘evangelical’ use.
St. Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts of the Apostles. The two books are meant to be a concise historical narrative of the early church, and was primarily written for gentiles and the audience of future, who lacked understanding of Jewish customs and how the Church was born.
John is very different from the other four books. It is thematic, and was written to describe the divine nature of Christ. It was also written much later than the others, when the Church was now quite large. Theological matters were gradually becoming more important than simple evangelism, esp. in Greece.
With an understanding of the historical context, it is obvious to see that one gospel would have been insufficient to grow the Church in the way it did. If, for example, only Matthew existed, one could argue that Christianity would not have grown outside of Jewish spheres. Likewise if Matthew had never been written, the religion would have likely failed to continue after the apostles deaths anywhere, as former Jews abroad were the anchor for early churches and Christian communities. The lack of John would have led to a fracturing of Christian theology, and the religion would have eventually reduced to localized forms of paganism.
The bible is not infallible, but I don’t understand how it being a collection of works rather than a single book precludes it from being divinely inspired. Perhaps you can explain your logic. It is a fallacy to conclude that the bible is the only important work in Christianity. It is elevated for its importance, given the economies mentioned previously, and not to the detriment of other apostolic works which corroborate its interpretation, and neither to the consensus of tradition which has existed for nearly two thousand years.
These things are simply untrue. Stating incorrect facts demonstrates ignorance. If you are unwilling to do the proper research before forming your opinions, then you are ignorant. Me being a ‘judgemental asshole’ isn’t going to change that fact.
What is this ‘wide spread “original”’ you speak of? Even the early English bibles were not based on the same set of sources. The Douay–Rheims is based on the Vulgate, the King James is based on the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text with corrections from LXX and the Vulgate, and most modern translations are based on the Nestle-Aland New Testament and the Masoretic text with corrections from the Dead Sea Scrolls and LXX.
These are sources, an ideal copy of the text which a translation is theoretically based on, and must first be constructed from raw manuscripts. There are several manuscripts of the various sources from Roman times or earlier, with the exception of the Dead Sea Scrolls of which there exists only one set. Editing of these manuscripts is a largely solved problem. You can buy critical editions for them which are full of notes and context, and literal translations for them are available to compare to any bible. Furthermore, the Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches have used the LXX and Byzantine majority text liturgically for over a thousand years. These churches are in communion with English-speaking and Russian-speaking Orthodox Churches which use mainly the KJV and the Elizabeth bible respectively. The Greeks have never questioned the authority of these translations nor have they ever demanded the bible only be read in Greek.
So it doesn’t surprise me that someone who has no understanding of the sourcing of the bible would also lack the understanding of the historical reasons for why four gospels were written in the first place.
So you gonna opine on what exactly those reasons are, or you content to just judge me as wrong?
So you admit the bible isn't even a single work, but an amalgam of different human authors, and somehow this makes it less fallible and human?
Ok buddy.
Most copies of biblical texts did not exist as written word, but were memorized orally. The ability to memorize entire works orally is not something that exists today, but has existed for centuries, and was the primary medium of exchange for writing before the Middle Ages.
Thus in the early church few priests had scriptures. They may have had a page or too of a single book, or an abbreviated list of scriptures. Bishops would have had more complete manuscripts, and indeed most of the manuscripts we have are from sees.
The four gospels had four separate purposes. The first three were written to give a synopsis of Jesus’ life. The fourth, John’s, was written as a theological argument.
Matthew was written to appeal to the Jews, particularly Jewish scholars, containing a genealogy and several references to LXX that Christ was the Messiah.
Mark was written based off St. Peter’s sermons. St. Mark traveled with St. Peter. It is the shortest, and omits many details. This is because it was meant for live ‘evangelical’ use.
St. Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote Acts of the Apostles. The two books are meant to be a concise historical narrative of the early church, and was primarily written for gentiles and the audience of future, who lacked understanding of Jewish customs and how the Church was born.
John is very different from the other four books. It is thematic, and was written to describe the divine nature of Christ. It was also written much later than the others, when the Church was now quite large. Theological matters were gradually becoming more important than simple evangelism, esp. in Greece.
With an understanding of the historical context, it is obvious to see that one gospel would have been insufficient to grow the Church in the way it did. If, for example, only Matthew existed, one could argue that Christianity would not have grown outside of Jewish spheres. Likewise if Matthew had never been written, the religion would have likely failed to continue after the apostles deaths anywhere, as former Jews abroad were the anchor for early churches and Christian communities. The lack of John would have led to a fracturing of Christian theology, and the religion would have eventually reduced to localized forms of paganism.
The bible is not infallible, but I don’t understand how it being a collection of works rather than a single book precludes it from being divinely inspired. Perhaps you can explain your logic. It is a fallacy to conclude that the bible is the only important work in Christianity. It is elevated for its importance, given the economies mentioned previously, and not to the detriment of other apostolic works which corroborate its interpretation, and neither to the consensus of tradition which has existed for nearly two thousand years.
Because oral history is known for its unfailing accuracy.
Oh wait, exactly the opposite.
This is just bullshit.
There is no evidence that humans today are any better or worse at memorizing than humans 2000 years ago.
It doesn't stop it from being divinely inspired.
It does however directly prevent it from being the infallible word of God. The belief entailed in transliteration.
It is very much a flawed human work, and as such contains human flaws and errors.
To use it to contradict observable material facts is arrogance and denial of reality.