[Estel the Descender]

Other Bible scholars say that what are known as the Old and New Testaments are riddled with errors, that the Pentateuch is a collection of oral tradition stories whose errors actually often help prove that they are based in reality, compared to most of 'myth'. . <div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

What kind of errors? [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

According to the footnote in Appendix F of the LotR, Frodo made a mistake in thinking that the Elves of Lorien used a different Eldarin language, distinct from both Quenya and Sindarin. But the commentator of Gondor notes that it was actually a dialect of Sindarin. In their world, it seems like a grave mistake--- Frodo, the nine-fingered, the scholar of Elvish lore, mistaken about something as simple as elven dialects? However, to Tolkien, this was a deliberate in order to bring about that 'inner consistency of reality'. Let me get it straight. Tolkien did not make Frodo make a mistake, Frodo made the mistake himself, an honest mistake. Tolkien just so wrote it to show that Frodo can make a mistake, considering his level of knowledge at that time and the circumstances surrounding his visit to Lorien. Plausible reality. Using Frodo's 'slip' to prove that Tolkien did not write the LotR is pretty far fetched, even though 'other scholars' may claim it to be so. Even so to use the so-called 'errors' in the Bible to disprove God's authorship is ludicrous.

But as for the Torah being oral tradition first, most scholars agree on that, too. But who compiled the Torah: Moses or the so called 'post-exilic' editors? Tradition believes that Moses compiled the Torah, the last book being his original composition. 'Modern' opinion says that the Pentateuch was compiled after the Jews returned from the Babylonian Captivity (606-536 BC). Scholars of the latter are the ones who say that the Torah has 'errors'. They base their premise on the belief that the transmission of the Bible allowed several redactors to add or cut up several verses, or change many of the verses. As for the book of Deuteronomy, well, they say it was an ingenious forgery.

It is they, in actuality, that have made that 'great leap' considering that they have really no evidence to prove this premise. In fact, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the redating of the Matthew Papyrus shows that the 'traditionalists' were right about the transmission of the Judeo-Christian scriptures after all.

The Old and New Testament as we have it right now is basically the same as it was written before the first century CE. As for those who say that the 'Pentateuch is a collection of oral tradition stories' which was first written during the Post-exilic era forget that the Samaritan Pentacheuch is written in Pre-exilic Hebrew: the Pentacheuch as the Jews use them today are written in Aramaic characters, though the language is in Hebrew. They come down to us from antiquity through separate and distinct historical channels, yet they agree except for minor differences in spelling and wording (like Rebekah to Rebecca) which any scholar or Philologist would recognize as acceptable variants.

If there was no Pentacheuch before the exile, where did the Samaritans get their antiquated Pentacheuch written in Heriatric symbols only found in archeological digs in the Sinai and in Egypt? The excavation at the pool of Siloam dates an inscription to the time of King Hezekiah of Judah (around 726-697 BC) and the writing is similar in style as the Samaritan Pentacheuch. This was before King Josiah of Judah (639-608 BC) supposedly created, or as the 'scholars' say, forged the book of Deuteronomy in order to control the people. By this time, Aramaic was already the preferred language of the royalty and the priestly class (II Kings 18:26). Furthermore, the Samaritans were actually Assyrians who settled in historical Samaria at around 721 BC. Just like the Noldor who settled in Beleriand who utterly embraced Sindarin culture, the Assyrians similarly embraced ancient Israeli culture (even inter-marrying with the Israelites who remained). The Noldor went as far as translating everything, from speech to their personal names, into Sindarin: the Samaritans did the same.

Through the Samaritans, the Torah as the pre-exilic Israelites knew it was preserved. Of course, there are variations in language between actual Hebrew and the construct Samaritan tongue. A similar thing happened with the Noldor of Eregion: they had a reaalllyyy strange variety of Sindarin. Even in Rivendell, the Sindarin there is influenced by Quenya.

To account the differences between the copies of the Torah as 'errors' is, to put it simply, bad scholarship. Sorry to put it so bluntly. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

I'll accept your historical evidence regarding the widespread acceptance of the Roman Catholic Scriptures (which are quite different from the Protestant). Nevertheless, considering all that was lost in the Germanic sackings and burnings and the Viking raids, it is a great leap to say that "Christians never quoted from the Apochrypha". More accurately, as far as we can tell from the evidence that remains to us, Christians never quoted from the Apochrypha. But I believe, based on my own readings, that that is not even accurate. You don't account for the Persian and Indian churches, who did indeed consider the "non-canon" gospels and letters to be legitimate. . <div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

Actually, both the original 'Roman Catholic' Bible and present-day 'Protestant' Bibles are similar: Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, extracted the Apocrypha from the Old Testament in emulation of the Jewish Scriptures and placed them at the end of his translations. The Apocrypha became accepted as the Deuterocanonicals only during the Council of Trent in the 16th century (1545-1563) CE. Before, they were merely regarded as 'traditions'.

The Council that formally recoginised the 27 books of the NT as canon was not Roman Catholic but the African Church: the Council of Carthage (397 CE). But even then, the testimony of the so-called 'Church Fathers' and 'heretics' alike, as well as countless lectionaries dating back until the 1st century CE shows that the canon was already there.

You don't account for the Persian and Indian churches, who did indeed consider the "non-canon" gospels and letters to be legitimate.<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

You forgot the Coptics from whom we get the only copy of the Gospel of Thomas. But even then, it seems that they did not put on par with the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John. Have you read the Gospel of Thomas? Have you ever compared it to the Gospels that is found in the New Testament that we have today? It reads like an imitation of the Gospels very much like a poorly written fan-fic meant to imitate the the LotR. Don't take my word for it. Get a copy and read it. All modern scholars know that it is a fake. How would you feel if someone tried to sell you a book purportedly one of Tolkien's lost writings but is actually a fake? Do you think anyone could be able to pull such a stunt now even though Tolkien is dead? Such a con artist has to wait for all of Tolkien's contemporaries as well as the third generation readers of Tolkien to die out before it can be possible. All the pseudo-gospels date no earlier than the 2nd century CE in style, language, Carbon dating, you name it. The language of the genuine NT writings is pretty consistent (particularly the use of the movable ν [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img].

This is assertion, and just a tad cocky. . . Yes, I know that there is a great tradition for the distinction between the two, but that only argues for the fact that there is a traditional way of thinking about all this; it does not argue that the tradition is in fact correct..<div align=right>--- littlemanpoet</div>

Tradition has nothing to do with the definition: the Bible itself spells it out.

Jesus himself repeatedly called it [the Old Testament] the "Word of God."

Furthermore, St. Paul quotes 'as Scripture' in I Timothy 5:18b 'A worker should be given his pay.' This passage can be only found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which besides proving that these Gospels were written in the 1st century CE, also shows that by giving the written Gospels the appelation 'Scripture' St. Paul regarded them as the 'Word of God.

Also, St. Paul claimed that his teaching was not his own but God's (I Corintians 2:7-13; 14:37; I Thessalonians 2:13). St. Peter also placed the Letters of St. Paul on level with the Old Testament (II Peter 3:15-16). Besides, the idiomatic translation for 'Inspired of God' is 'Dictated by God'. The Bible not only defines the 'traditional' meaning of Inspiration but also claims it as its property.

Besides, just because something is handed down by tradition doesn't mean that it is incorrect.

[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] I HOPE that I have not written anything down that may cause this thread to close [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] but things just have to be said [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] .

[img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] By the way, the book Finding God in the Lord of the Rings was written by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware. Kinda like Chicken Soup for the Soul. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]