Which Bible is unique?

The Samaritan Torah? The Hebrew Bible? The Hebrew Bible as used by the tribe of Dan ("Ethiopian Jews")? The Christian Bible? The Christian Bible as used by which Church? The Aramaic-Arabic recitation (the Quran)?

And which translation is the word of G-d?

Luther's? King James? Any of the Aramaic versions of the Christian Bible?

I have read both Luther's and King James and found several differences. I have also read a lot of the original Hebrew and it is different from both still.

I have yet to read the Samaritan Torah, but I have heard there is an English translation out now. (It tells the story of Adam to Moses from the perspective of a different Israelite tribe.)

I never understood why Muhammed and the Christians were so sure about which of the Jewish tribes had the correct account of G-d's word.

Which "over 5000 original copies" do you know about?

The oldest extant copies are among the Dead Sea scrolls and we have already discussed, in detail, some of the differences between those and the translations.

And then there is this big issue I had already addressed before with words changing meanings. Remember the word "earth", which 500 years ago meant "land" and only came to mean "planet Earth" by the 19th century? And suddenly Christianity had a world-wide flood to contend with. The flood is G-d's universal truth? The original Hebrew text doesn't say it (and neither does the Quranic version).

Just reading your interpretations of the Bible gives me an entirely new version that I cannot find in the actual Hebrew text. And you are telling me that the Bible is unique?

(One major difference between the Samaritan Torah and the Jewish Torah is that the Samaritan Torah commands the northern tribes of Israel to build a Temple on Mount Gerizim rather than Mount Moriah where the tribes of Yehuda, Simeon and Benjamin build theirs.)

Do you not remember the issue with the Vav and the Yud?

The Christian translations translated with "pierce" or "dig" a word which in the Jewish Bible was "k'ari" ("like a lion", Kaf Alef Resh Yud). The Hebrew for "dug" (but not "pierced") would have been "karu" (Kaf Resh Vav).

Which version is correct? I think the Jewish version is correct.

And then finally the Dead Sea Scrolls gave us a third version: Kaf Alef Lamed Vav.

To me this supported the Jewish version, since a Vav looks very much like a Yud (it is just a tad longer). Whereas an Alef does not simply appear or disappear in a word (just like the "r" in "word" does not simply disappear).

So who is right about this passage?

I actually take context into account. I figure out which peoples were involved and what their culture was like. I know what the place names mean (Aram, Canaan, Arabia, Misraim etc.). That alone gives me an edge.

Both versions of the Torah were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as I know. There is no reason to assume that the northern (Samaritan) version is younger than the southern version. They were both Moses' Torah and both predate the rest of the Bible. The kingdom of Israel split into two, one centered around Judaea, one around Shomron (Samaria). Three tribes lived in Judaea, two tribes lived in Samaria/Shomron/Israel (call it what you will), one tribe moved back into Egypt, one tribe was divided between Judaea and Samaria (the Levites), and the other six tribes are lost. (Just for completeness' sake, the "ten lost tribes" are those six plus half of Levi plus Dan, who went back to Egypt, plus the two Samarian tribes.)

I don't see how one Torah can be older than the other.

Very true, and for me that is reason enough not to buy into it as a belief system.  I make no judgements on those who do, that is their choice.

Unique or not as far as I'm concerned it contains circular logic which makes it unreliable at best and certainly provides me with reason enough not to use it as a belief system.  If you choose to go into reading the bible with the assumption that there is a god then it may not contain circular logic but you have to go in with some assumptions first, which I choose not to do.

Yes myself.  The story of creation in genesis when I last read it (not 10-20 years ago but it's been a while) seemed inconsistent because there were essentially two stories of creation.  The idea that Noah could have built a boat large enough to hold two of every species is impossible as far as I'm concerned.  The list goes on.  I don't need to constantly re-read the thing to remember some of the inconsistencies and remind myself why I chose to not believe in it's teachings.

That's not interesting at all.  Again the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim.  Can you prove that there was a burning bush that told moses what to do?  I don't need to prove it didn't happen.  If you choose to believe it happened that's fine, I don't.

That's your assumption.  I spent a number of years attempting sunday school every week and after that going to the services so my current views on the bible are not based on deceptions.

And that is a base assumption that one must have when going into reading the bible.  It's fine if you happen to have that assumption, I however do not.

You had asked something like how it could be explained that the stories mesh so well, I provided a possible scenario.  I was merely presenting a "what if" scenario.  You are assuming that they weren't in collusion to write the books, but what if they were?  And the opposite could be applied.

I don't care what the "opposition" says.  I'm not one of those idiots out there who see it as their mission to tear down Christianity.  That isn't my place, if someone chooses to believe in the words of the bible I have no problem with that as long as they aren't trying to shove it down my throat and I do my best not to shove whatever I believe down anyones throat.

No, there isn't any inconsistencies.  Besides if there is a question in your mind how do you  know the confusion doesn't lie with you and not the scriptures?   Let me just go with what you gave me ok?

There's only ONE story of creation.  It's found in Chap 1 and it's chronological, telling us what day each part of creation was made. Seven days and all was complete.   Chap 2 focuses on just Adam and is considered a topical description of what was most important.  The bible does this alot.  Repeats itself to get the message across.  It's like taking a picture and then taking another picture immediately after but zooming in on the subject matter.

On the ark.  This has been proven by animal experts as completely acceptable.  So why wouldn't you believe it?  Do you know how big the Ark was?  Do you know how big the animals were?  Do you know how many animals were around at that time?  How do you know the animals weren't all babies?  So instead of having two huge elephants, he had two baby elephants, etc?  Look at the biggest ships we have today.  Queen Mary?  Look at the Aircraft Liners and they hold huge planes.    Do you think it could hold all the animals?   

Sorry, but you are believing someone else.  Otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up the same old stuff that every skeptic brings up......and when confronted with the truth they shrug and say....doesn't matter I still don't believe it because in all reality they don't want to believe it which brings up the question I asked you before.  Why do you suppose you don't believe in the first place? 

but you do have an assumption do you not?  You are assuming the bible is no diff than any other book even while I can show you quite clearly it's very unique.  That in itself should make one curious as to why and what makes it unique if they really wanted to know that is.  You do not.  That's ok.  That's where you are at the moment.  I'm ok with that. 

but I also answered that by reading of the texts it's clear they are not in collusion.  They all have their own unique twist with seeming contradictions on what happened but they do mesh perfectly.  Even tho many take a diff approach than you pointing out those differences. 

I am a literalist (as much as you can be) when it comes to the reading of scripture.  But that doesn't stop even two literalists from having a diff interpretation at times.  Hopefully one can show the other with other scripture the correct interpretation.   Most of the time it has to do with application.  There is only one correct interpretation of the bible (it interprets itself) but many applications can be made.  For instance.....in the book of Revelation Jesus is said to be knocking at the door and if anyone lets him in he will come in and dine with him.  Rev 3:20. 

Many misinterpretate that and say that Jesus is knocking on the door of our heart.  If we just open our heart to him he will come in.  It's ok to make that an application but that is not the correct interpretation.  The correct interpretation (by context) is that he's seen outside of his own church.  The church is too busy and they have no time for Christ.  He's shown outside his own church knocking on the door.  A famous painter way back in time painted a picture of what this might have looked like.  He showed Christ standing outside of a church with no doorknob.  The doorknob was only on the inside. 

The scholars thru the years have dated these ancient manuscripts by the paper that it was written on and the writing styles.  Some of the ancient texts were written on animal skins, bleached clean and then it went to paprus reeds and then vellum for one thing.   Some of the ancient texts are only fragments, some are small just a page or two and others with much more writings intact. 

none.

Like I keep saying....only the originals were inspired.  Only the originals.  So while the copies I believe are protected by the Holy Spirit as the word of God, only the bible in it's original language is the real inspried word of God and we don't have the originals only original copies of the originals.  Unless, that is, we find the ark of the testimony.  Then we'll have an original.  I betcha we'll find that sooner or later. 

Have you ever heard of a man named Dr. Robert Dick Wilson?  He mastered 45 languages and dialects in the 1800-1900's.  His testimony stands as a remarkable testimony to the reliability of the bible.  He stands unsurpassed in his scholarship.  One of the schools he attended was at the University of Berlin in Germany where he made a decision to dedicate his life to the study of the OT.  He said this:

"I was twenty five then and I judged from the life of my ancestors that I should live to be seventy; so that I should have forty-five years to work.  I divided the period into three parts.  The first 15 years I would devote to the study of the languages necessary.  Fo the second 15 years I was going to devote myself to the stufy of the text of the OT and I reserved the last 15 years for the work of writing the results of my previous studies and investigations so as to give them to the world." 

He did exactly that almost to the very year he had projected.  His scholastic accomplishment were amazing.  He read the NT in nine diff languages including a Hebrew translation which he had memorized syllable for syllable.  He also memorized large portions of the OT in the original Hebrew.  He was called the "the outstanding authority on ancient languages in the Middle East." 

He answered why he did all this when asked.  He said this:

"Most of our students used to go to Germany, and they heard professors give lectures which were the results of their own labours.  The students took everything because the professor said it.  I went there to study so that there would be no professor on earth that could lay down the law for me, or say anything without my being able to investigate the evidence on which he said it.  Now I consider that what was necessary in order to investigate the evidence was, first of all, to know the language in which the evidence is given.  So I determined that I would learn all the languages that throw light upon the Hebrew and also the languages into which the Bible had been translated down to A.D. 600, so that I could investigate the text myself. 

Having done this I claim to be an expert.  I defy any man to make an attack upon the OT on the ground of evidence that I cannot investigatge.  I can get at the facts if they are linguistic.  If you know any language that I do not know, I will learn it." 

As a professor at Princton, Wilson won international fame as a scholar and defender of the Christian faith.  The emphasis of Wilson's teaching ws to give his students such an intelligent faith in the OT Scriptures that they will never doubt tham as long as they live. 

I can live and agree with that.

But it does mean that even the Bible cannot tell us what G-d really wanted, no matter how literal we take it, since we don't know whether any copy we have is true to the original. (Perhaps the Samaritans got it right? Or the Muslims?)

Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow.

The oldest Hebrew version we have is the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain parts of the Jewish Torah and the Samaritan Torah. There is no obvious reason to assume that one of the two is "older" than the other, they both go all the way back to Moses (if they do).

Both the Jewish and the Samaritan Torah are the "Hebrew text" that "goes all the way back to Moses" and both have been found among the oldest writings we found.

The Quran ("recitation") was based on Muhammed's understand of those same holy scriptures. His reading of scripture is just as important as anybody else's understanding of it. As an Aramaic-speaking trader with Syria he was a very good position to interpret a Hebrew and Aramaic text, even though he could not read.

And the Dead Sea Scrolls contradict both the Christian Bible and the Masoretic Bible in parts.

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

Which of the three is the word of G-d?

KFC, that is completely non-sequitur. Where did you copy that?

DQR is indeed the root for "pierce" but it's not the word we were discussing here.

The root for "lion" ('RY) is indeed correct, but the root DQR doesn't appear in the statement I was referring to.

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

Those are three letter combinations that are relevant here. DQR is a different root and has nothing to do with KRV ("they dug").

You are not getting it.

It is the word translated as "dug" that really means "like a lion". No word in the sentence means "pierce". And no word means "dig".

"Dogs surround me, a pack of evil ones closes in on me, like a lion they are at my hands and feet."

The "diff" is that the sentence might mean a lot of things, but it simply doesn't mention "piercing" or "digging".

Again:

Christian Bible: KRV ("they dug")

Masoretic Bible: K'RY ("like a lion")

Dead Sea Scrolls: K'RV (means nothing)

There were two stories when I read it.  I don't remember the specifics but one had one progression like man, beast, woman, and the other had a different progression like man, woman, beast.  There was also the issue of plants being created before the sun which we all know from science class that plants can't survive without the sun to do photosynthesis.  Then there's the notion that in a literal interpretation of the bible the earth is roughly 10,000 years old which according to science is way off.  Why does the bible make no mention of the dinosaurs which we know existed because of all the fossil evidence, we also know that dinosaurs and humans didn't exist at the same time.

This what I mean by inconsistencies.  Some of it is how the bible seems to be inconsistent with itself but a lot of it is that the bible doesn't mesh with science and I am more willing to believe in science (and I'm not lumping theoretical physics in with this) since it is based on emperical evidence.

What "experts"?  I'm sorry but it is completely impossible for Noah to have loaded two of every species onto the boat plus food and water for all of them enough to last the entire duration.  Not to mention that it would be impossible for only 1 family, no matter the size, to care for that many animals.  And that doesn't even consider how you stop the carnivores from eating all the herbivores.

Noah didn't have the construction techniques that we have today, and even with todays construction there is no way you could construct a boat to hold two of every species, there is just no way even if they were all babies. 

I don't believe this based on someone else any more than you believe what you believe based on what someone else has said.

The basic assumption by anyone taking a critical look at any work is to have that work prove itself to you not to go into it with a major assumption like there is a god going into it.  You don't go into a critical analysis of the theory of gravity with the assumption that gravity exists do you?  Of course not because if you did then the argument is easy: "gravity exists because it is assumed that gravity exists."

But if God wanted everyone to believe one thing and only one thing don't you think something as powerful as God (as you describe him) could have created language so that there was only one possible interpretation of the text so that there wouldn't be any differences?  Just a thought.

Maybe that'll be Indy's next big adventure.  Sorry I couldn't resist.

Or perhaps no one got it right.

It seems to me to be a bit, arrogant to assume that (your) God is male. It would seem reasonable to assume that if God is all, and all is he, then that would entail being feminine. Unless that is where Mary falls, even though Mary was never a deity.

~Alderic

you know, if you want to be credible AND take the bible literally you should quote the original hebrew (or... latin? for new testement) instead of the translation of a translation of a...