It’s not a millenia-long game of whisper down the lane. We have access to the original text. And we still cross-reference different translations to be sure.
Uh, aren’t the original texts that were compiled to make the bible long gone? What “original texts” are you referring to? A cursory search couldn’t find anything except Christian pages saying the original texts no longer exist.
It’s not a millenia-long game of whisper down the lane. We have access to the original text. And we still cross-reference different translations to be sure.
All I said is that the original texts are long gone. Sure the generations of Jews kept the word of God and traditions alive, but we don’t have the original texts. We have the Masoretic text, and we know that is different to what was in use prior because of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 1940s and 50s that were mostly the same but with some differences. And the Dead Sea Scolls were not original either, with scrolls found from different Jewish sects.
The different scripts were also written at different times, separated by at least many hundreds of years.
We may have different ideas of what “original” means. In my view, “generations of Jews who kept the tradition and texts alive” is quite different from having the original texts.
And? That’s still a group of people claiming to be God’s chosen who have nothing but their own political-religious historical texts to draw that conclusion from.
If a Swede claimed they were Odin’s chosen people, would you just immediately accept that their God is real?
It was primarily copied, edited, and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE).
The differences attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that multiple versions of the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the end of the Second Temple period.[1] Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, as is whether such a singular text ever existed.
That text is the best we have, but is not original. Plus, it’s disputed as to whether there was ever one “original”, since the bible is a compilation of various texts which may not have had the exact same text all together in one book as an original.
The text you have linked is from hundreds of years after there would have been an original.
“I don’t like Christianity, therefore the Bible is not canon to itself.”
The Bible isn’t even self-consistent, let alone canon.
Current Bible has been rewritten a bunch of times by different people. Definitely not canon.
It’s not a millenia-long game of whisper down the lane. We have access to the original text. And we still cross-reference different translations to be sure.
Uh, aren’t the original texts that were compiled to make the bible long gone? What “original texts” are you referring to? A cursory search couldn’t find anything except Christian pages saying the original texts no longer exist.
I guess you’re choosing to ignore the generations of Jews who kept the tradition and texts alive.
The original claim was:
All I said is that the original texts are long gone. Sure the generations of Jews kept the word of God and traditions alive, but we don’t have the original texts. We have the Masoretic text, and we know that is different to what was in use prior because of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 1940s and 50s that were mostly the same but with some differences. And the Dead Sea Scolls were not original either, with scrolls found from different Jewish sects.
The different scripts were also written at different times, separated by at least many hundreds of years.
We may have different ideas of what “original” means. In my view, “generations of Jews who kept the tradition and texts alive” is quite different from having the original texts.
And? That’s still a group of people claiming to be God’s chosen who have nothing but their own political-religious historical texts to draw that conclusion from.
If a Swede claimed they were Odin’s chosen people, would you just immediately accept that their God is real?
https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm
Is this not it?
It’s authoritative but not original. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
That text is the best we have, but is not original. Plus, it’s disputed as to whether there was ever one “original”, since the bible is a compilation of various texts which may not have had the exact same text all together in one book as an original.
The text you have linked is from hundreds of years after there would have been an original.
Huh, good to know, thanks.
If by “original text” you mean “the first full version which was written over a century after the proclaimed event.”
We have like four words and one corner of papyri from Mark in the first century, not exactly a bulletproof passdown.