Scripture - something that's been bothering me lately

[Paprika]

Scripture declares itself to be complete

Nowhere does Scripture claim itself complete.

[mossrose]

Nowhere does Scripture claim itself complete.

I beg to differ.

Revelation is the last book of the canon. Chapter 22, verses 18 and 19 state:

18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

Looks like it states it is complete to me.

[Paprika]

Looks like it states it is complete to me.

Not at all.

The actual text of Revelation 22:18-19 does not make any reference to the Word of God. The warning quite clearly and explicitly is given by the author against altering τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου, "this book," as opposed to "the Word of God" or "Scripture" or some other phrase which would extend the warning to other writings.

The only way for you to assert that this particular warning applies to all books of the Bible would be to add your own interpretation to the text, which seems to be precisely the thing which Rev 22:18-19 warns against.

[mossrose]

Not at all.

And so I am to be convinced by the word of a self-proclaimed heathen over the word of God.

As I said, if you don't believe in Sola Scriptura then my post will mean nothing to you.

[Paprika]

And so I am to be convinced by the word of a self-proclaimed heathen over the word of God.

He is making an accurate statement about what the Scripture says, which I confirm.

As I said, if you don't believe in Sola Scriptura then my post will mean nothing to you.

You don't even care to properly examine what the Scriptures are saying. Truly, you are a fundy.

[mossrose]

He is making an accurate statement about what the Scripture says, which I confirm.


You don't even care to properly examine what the Scriptures are saying. Truly, you are a fundy.

Really.

Then how about Deuteronomy 4:2

2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

And Deuteronomy 12:32

32 “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

And let's have a look at Proverbs 30:5,6

Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.

6 Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

And maybe we can check out Jeremiah 26:2-6

2 “Thus says the Lord, ‘Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship in the Lord’s house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!

3 Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.’

4 And you will say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord, “If you will not listen to Me, to walk in My law which I have set before you,

5 to listen to the words of My servants the prophets, whom I have been sending to you again and again, but you have not listened;

6 then I will make this house like Shiloh, and this city I will make a curse to all the nations of the earth.”’”

Revelation 22 is NOT the first time that God Himself tells us not to add or subtract from His word! Or falsify, alter, mitigate or misinterpret the truths found within, or else the one who does will suffer judgment.


And the words in Revelation are directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. Go ahead and argue with the Lord Himself if you wish. I will not.

[Paprika]

Really.

Then how about Deuteronomy 4:2...And Deuteronomy 12:32

Which pertained only to the Law. It does not say Scripture is closed (which is ridiculous as much more Scripture came afterwards).

And let's have a look at Proverbs 30:5,6

It does not say Scripture is closed (which is ridiculous as much more Scripture came afterwards).

And maybe we can check out Jeremiah 26:2-6

Which says 'do not omit', and like the above has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It does not say Scripture is closed (which is ridiculous as much more Scripture came afterwards).

Revelation 22 is NOT the first time that God Himself tells us not to add or subtract from His word! Or falsify, alter, mitigate or misinterpret the truths found within, or else the one who does will suffer judgment.

And the words in Revelation are directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. Go ahead and argue with the Lord Himself if you wish. I will not.

Idiot. The completeness of Scripture does not merely concern human addition: God can send new Scripture, as He did: the OT in succession, and the NT in succession centuries after the OT.

Scripture in no way rules out new Scripture.

And the words in Revelation are directly from the mouth of Jesus Christ. Go ahead and argue with the Lord Himself if you wish. I will not.

You don't even care to properly examine what the Scriptures are saying, but are merely projecting onto the Lord what you want him to be saying.

Truly, a fundy.

[Ana Dragule]

I'm still confused by the heathen comment.

[JonathanL]

When did it even become ok to call someone who follows Christ a heathen?

Mossrose is referring to Boxing Pythagoras, who self-identifies as a heathen, she's not referring to Paprika.

[Ana Dragule]

Mossrose is referring to Boxing Pythagoras, who self-identifies as a heathen, she's not referring to Paprika.

I guess there was a removed post or something... Thank you, Chrawnus.

[JonathanL]

I guess there was a removed post or something... Thank you, Chrawnus.

There is no removed post either. Mossrose is talking about the post by BP that Paprika quoted here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post187873

[mossrose]

I guess there was a removed post or something... Thank you, Chrawnus.

Boxing Pythagorus has "Heathen" as his faith designation, which you can clearly see on every post he makes.

[mossrose]

Which pertained only to the Law. It does not say Scripture is closed (which is ridiculous as much more Scripture came afterwards).



It does not say Scripture is closed (which is ridiculous as much more Scripture came afterwards).



Which says 'do not omit', and like the above has nothing to do with the subject at hand. It does not say Scripture is closed (which is ridiculous as much more Scripture came afterwards).


Idiot. The completeness of Scripture does not merely concern human addition: God can send new Scripture, as He did: the OT in succession, and the NT in succession centuries after the OT.

Scripture in no way rules out new Scripture.


You don't even care to properly examine what the Scriptures are saying, but are merely projecting onto the Lord what you want him to be saying.

Truly, a fundy.

The Law IS scripture. And scripture IS the Law of God. Did you not read the Psalm I quoted earlier?

Since you can only repeat yourself and make me repeat myself to respond to you, you can cease responding to me. You resort to name calling,which I have not done, because you don't have an answer for the scriptures I have posted.

[Adrift]

How do I know that scripture was written correctly? Not as in big floods and battles and was Jesus crucified, but like how did the apostles write the Gospels years after Christ ascended into heaven and still get the wording of the parables right? I'm looking for something other than God inspired them to write it properly (if they are quoting the Lord) and other than the the Church says so. What else do we have?

There's a great breakdown on the transmission of the Gospel in the book Jesus Under Fire, specifically the chapter Live, Jive, or Memorex? by NT scholar Darrell Bock. Essentially, Bock demonstrates that Jesus' teachings were neither recorded with the type of accuracy we might expect from a tape recording, but neither were they simply invented. Instead, they took a third approach:

Source: Live, Jive, or Memorex? by Darrell Bock

This third approach readily acknowledges that the text reports Jesus' sayings, even those that can be tied to the same setting, with variation of wording. Such variations, reported by authors who knew the tradition's wording, reveal their intent to summarize and explain, not merely to quote, as they sought to apply Jesus' teaching to their audiences, selected what to discuss, and sometimes arranged their material for topical reasons rather than by sequence.

...

In examining the wording of Jesus' teaching in the Gospels, we must distinguish between the ipsissima verba of Jesus ("his very words") and the ipsissima vox ("his very voice," i.e., the presence of his teaching summarized). One universally recognized reality makes assessing the presence of the exact words of Jesus difficult and argues for the distinction between verba and vox. It is that Jesus probably gave most of his teaching in Aramaic, the dominant public language of first-century Palestine where Jesus ministered, whereas the Gospels were written in Greek, the dominant language of the larger first-century Greco-Roman world to which the Gospels were addressed. In other words, most of Jesus' teaching in the Gospels is already a translation.

Though one could argue Jesus spoke Greek and that some of the tradition is not translated, that is unlikely for the whole tradition, particularly when Jesus ministered in a Semitic context. It would be like asking Jesus to speak in English to a Mexican audience on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande! Since a translation is already present in much of the tradition, we do not have "his very words" in the strictest sense of the term.

A second factor also argues for this distinction. Most accounts of Jesus' remarks are a few sentences long. In fact, even his longest speeches as recorded in the Gospels take only a few minutes to read (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount or the Olivet Discourse). Yet we know that Jesus kept his audiences for hours at a time (e.g., Mark 6:34-36). It is clear that the writers give us a reduced and summarized presentation of what Jesus said and did. John's Gospel says as much in hyperbole, noting that all the books in the world could not hold a full account of what Jesus did and said (John 21:25).

Third, the distinction between verba and vox is valuable when we look at the way the Bible cites itself—i.e., the way the New Testament uses the Old. Numerous New Testament citations of the Old are not word for word, even after taking into account translation from Hebrew into Greek (cf. Isa. 61:1-2 with Luke 4:16-20; Amos 9:11-12 with Acts 15:16-17; Ps. 40:7-9 with Heb. 10:5-7). If the Bible can summarize a citation of itself in this way, then to see the same technique in its handling the words of Jesus should come as no surprise.

© Copyright Original Source

He then goes into the accuracy of the Greco-Roman historical tradition, and the exactness of memorized details in the oral tradition of the 1st century Jewish culture

Source: Live, Jive, or Memorex? by Darrell Bock

Jewish rabbis developed elaborate means by which to communicate the tradition orally from generation to generation, finally codifying it in writing about A.D. 170 in the Mishnah. Rabbinic schools, which majored in study of the law, taught the importance of careful memory work. To the Jew, if something reflected the Word of God or the wisdom of God, it was worth remembering."

Three institutions reinforced this commitment to reflect on and remember teaching: the home, the synagogue, and the elementary school. In all three locations Jews worked with material they had learned carefully to recall. The Jewish historian Josephus was proud of his memory skills (Life 8). True, Josephus was prone to self-congratulation, but the fact that he boasted of such skill shows how culturally appreciated it was. Jews would read and repeat important points of the law to their children (4 Macc. 18:10-16). Or as Philo, another Jewish historian of Jesus' time, declared:

For all men guard their own customs, but this is especially true of the Jewish nation. Holding that the laws are oracles vouchsafed by God and having been trained in this doctrine from their earliest years, they carry the likeness of the commandments enshrined in their souls. (The Embassy to Gaius 210)

All major Jewish groups had community prayers that they committed to memory, whether it be the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4—9, the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments), or the Eighteen Benedictions. The Psalms and Scripture were sung. Another means of making sayings memorable was the use of graphic images and parallelism. We know from the discoveries at Qumran that the Old Testament text was faithfully copied with such care that a thousand years of copying saw no substantial differences introduced into the wording of the text. I am not trying to argue that the Jews did everything without error, but they did give great care in how they communicated and passed on events, especially divinely associated events. The culture was, to use Riesner's words, "a culture of memory."

The New Testament shares this approach to the importance of what Jesus taught and how it was transmitted. I have already noted how Luke affirmed that the tradition he received had roots in those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Luke 1:1-4). When Paul writes about the gospel message or the tradition of the Last Supper that he passed on to the Corinthian church, he uses the language of tradition carefully passed on: "I preached to you [the gospel] which you received" (1 Cor. 15:1), and, "I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you" (11:23). The terms "received" and "passed on" are technical terms for hearing and passing on tradition. In fact, Paul's version of this event reads virtually the same as how Luke recorded the event (Luke 22:14-2 3), showing that the church "passed on" events in much the way Judaism did. Numerous other passages reflect the use of Jewish forms of tradition, suggesting the apostles' connection to the passing on of tradition; in some cases the oral tradition took on a fairly fixed form as it started to be passed on.

© Copyright Original Source

I thought there was a section in this book that discussed current research in modern oral cultures and their ability to retain long amounts of narrative to an exacting degree, but I can't find it. Must have been another book I read.

[mossrose]

I'm still confused by the heathen comment.

I see you removed the part of this post where you questioned me calling BP a heathen, even though that is what he calls himself.

I also see you have amened Paprika for repeatedly calling me an idiot.

What a hypocritical act.