How do theists justify the translations of the scriptures?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've heard this nonsense before, and it is manifestly untrue.  There are absolutely, positively NOT 25 000 copies of the Bible that have been preserved for two millennia.

What IS true is that there are 25 000 handwritten manuscripts of the NT, but even this is a misrepresentation of what the situation is.  There are no extant manuscripts from the first century, and only eight (I think) from the second.  For the first four centuries, there are approximately 100 manuscripts.  The copying craze started after that (largely due to the advent of monasteries).

But what is a manuscript?  It is anything that is written by hand, irrespective of length.  The oldest bit of the NT is a fragment of John about three inches long - for historians, this counts as a manuscript.  We don't have anything more substantial than that until around 200 CE.

The overwhelming majority of that 25 000 number so often bandied about weren't written until well after the NT was codified - say, between the 11th and 16th centuries (Mr. Guttenberg largely put the brakes on copying out the Bible by hand).

So, are there 25 000 manuscripts of all or part or the NT?  Yes, but it is almost entirely irrelevant from an historical perspective.  All that really matters are the hundred or so from the first four centuries.


Boru

actually:
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

It's a little more complete than your dismissal would have us believe.

Not to mention the OT roll in all of this. in that there are hundreds of copies of the OT that date back upto 500 years beore Christ that have all been well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

Bottom line is no matter how you slice it there is more written of the bible and more verified hand written copies than any other text

I'm not arguing the number of manuscripts, just pointing that you were wrong earlier when you said there are 25 000 handwritten copies dating from the first century - that's simply incorrect.  The manuscripts from the first 400 years of Christianity are the only ones of any real historical value (for reasons which should be obvious), there are only about 100 of those, and only one of them is complete.

But the '25 000' figure is essentially meaningless.  The number of copies of any text tells us only the importance people placed on it.  It doesn't tell us anything about the truth or falsity of what is in the text.  If there were only one copy of Newton's Principia, it would still be true.  If there were 100 million copies of Pinkwater's The Snarkout Boys And The Avocado Of Death, it would still be fiction.

This isn't to say that the NT is untrue (there are other reasons to suppose that), just that the number of manuscripts isn't a basis on which to conclude...well...anything.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

The Bible, or any other holy book, is a translation of scriptures written thousands of years ago, and even in different tongues.

How can theists confirm these translations are 100%, or even somewhat, accurate?

One would think that if God wants to deliver such an important message, it would be translation and time proof. But I am sure that the Bible is different even in modern bibles of different languages, and even of the same language.

Generally speaking, Christians look up several translation when they want to get the overall meaning of a verse, and lookup the original languages using lexicons and other sources when they want the specific meaning of a word. I went to a Christian school for a bit and took a semester of Greek as one of their electives.

Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and I'm sure Jewish people can verify the translations since the Old Testament is pretty much theirs to begin with. The New Testament is Ancient Greek, probably similar to Platonic writings, so it's not too difficult to get your hands on the original languages and some dictionaries.

I don't think such a level of analysis is needed, in fact I'm of the opinion that the best way to read the bible is to hear it spoken, but if you desire to go that deep the option is always available.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Generally speaking, Christians look up several translation when they want to get the overall meaning of a verse, and lookup the original languages using lexicons and other sources when they want the specific meaning of a word.

Generally speaking, Christians do nothing of the kind.

Boru

[John 6IX Breezy]

Generally speaking, Christians do nothing of the kind.

Boru

Perhaps in your experience, or your particular church, they didn't (assuming you're ex-Christian). I think my statement is particularly true in this day and age where Christians use Bible apps and online Bibles over physical copies. A lot of these services already provide you with interlinear comparisons across translations, as well as the Greek and Hebrew texts, concordances, and lexicons.

Take for example: https://biblehub.com

I've met a few old school pastors that purchase physical copies of different translations. I think that's less common these days. I personally own the wycliff bible, tyndale bible, and Geneva bible, though I do so more for the sake of collection.

EDIT: Not to mention that a lot of denominations trace their origins to European reformers that themselves aided in translating the bible, or knew how to speak Greek or even Latin, such as Luther or Calvin. I think Protestants in general tend to come from a very translation-oriented, look-it-up-for-yourself, tradition. Catholics perhaps not as much.

[Drich]

actually:
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work of literature, with over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts catalogued, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian.

It's a little more complete than your dismissal would have us believe.

Not to mention the OT roll in all of this. in that there are hundreds of copies of the OT that date back upto 500 years beore Christ that have all been well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

Bottom line is no matter how you slice it there is more written of the bible and more verified hand written copies than any other text

I'm not arguing the number of manuscripts, just pointing that you were wrong earlier when you said there are 25 000 handwritten copies dating from the first century - that's simply incorrect.  The manuscripts from the first 400 years of Christianity are the only ones of any real historical value (for reasons which should be obvious), there are only about 100 of those, and only one of them is complete.

But the '25 000' figure is essentially meaningless.  The number of copies of any text tells us only the importance people placed on it.  It doesn't tell us anything about the truth or falsity of what is in the text.  If there were only one copy of Newton's Principia, it would still be true.  If there were 100 million copies of Pinkwater's The Snarkout Boys And The Avocado Of Death, it would still be fiction.

This isn't to say that the NT is untrue (there are other reasons to suppose that), just that the number of manuscripts isn't a basis on which to conclude...well...anything.

Boru

never said there where 25,000 copies from the first century. I said this message has been preserved for over two thousand years. out of that preservation during that time period we have over 25,000 hand written copies of text that all tell the same message.

take a look at the following works and what we have available for them in copies/handwritten documents, are they meaningless as well? if you take your same standard and apply it to the history of first century era texts then you would also have to discard the whole of the follow list. which happen to be the top 5 most regarded works aside from the bible to come from that era. Now also note what people way way smarter than you has declared all of these documents historic and factual/IE: vetted world history. but also note some of the oldest manuscripts are 1000+ years after the fact.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. either we go by the standard that allows a work of herodias with 8 total surviving manuscripts which where written 1300 years after the events they cover, and apply it to a bible who's work is but only 1 or 2 generations away from said events with 25,000 copies, or you throw out everything. Because again like it or not, nothing in the world of manuscripts of this time period even comes close to what is written about the bible.
(1) The Gallic Wars By Julius Caesar

1.  Author: Caesar.
   
   
2. Date written: 100-44 B.C.
   
   
3.  Earliest manuscript copies: 900 A.D.
   
   
4. Elapsed time between written copies and the original: 1000 years.
   
   
5.  Surviving manuscript evidence: 10 manuscripts.
   

(2) The Histories of Herodotus

1.  Author: Herodotus.
   
   
2. Date written: 480-425 B.C.
   
   
3.  Earliest manuscript copies: 900 A.D.
   
   
4.  Elapsed time between written copies and the original: 1,350 years.
   
   
5.  Surviving manuscript evidence: 8 manuscripts.
   

(3) Annals by Roman historian and senator Tacitus

1.  Author: Tacitus.
   
   
2. Date written: 100 A.D.
   
   
3.  Earliest manuscript copies: 1100 A.D.
   
   
4.  Elapsed time between written copies and the original: 1000 years.
   
   
5.  Surviving manuscript evidence: 20 manuscripts.
   

(4) Pliny Secundus’ Natural history

1.  Author: Pliny the Elder.
   
   
2. Date written: 61-113 A.D.
   
   
3.  Earliest manuscript copies: 850 A.D.
   
   
4.  Elapsed time between written copies and the original: 750 years.
   
   
5.  Surviving manuscript evidence: 7 manuscripts.
   

(5) Homer’s Iliad

1.  Author: Homer.
   
   
2. Date written: 800 B.C.
   
   
3.  Earliest manuscript copies: 400 B.C.
   
   
4.  Elapsed time between written copies and the original: 400 years.
   
   
5.  Surviving manuscript evidence: 643 manuscripts.
   

---

The New Testament

Authors: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, Paul.
Date written: 50-96 A.D.
Earliest manuscript copies: 114 A.D (fragments), 200 A.D (books), 250 A.D (majority of N.T.) 325 A.D (complete N.T.)
Elapsed time between written copies and the original: + 50 years, 100 years, 150 years, 225 years.
Surviving manuscript evidence: 5366 manuscripts.

oldschoolcontemporary.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/the-new-testament-versus-shakespeare/

---

Generally speaking, Christians look up several translation when they want to get the overall meaning of a verse, and lookup the original languages using lexicons and other sources when they want the specific meaning of a word.

Generally speaking, Christians do nothing of the kind.

Boru

what do you think is happening when we go to the greek texts?

Oh, that's right you guys call that verbal gymnastics.. See what happens when you close your mind just to dismiss something like a word study? you under estimate the work and ability of your opponent and over estimate your own position.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

never said there where 25,000 copies from the first century. I said this message has been preserved for over two thousand years. out of that preservation during that time period we have over 25,000 hand written copies of text that all tell the same message.

What you actually said was:

the fact that there are over 25,000 copies of the bible hand written and preserved over 2000 years

This is patently untrue.  There is, in fact, NO copy of the Bible that has been preserved for over 2000 years.  The oldest copy of the New Testament is the Codex Sinaiticus, which was most likely written around the middle of the 4th century.

I'll try again, since you appear to have missed it.  A 'copy' is not the same as a 'manuscript'.  If I write out all the words of  'Moby Dick' by hand, that's a copy AND a manuscript.  If I write 'Call me Ismael' and nothing else, that's not a copy, but it's still a manuscript. Prior to Codex Sinaiticus, what we have are manuscripts in fragment form, some more substantial than others.  But none of these are 'copies of the bible'.

I'll happily grant that the New Testament has over 25 000 extant manuscripts. Big deal.

what do you think is happening when we go to the greek texts?

I think that I admire the scholarship and the effort by Christians who do that, but I'm unconvinced that this is something that Christians 'generally' do.  Until it is demonstrated otherwise, I'm going to hold to the notion that the great majority of Christians don't engage in any serious scholarship regarding scripture, they simply 'eat what is set before them'.


Boru

[Drich]

The Bible, or any other holy book, is a translation of scriptures written thousands of years ago, and even in different tongues.

How can theists confirm these translations are 100%, or even somewhat, accurate?

One would think that if God wants to deliver such an important message, it would be translation and time proof. But I am sure that the Bible is different even in modern bibles of different languages, and even of the same language.

Generally speaking, Christians look up several translation when they want to get the overall meaning of a verse, and lookup the original languages using lexicons and other sources when they want the specific meaning of a word. I went to a Christian school for a bit and took a semester of Greek as one of their electives.

Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, and I'm sure Jewish people can verify the translations since the Old Testament is pretty much theirs to begin with. The New Testament is Ancient Greek, probably similar to Platonic writings, so it's not too difficult to get your hands on the original languages and some dictionaries.

I don't think such a level of analysis is needed, in fact I'm of the opinion that the best way to read the bible is to hear it spoken, but if you desire to go that deep the option is always available.

Koine Greek infact, there are a few passages in the bible found in aramaic, but koine greek even for the OT. Because by the time Jesus came around the only surviving complete copy was the septuagint. there are very few surviving copies of the hebrew bible older than the 13th century. All subsequent copies are direct translations of the septuagint. The septuagint was compiled in or around 4BC.

Now there where other older fragments and partial books older than dirt and have been used to vet certain passages. Which was a big problem for a very long time concerning the prophesies of Christ.. particularly isa 53. (cause people said the prophesies where added after jesus) but in 1947 we found the dead sea scrolls. which contained various books and other fragments some 800 years older than anything else found. including several copies of the book of isaiah. which btw is near a mirror copy (excusing spelling errors grammatical errors and cultural interpretations that do not change the body of the text in any way.) If i remember right there are only 25 differences between the ancient isah text and the more modern septuagint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pkqh_6xhuw

So when I read something like the OP I often wonder how the world hides all of this information or are people like the op just conditioned to ignore what they do not agree with? Otherwise if you really study how could you assume the bible is written is such a haphazard way?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I think that I admire the scholarship and the effort by Christians who do that, but I'm unconvinced that this is something that Christians 'generally' do.  Until it is demonstrated otherwise, I'm going to hold to the notion that the great majority of Christians don't engage in any serious scholarship regarding scripture, they simply 'eat what is set before them'.

Boru

Hmm I don't know whether to agree or disagree. I can agree that there are many people, that identify as Christians, but the closest they come to practicing Christianity is having a prayer during a Thanksgiving meal.

But I also disagree because I grew up with a very traditional protestant mentality of "bring your bible to church to test if what the pastor is saying is true." There's nothing layfolk love more than going home after church, having potluck, and complaining about what the pastor said wrong and how the church leadership isn't what it used to be.

That tradition might not exist within Catholicism however.

[Fake Messiah]

Generally speaking, Christians look up several translation when they want to get the overall meaning of a verse, and lookup the original languages using lexicons and other sources when they want the specific meaning of a word. I went to a Christian school for a bit and took a semester of Greek as one of their electives.

Imagine you're reading Bible supposedly translated by experts and you still need a dictionary because you're a bigger expert.

Like I said earlier that scholars don't even agree on how verses should be translated. You could be the world's greatest Greek or Hebrew scholar and still have experts dispute your interpretations.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think that I admire the scholarship and the effort by Christians who do that, but I'm unconvinced that this is something that Christians 'generally' do.  Until it is demonstrated otherwise, I'm going to hold to the notion that the great majority of Christians don't engage in any serious scholarship regarding scripture, they simply 'eat what is set before them'.

Boru

Hmm I don't know whether to agree or disagree. I can agree that there are many people, that identify as Christians, but the closest they come to practicing Christianity is having a prayer during a Thanksgiving meal.

But I also disagree because I grew up with a very traditional protestant mentality of "bring your bible to church to test if what the pastor is saying is true." There's nothing layfolk love more than going home after church, having potluck, and complaining about what the pastor said wrong and how the church leadership isn't what it used to be.

That tradition might not exist within Catholicism however.

I'll give you an example of what I'm getting at.  A lot of Christians are fond of quoting John 3:16.  It's a very popular verse and (I have to assume) a very comforting one.  But I strongly doubt that many of the Christians who throw this around have looked up the Greek for 'loved', 'begotten', 'perish', 'eternal' and so on.  But good on them if they do.  The verse on the face of it makes them feel good, it makes them feel loved, it gives them hope for a life beyond this one.  They really don't have a reason to dig deeper.

Boru