We would but seeing as the bible was written about 1400 years after Jesus lived it would be hard to get an accurate accounting of what he actually said. DD
I believe an earlier third already dispensed with the absurd notion that the Bible was written that late.
Mrs. Valdez, The dead sea scrolls were written in the 1st century AD, but the entire bible was written in the 1500's I believe, thus the name...the King James bible. DD
no...the king james bible was a translation, dd...the original texts were written in aramaic and subsequently translated to Greek way before then. most historians have the synoptic gospels pinned down to between 30-50 AD...there or about. the dead sea scrolls predate that, as i understand it. they are old testament accounts...particularly the book of isaiah if i remember right.
Mad, That is precisely my point. Translations are subject to interpetation, and thus can not be fully trusted. By the way 30-50 AD is the first century. DD
i'm well aware...but i don't believe the dead sea scrolls contained any new testament scripts...maybe i'm wrong on that. current NIV and other translations don't merely translate from the King James text. there are very old manuscripts that are tremendously accurate to the ones we have today. even the most critical historians argue that the bible is as true a historical document in terms of integrity as we have. you might also note that the dead sea scrolls alleviated some of those translation concerns. when they found those they read nearly word for word like their counterparts in church pews around the world.
The reason there is the King James Bible was that King James thought the English and Latin translations of the Bible that were available were not easily understood. The language was awkward. So he had the Bible translated into what was at the time common English. The translations came from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Modern translations such as the NIV are also taken from the original texts, they are not translations of the King James. A number of the Dead Sea Scrolls were written before the 1st century and are copies of some of the books in the Old Testament as well as other records. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are newer and are 1st century copies of some of the New Testament books. The collection of books that make up the Bible were circulating in their entirety by the end of the 1st century. There were still some other books that were also circulating although they were not consistently accepted as canonical. Basicly, all of the books were written by the end of the first century but there were disputes as to which were inspired by God and which were not.
That is a bit simplistic; however,certainly translations have been lost between greek, latin and English--The King James version of the bible is one of the most inaccurate and biased to date. More importantly, the chronicled history of the "common era"--after the birth of Christ--is well documneted. Biblical scholars draw from fairly accurate resources; the Dead Sea Scrolls one of their most important finds. Saying that the bible was written over 1400 years after Jesus' death, however, is inaccurate. You can say that early bibles were compiled and produced during the 15th century. The Dead Sea Scrolls indicated that entire books were left out of the bible as we know it today.
Part of my problem with putting faith in ancient texts. For example, the Sermon on the Mount. First written down about 60 or 70 years after the fact, I believe. But remembered word for word? I guess the apostle was standing there with a tape recorder. As far as the Messiah of the Jews, isn't his name George W. Bush? I'm sure of it. Just ask him. I'm sure he'll say so.
EXCELLENT summary Mrs. Valdez--I was in the process of writing my post while the others have gone up before mine.(why is it they always want you to WORK while you are at work?!) Is it possible that you are Roman Catholic or Espiscopalean? or neither?....just an aside....
For the record, I think Mad Max may be correct that the Dead Sea Scrolls don't include any of the books found in the New Testament. Sorry about that.
1. you're assuming they kept no journals of their accounts as they went?? really??? 2. probably 30-50 years after...but no need to argue that!
I think if you asked me to tell you all about a sermon I heard fifteen years ago, I couldn't. But I get the impression that Jesus told some of the same parables again and again. Also, what he taught was important to the disciples. Important enough that I don't think that when they wrote down the accounts that we now have as the gospels, it was the first time they tried to recall what Jesus said. I think I could tell a number of the stories my dad recounted. He told them frequently enough and some of them were quite funny.
That surprises me! Your viewpoints don't seem to match up with what I learned when I was attending a PCUSA church. Of course, specific churches differ ...
that doesn't surprise me...what was your impression? what did you not like about it?? and let me say, you won't offend me. i'm a voice for change in my church. i grew up episcopalian...but my theology was shaped largely, i believe, by Young Life and other non-denominational ministries...plus a lot of C.S. Lewis! my experience with God has been pretty ecumenical...i find beauty in the worship of God through the liturgy of the Episcopal church...but I find their Bible education programs lacking. at the same time, i love the specific church I go to. not sure if i'd be a member of a presbyterian church if i lived in another part of the country. i preached the sermon this last sunday...great experience! had a blast!
Another thing to remember is that most Christians believe that the text of the Bible is directly inspired by God through the minds of the authors of each book. Therefore if God deemed it necessary for Matthew to remember and transcribe Christ's words from the Sermon on the Mount verbatim, then he did so.
The particular PCUSA church I attended for a few years in highschool was in Cleveland. It was friendly but the theology irritated my father (he attended Westminster Seminary and was ordained by the Reformed Church of France). So he left that church but I had friends there and continued going. The problem was that I never learned anything and the ministers seemed to believe that if it felt right than it probably was right. They didn't believe that all of the Bible was the Word of God. Especially parts that they didn't like. Although I have visited and been a member of other PCA churches, the one we attend is the first I've encountered that has such a strong academic emphasis. What I think I like about the denomination as a whole is the strict adherance to the Westminster Confession of Faith (which significantly predates the aforementioned seminary).
