The Codex Sinaiticus - General Discussion - Other - PFRS Forums - Message Board - Yuku

Please post your questions or comments in the appropriate forum

PFRS Main Website
The Most Important Thing ...

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

The Codex Sinaiticus

Author	Comment
jdpro	The Codex Sinaiticus	Lead	[-]
Posts: 441 (10/07/08 07:27:21) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None Hi Everyone! Hope all is well with you all. I wanted to stop in here and see what you think about the latest buzz about the Codex Sinaiticus. There are some Christians I know who are worried about it because its existence apparently challenges the veracity of our current Bible. This article being circulated makes a point of discounting our present Scriptures on the basis that it cannot be considered authentic since there are older versions that are different in important ways. The article concludes with a statement to the effect that the Bible is constantly changing. I'm not personally worried about this but would like to learn how to respond to the concerns. I would love to hear any feedback from you! Love in Him, Tanya Last Edited By: jdpro 10/07/08 14:42:10. Edited 1 time.
Joel Tamburo	It's just another liberal red herring	#1	[-]
Posts: 107 (10/07/08 20:27:58) PFRS Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Tanya, Basically put, this is just another hoax like the Gospel of Judas. Codex Sinaiticus is a corrupted Alexandrian manuscript. In fact, it's only notoreity is its apparent age (apparent because it is known to have been edited all the way up to the twelfth century). In fact, it is no obviously corrupt that even Alexandrian Bibles don't rely on it. Here is a history of it: http://www.deanburgonsoci...ticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm As to the website you linked to it is typical leftist tripe. The owner is (as his other articles show) an anti-Christian (from his About Me section an Atheist). Bart Ehrman is little better, and is not a "distinguished New Testament scholar". I would also recommend you to the debate on this forum regarding Textual sources. Last Edited By: Joel Tamburo 10/08/08 16:06:37. Edited 1 times.
Homo economicus		#2	[-]
Posts: 1 (10/08/08 06:27:03) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	As the owner of the blog in question, the pseudo name Homo economicus is an economic concept - and not a reference to my sexuality http://homoeconomicusnet..../01/being-born-a-lesbian/ Even if I was gay, that has nothing to do with the original poster's question. It actually shows an intolerance that is disturbing. My concern with religion is where it is forced upon people who do not acquiescence to that belief. Jesus as a human being I have a lot of time for http://homoeconomicusnet....hristian-not-a-christian/ I do not want to stop Christians being Christians. I only want the state to ensure liberty for all citizens - for that, the state must respect the difference in belief of it's citizens - hence my advocating of a secularist state. For me it is a human rights, liberty of free and equal persons issue. As a Christian I believed the same thing; perhaps more so as I did not think at that time believers should be involved in the political process because the system of things was in the hands of the wicked one. The point is that various editions of the bible, how scriptures were included to be in certain editions, and the many hands that wrote them is an indication of the works of man. The idea that the bible to every word and punctuation mark is ordained by a higher power seems rather unlikely given the history of how the bible we have today originated. The strongest argument against that charge is that the gospel is something to be lived, and not a text to be burned into your heart in a fundamentalist way. The bible may have been written by men, but the life lived as a follower of Christ is one that gives grace and would make the world a better place. I may not agree, but the argument is a stronger one than dismissing some one's argument on the grounds of sexual orientation or voting intention.
jdpro		#3	[-]
Posts: 442 (10/08/08 10:52:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Joel, Thank you for that link. I found it very helpful. Somewhere I heard that the reason it was so well-preserved is because it was not used. And the reason it was not used is because it was known to be corrupted.
jdpro		#4	[-]
Posts: 443 (10/08/08 10:53:17) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Homo, I wanted to ask what it is about Christianity that you feel is threatening?
Homo economicus		#5	[-]
Posts: 2 (10/08/08 13:26:27) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	In the Jefferson sense nothing, because your belief neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. But there is something about mindsets which need confronting. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus is described as corrupting, hearsay, the work not of god (unlike other works). So without further investigation we can try and dismiss this manuscript that exists. One of the oldest where we can see original text and corrections. Yet when you look at the books in the bible, where there are several authors of one work, and the various translations and meanings that are derived from these works over time it sounds less like the holy word of god being revealed then men fighting one another over ideas. Not always conductive to a civil society. When you start investigating early Christianity, what texts there were and how decisions were made on what to include and what not to include, then belief does not boil down to divine revelation, but the decisions of men. That truth is not something that need be feared by anyone unless they hold belief more important than honest inquiry. The threat is where the state sanctions a faith over others. It grants privileges to one that it does not to others, at best only denying equal citizenship to people not of that faith, at worse actively persecuting those who do not share that faith. The state has no basis enshrining theology in the public sphere, when faith is a personal one that many citizens differ on. Freedom of thought to practise your faith or none requires that the state does not advocate one over another. Nor should that belief be enforced on others outside of that belief. For example, I am curious what the poster meant by referring to me as a practising homosexual (lets ignore that is not true). That was not dealing about the issue concerned, rather it was an attempt to diminish me as a person without addressing the article. Again, that is something that I have an issue with religion in how it lends itself to characterising people.
Joel Tamburo		#6	[-]
Posts: 109 (10/08/08 16:05:11) PFRS Member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi, I apologize for misunderstanding some of the things on your website. However, the fact that Codex Sinaiticus is corrupted is not a supposition it is a fact. When it got edited all the way up to the twelfth century it stopped being usable or reliable. Also the textual transmission of the Bible is far more reliable and homogenous than you make it sound. The vast majority of the thousands of manuscripts agree very, very closely with one another. Also, their citation by the Ante Nicene church fathers shows that the text has survived well. Also, your claims about how the Canon came to be are not true. It can be shown that the council where the Canon was "approved" was simply an official stamp on what had already been the situation for centuries. So, investigating early Christianity does not reveal what you assert it reveals. As to your statement about the "threat", it strikes me as nonsensical. Christianity is not sanctioned in the United States; if anything it gets discriminated against in some ways (for example, incorrect understanding of the Constitution used to try to drive it from the public square). The situation you are describing is what is seen in Islamic states, where if you are not a Moslem you are a second class citizen at best and persecuted and killed at worse. The reason I came away with the personal impression I did was the nature of the links off your site. The fault is mine for not seeing the "About Me" section. Lesson learned. Also the nature of these attacks is often seen from proponents of "gay theology". But I digress. I was wrong to say it. I removed the offending remark from my post, but the apology will remain here . Last Edited By: Joel Tamburo 10/08/08 16:07:49. Edited 1 times.
jdpro		#7	[-]
Posts: 445 (10/08/08 19:00:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The threat is where the state sanctions a faith over others. It grants privileges to one that it does not to others, at best only denying equal citizenship to people not of that faith, at worse actively persecuting those who do not share that faith. The state has no basis enshrining theology in the public sphere, when faith is a personal one that many citizens differ on. Freedom of thought to practise your faith or none requires that the state does not advocate one over another. This is what I thought. All of these things that scare you are neither taught nor encouraged in or by Scripture. You're fighting the wrong battle. The Bible is more of a friend to you and your position than you must realize. For example, the New Testament teaches that Christians are not to judge nonbelievers, including homosexuals. We are taught to leave the judgment of nonChristians to God. If you understood better what the Bible actually teaches you would find that it is not a threat to you. Islam is much more of a threat in the UK and Europe than Christianity is -- even state Christianity (which is not Biblical Christianity). It would be more effective to address the problems of state religion of all sorts (especially Islam) rather than attacking the Bible itself. State religion seeks to make all the citizens comply and conform to the tenets of the religion not only in moral teachings but in beliefs as well. The Bible doesn't teach this, but rather, it calls individuals "out" of the world system, to be a separate people who live to do good in the world and among all sorts of people, and to look forward to the time when the Lord will bring His kingdom to the world.
Homo economicus		#8	[-]
Posts: 3 (10/09/08 05:54:11) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Joel thanks for the correction. The online version will be good to examine. On my blog I do address the issue of secularism, both in Pakistan and not just Christianity but on Hinduism as well. I may disagree with the divinity of Christ and the bible being the word of god. I still find it an important work. I would agree a small but very vocal part of Christianity is homophobic and fundamentally opposed to science. The problem is their influence on school boards and politics. As to Islam attending the Council of ex Muslims first international conference in Britain tomorrow. If you mean attacking the bible by saying that the writings and interpretations are that of man, then yes. Though if we go beyond the supernatural basis of scripture then there is much to be said for the teachings of Jesus. As with all things, it matters how you interpret things - and I would agree that judging of others and being involved in political office is not one that Jesus advocated. You do not have to convince me of that but the Ken Hams of this world. On the separation of church and state - from science education to a supreme court judge saying that states can have an official state religion is a problem when you think the state should be neutral on the personal belief of it's citizens. That Jefferson understanding that liberty of thought required that even the infidel be protected is one that allows us, believer and non believer alike, to come to our own conclusions without penalty and to do so sincerely. That there are arguments over the line (which is more a zig zag) is one to be expected, though I think an inclusive nature, rather than one that marks people out as different, is one I prefer in education. In Britain (where I live) it is rather strange. On the one hand we have a state religion, and unelected bishops in our legislature, and school prayer a legal requirement in the state schools. Yet in public life, a profession of faith on a regular basis would kill a politician's career (a reason Blair only talks about it now out of office). And where I live with a significant Hindu community we have public religious celebrations. With regards Islam, what is happening is that the Church of England is effectively creating an unholy alliance - for example supporting Sharia Law in the UK. It may yet be the secularists (in the US I hate the atheist emphasis placed on that - the idea itself can be supported by people of faith) rather than the church who prevent that. In summery it is not necessarily what the bible says, but what people declare it means which is the problem. I actually see state religion being a problem in the face of Islam, because it's answer is not neutrality but supporting all faiths. The tension that will cause, as communities end up living apart from school to grave, is one that gives me pause. I agree that Islam is a greater threat to individual liberty, which is one reason I am attending the conference tomorrow. But the state sanctioning a religion is a threat to liberty no matter what faith it advocates.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Goshen Bible Search
HELP