logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline zelly  
#1 Posted : Friday, April 19, 2013 4:30:42 PM(UTC)
zelly
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Posts: 20
Location: england

I discovered this article on Stephen Walsh website, Stephen is an exeptionally
talented writer from whom much can be learned.

7 NEW MANUSCRIPTS OF THE RENEWED COVENANT DISCOVERED

Dan Wallace, the Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts at Dallas Theological Seminary, in a recent debate regarding NT manuscripts with Bart Ehrman made mention that 7 new manuscripts of the text of the RC/NT had been discovered, one of which is a FIRST Century CE manuscript with text from Mark's eyewitness account on it. link

This would essentially be the first proven manuscript we have of any NT text, from less than 50 years since Mark wrote his eyewitness account. Unfortunately, we won't know much more about these 7 manuscripts until "sometime next year".

What's more interesting, however, is Dan Wallace's statement, which I quote here:

Daniel Wallace wrote:How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic... (i)n other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.


Essentially, this destroys anyone who ignorantly states that the NT has "been significantly corrupted over time" - our earliest evidence (going back to less than 50 years since their writing) shows that very little changed in the text of the NT in the first four centuries CE, and even if it did, we have other manuscripts that show us the original wording (copies from older manuscripts that unfortunately are no longer extant).

Compare this to most of the manuscripts we have of Tanakh writings (the oldest copy of Isaiah for instance - the Great Isaiah Scroll - is from 200 CE, over 500 years since Isaiah initially penned his prophecies), then the NT is textually more reliable than the entire Tanakh TWTY website and forum Administrator.
Offline cgb2  
#2 Posted : Sunday, April 21, 2013 5:23:06 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
Many of us who have been here a while are familiar with Stephen Walch (aka "swalchy"), since he used to be a regular participant, BTR radio guest, and even a moderator of this forum....but had a falling out over Paul along with swalchy's opposition and undermining the purposes of YY. Rather than stop, chose hatred. SW is still steeped in Paulianity. For an example of inmature vendetta and statistical fraud - closely examine/compare "The great Galations Debate - Part 2".

That being said, I still sometimes refer to his amplified translations, although difficult to read. I also note he has worked on DSS.

Not surprised that a greek dude named Marus is considered "eyewitness", the covenant "been renewed" (changed and altered), and twisting that TPP "is less relible than renewed covenant"....Paulianity - Ackkk!
Offline Richard  
#3 Posted : Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:35:17 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
cgb2 is right, zelly. Marcus, aka Mark, was not an eyewitness to the life of Yahowsha'. He received his information second-hand. His document is therefore hearsay, not reliable Scripture. If you take away the writings of the demon-possessed liar, Shauwl, aka Paul of Tarsus, and the writings of those who were not eyewitnesses, there is very little left of the Christian "New Testament". And what is left does not provide evidence that Yahowsha' and His true students dismissed the Torah as being unreliable, or as being any of the horrible things Paul accused it of being.

It is Yahowah Who saves us through His Torah, which some self-proclaimed scholars erroneously insist means "The Law". It doesn't. The Hebrew word, "Torah", means instruction, teaching.

Beware of those who cling dogmatically to a thing just because they have invested most of their life with it, such as Swalchy has with the documents of the religion of Christianity. Yahowah, Abraham, Yiza'aq, Ya'aqob, Moseh, Dode, Yahowsha', Mattanyah, Yahowchannan ... they all spoke Hebrew, not Greek, not Latin, and not English.

Let me ask you a question, zelly, just to get the current flowing. Since Yahowsha' withstood the rabbis for their reliance on the oral laws and traditions of what would become the Talmud, why would He then single one of them out, a murderer no less, and insist that he be the only man to take His message to the non-Hebrew world? Does that make any sense at all to you? And why Shauwl, a murderer, instead of someone such as, say, Nicodemus, who had shown himself to be at least looking for the truth?
Offline zelly  
#4 Posted : Friday, April 26, 2013 2:38:17 PM(UTC)
zelly
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Posts: 20
Location: england

Brother Rob put this out on swalchy's sight - quite insightful and he abounds in humor.

Galatians is really the problem with Christianity, but the bigger problem is that it is also it's foundation. If you view the rest of the NT writings without looking through Galatians (and correctly translate as much as you can from the oldest manuscripts) you will find other than Paul being a bloke who had a lot of idea's, he was actually very pro-Torah. It is only Christianity and Christian translators who twist Paul to say it dosen't matter anymore - hence why no scholar will stand up and say "Galatians was not written by Paul" Coz it's like a Muslim saying Allah dosen't exist. Ok maybe they won't get murdered but they would really rock the boat, and nothing would change because - and I quote "This is the way we have always done it".

And yes - Christianity is a false religion, but I know if I had not once been a Christian I would not have made it to where I am now. Life is a serious of steps, sometimes the steps we take lead us into the wrong area - but as long as we keep walking we will always come out the other side. The problem with Christianity is that there is a great comfy chair and cup of tea right in the middle of it
Offline tagim  
#5 Posted : Friday, April 26, 2013 5:34:25 PM(UTC)
tagim
Joined: 9/30/2010(UTC)
Posts: 218
Man
Location: westen new york

Thanks: 3 times
The problem with Christianity is pure and simple, a lie. And that is how most, if not all, members of this site feel. To fine the truth, one must extract the lies.
Offline cgb2  
#6 Posted : Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:00:53 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
zelly wrote:
Brother Rob put this out on swalchy's sight - quite insightful and he abounds in humor.

Galatians is really the problem with Christianity, but the bigger problem is that it is also it's foundation. If you view the rest of the NT writings without looking through Galatians (and correctly translate as much as you can from the oldest manuscripts) you will find other than Paul being a bloke who had a lot of idea's, he was actually very pro-Torah.....


Yeah Paul was "pro-Torah" except when he wasn't...and we'll ignore those parts. There are hundreds if not 1,000s of ways Paul contradicts the testimony of Yahowah/Yahowsha'. As being one who fell for this trap for breif while, I know of the mental gymnastics and cognative disonence that have to be played with the truth. Here is just a tiny snippet:

Rom 7:6 But now we have been released from the Torah, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in newness of Spirit and not in oldness of letter.

1Co 9:20 and to the Yehuḏim I became as a Yehuḏite, that I might win Yehuḏim; to those who are under Torah, as under Torah, so as to win those who are under Torah;
1Co 9:21 to those without Torah, as without Torah – not being without Torah toward Elohim, but under Torah of Messiah – so as to win those who are without Torah.
1Co 9:22 To the weak I became as weak, so as to win the weak. To all men I have become all, so as to save some, by all means.

Eph 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity – the Torah of the commands in dogma – so as to create in Himself one renewed man from the two, thus making peace,

1Ti 1:9 knowing this: that Torah is not laid down for a righteous being, but for the lawless and unruly, for the wicked and for sinners, for the wrong-doers and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

Tit 3:9 But keep away from foolish questions, and genealogies, and strife and quarrels about the Torah, for they are unprofitable and useless.

Heb 7:19 for the Torah perfected naught, but the bringing in of a better expectation, through which we draw near to Elohim.

Heb 10:1 For the Torah, having a shadow of the good matters to come, and not the image itself of the matters, was never able to make perfect those who draw near with the same slaughter offerings which they offer continually

Paul as co-messiah completing his unfinished work:
Col 1:24 who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in Messiah’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body, which is the assembly,

===================

Suppose a person's writings who's decieved billions....do you think they might make the prophetic cut and warning in Yah's testimony? Yah's fair and did precisely that in Hab 2. Update/rewrite (To be published in a few months at http://www.questioningpaul.com)

“Upon My requirements and responsibilities, I have decided I will continually stand. I will choose to stand up, providing affirmation and validation for that which protects and fortifies.
So I will be on the lookout in order to see what he will say about Me, observing how he will question Me. So then, how can I be expected to change My attitude, My thinking, or My response concerning My disapproving rebuke? (2:1)
Then Yahowah responded to me, and He said, ‘Write this revelation and expound on it using letters upon writing tablets so that by reciting this, he might run away. (2:2)
Still surely, this revelation from God is for the appointed time of the Mow’ed Meetings. It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the end.
Whatever extended period of time is required for this question to be resolved, this shall not be proven false. Expect him in this regard, because indeed, he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are upright and vindicated live.” (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4)
“Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure, and his is arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl. <Sha’uwl and She’ol are the same in unpointed scriptural Hebrew – massoretic vowel pointing was a 10th century AD invention…and this passage is talking about a person not the “grave”>
He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him will never be satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and nations in different places. (2:5)
But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and double dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?’” (2:6)
“Woe to one who is cut off, coveting, while wickedly soliciting ill-gotten gain in league with him, setting up and appointing his temple in association with heights of heaven, thereby snatching away acquired property and possessions from the paws of fellow countrymen. (2:9)
You have deliberately decided upon and conspired at the advice of another to promote a shameful plot to confuse those who approach your temple, ruining and reducing many by separating people from different races and places, and in the process losing your soul.” (2:10)
“Woe to the one who provides, causes and allows his neighbors, companions, or countryman to drink, thereby associating them with this venomous wrath, but also making them drunk for the purpose of observing their genitals.
You will get your fill of shame and infamy instead of honor and glory. Inebriated, in addition, you also show yourself unacceptable, going round about over the lack of circumcision.
Upon you is the binding cup of Yahowah’s right hand. Therefore, public humiliation and indignity will be your status and reward.” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15-16)
Offline csluyuan  
#7 Posted : Saturday, April 27, 2013 11:45:59 PM(UTC)
csluyuan
Joined: 4/27/2013(UTC)
Posts: 6
Location: csluyuan

They are diacritical marks called niqqud. Their stated purpose it to serve as vowel points since it is claimed that Hebrew has no vowels. However study of the language shows that it in fact has five vowels and they are not needed at all. Every Hebrew word can and was for centuries pronounced without them, they only serve to limit the meaning of words to control understanding. In other words it is said that a word with the same base pointed one way means X and pointed another way means Y, and the Masoretes decided which was which.

Edited by moderator Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:21:31 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.