Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Bible_Study_Guys's Journal: Topic 1 [addendum A]: Bible History and Authority 6

Journal by Bible_Study_Guys
This is Eugene T.S. Wong speaking. In topic 1, we didn't cover a part that I wanted to cover. Here is the link. It discusses how the Bible came to be, but the part that I'm interested in is the part about the checksums. You'll notice that the link is pointed to a google cached page. This is because I wanted you to be able to skim down to the part that I wanted to discuss. In short, the Bible was copied using checksums and other things. For details about time periods and whatnot, skim through and discuss.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Topic 1 [addendum A]: Bible History and Authority

Comments Filter:
  • Not bad. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Chacham (981)
    Although there are some minor discrepencies.

    and can historically reconstruct the text back to around 100 AD. (beginning of the Talmudist period)...

    I can check, but I believe that was still the Mishnaic period. The Talmudic period probably started about a century later. This can be simply checked, since the Talmud mentions the discussions between Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi (compiler of the Mishnah) and Marcus Aurelius. Marcus Aurelius ruled until 180. The Talmud also mentions that Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi dies within a month of Commodus, who died in 192. This therefore, places the beginning of the Talmudic period around 200.

    the length of each column must not extend over less than 48 or more than 60 lines and the breadth must consist of 30 letters

    IIRC, it can be 21, 48, or 60.

    between every new section, the breadth of nine consonants

    Or blank untill the end of the line, depending on the type of section delimiter.

    between every book, three lines

    Four lines

    any slip-ups were immediately burned or destroyed

    Acutally, they were erased and rewritten.

    • any slip-ups were immediately burned or destroyed
      Acutally, they were erased and rewritten.
      How did they erase things in those days?

      On an unrelated note, do know much about geneologies and names?
      • How did they erase things in those days?

        A razor, or something similar. The parchment was made from animals, so it didn't ruin easily. I've seen similar things done. It isn't perfect (some smudges may be left) but it works well. And, if caught right away, an absorbent material can be used to remove most of the ink.

        On an unrelated note, do know much about geneologies and names?

        I am not sure what you mean here.
        • A razor, or something similar. The parchment was made from animals, so it didn't ruin easily.
          I find it difficult to believe that leather could be scraped. That would be interesting to see. Thanks for sharing that with me. Where did you see it?

          Regarding the geneologies, I'm looking for someone who knows understands how geneologies work. From my readings, I have come to the conclusion that they weren't as simple as one might assume. I think that there were rules, and they were cultural rules, not technical ones. Have you studied geneologies & names?
          • I find it difficult to believe that leather could be scraped.

            Leather usually refers to a finished product tanned for the purpose of wearing. Parchment is prepared specifically for writing, and is very easily scraped.

            Where did you see it?

            On a Jewish divorce, which also must be written on parchment.

  • I'm glad the Bible is as preserved and perfect as it is today. Right now I'm enjoying Genesis.

    It seems that Christ and others quoted from scripture that we no longer have. Sometimes these books were mentioned by name, and other times we found them later and realized "Oh, so that is where He got that from."

    A compilation of the more easily referenced can be found here...

    http://scriptures.lds.org/tgs/scrptrsl

    I don't know if they are Apochryphal so much as we just don't have them any more. And the ones we do have may only be forgeries of the ones referenced.

    The Bible isn't incomplete or missing in my eyes. But if there are mistakes I'd be more about incoherent translations and lost books then transcriptions.

    I've read many a bible translation that had a first page that read something like "this book contains corrections made from manuscripts not available to King James..." That said, I pretty much stick with the King James version (but I do enjoy William Tindale's version.)

They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos

Working...