World's oldest Bible digitized

[Andrew]

I think this is pretty cool. I just wish I could read Greek.

World's Oldest Christian Bible Digitized

[Chuck 100 yd]

You and me both brother!

[mescalero1]

What for?

[Jacko]

I heard a report on this today on the local radio station , the historion reckoned something like 300 goat skins where used in this Bible and this is why it's preserved so well as paper deteriates at a faster rate and back then it was translated from Hebbrew to Greek and it reads a little differant to todays translations . Apparently you can even see where the fella that wrote / translatted it made errors and corrected them . Interesting stuff

regards Jacko

[Ysabel Kid]

Very cool!

[Tycer]

Nice!

[Charles]

I studied Koine Greek in Seminary and at one time I could read the New Testament in Greek. There is a standard Greek text that has been compared to both the Codex Sinaticus and the Codex Vaticanius, plus all of the other ancient texts. It is a good reliable Greek text of the New Testament and won't vary from the most early one's.

Being able to read Koine Greek, which is different from either classic Attic or modern Greek, is only the start. There is no such thing as a literal translation as words in one language very seldome will have an exact counter part in another language. Greek not only conjugates verbs into some tenses and moods we don't have in English, but it also "declines" the nouns which we don't do in English. Reading the words is one thing, but fully understanding the meaning is quite another.

A good English translation is quite good enough for our purposes. Most are worked over by committees of scholars who argue back and forth about the best way to translate a phrase or sentence. The trick is which is and which are not good translations.

One way around the various shades of meaning is to use the Amplified Bible, which uses the best translation and then suggests alternate meanings in brackets.

I am afraid simply being able to read Koine Greek will just scratch the surface. I boke the code on that very quickly and focused on the English Bible with a good Greek word and phrase book which will show the history and the shades of meaning of key words.

Anyway... I am glad I am glad they got the Codex on the web, but it has been available in written form for generations.

[Grizz]

Firstly, while it's true that greek has different grammer, very different, and is more complicated than english, it also is much more precise because of this. the context of usage is bound into the grammer in a way that excludes spurious meanings in a way that takes us much more verbage.

It does take some thinking to understand, but it isn't locked into a deep pit that only a very few people can understand. koine greek was the lingua franca of its day, used for commerce across the entire known world, much as english is used today.

there are plenty of greek documents of the time for comparables. it's not like the form of the language was only used by the writers of the New Testament, it was used by everyone and the New Testament was written in it to reach everyone of the day.

there is another entirely separate tree of Bible preservation, and that's thru the Copts of Egypt who preserved the Scriptures from the origin in their own language, Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. they speak it to this day if the 'lims haven't killed them all off. you can buy the english translation and compare the text to king james version. while the wording is different as you would expect there is no doctrinal difference in the meaning of any of the texts as far as I can see. It's God's way of certifying the test to us modern doubting Thomases.

finally, the king james translation captures very many of the koine meanings exactly in a way that modern translations don't. for an easy example, the word charity of james day just about exactly translates the word and concept of agape of Christ's day. The word means divine love that doesn't exist without or outside of God's kingdom. Compare that with what you think of when you see or read or hear the word charity. Agape, God's love is very specific and explicit, and is compared and contrasted in the NT with lust and brotherly love specifically to set agape apart from human experience of love. Agape love is Christ dying on the cross to pay the price for my sins. Agape love is God accepting Christ's shed blood as the universal infinite sacrifice to pay the price for all sinners of all time. King James language captured that connotation of the koine greek.

I'm just saying,

Grizz

[GoatGuy]

I heard a report on this today on the local radio station , the historion reckoned something like 300 goat skins where used in this Bible and this is why it's preserved so well as paper deteriates at a faster rate .....

Uh-huh, Uh-huh!!

[Nobody]

[Charles]

This is a good way to get into deep doo-doo, but I will just say it and run like a scalded cat.

The KJV is an excellent translation of some very poor manuscripts. The Codex Sinaticus and most of the truly old manuscripts we have were not even discovered in 1611. The KJV translators didn't even have a complete Greek text to work with. There was no extant Greek text for one of Paul's letters, so they translated the Vulgate(Latin) into Greek and from Greek into English.

The KJV was a remarkable work, that put the vernacular Bible in the hands of English speaking persons. It is a work of monumental historic and literary importance. But it still is what it is, an excellent translation of some very poor manuscripts in archiac English.

There are many folks who almost diefy the KJV and believe it is the one "inspired" translation. They get protective of like just like a mother is protective of a child and go on the attack if anybody suggests it is anything but the one true "Holy Bible".

I have long sense quit locking swords with folks who feel that strongly about that translation, but it is what it is. I certainly don't believe it captures the essence of the original Greek text better than latter translations, of much better and older manuscripts. Das all!

[Charles]

Oh why not!

There are four Greek words that can be and are translated as "love" in English, but are entirely different concepts. Pardon the poor phonetic spelling of the Greek.

1. Eros - From which we get the word "erotic" has mostly has to do with sexual desire, but can also refer for the deep passion of patriotism. It is a word charged with emotion and feeling. In fact it is a feeling. This word is not found in the NT.

2. Philias - Or brotherly love. This described the bond between those near and dear, family and friends. It discribes a feeling or emotion. This word is found in the NT.

3. Storge - This is similiar to Philias but extends to those beyond our immediate circle of family and friends. It also discribed a feeling or emotion. This word is found in the NT.

4. agape - This is the most common greek word translated "love" in the NT. The first thing that needs to be said, it that it does not necessarily discribe an emotion or feeling. It discribes a choice. God's love for us is "agape". God chooses to love us in spite of the fact that we are not lovable. God calls us to have this same agape love for others. We are to choose to relate to all others in this way and it is God's will for us to so do.

Now how to we translate this word "agape". Well love is a very poor choice of words as for most of us, the word love indicates feeling and emotion. Agape is not a feeling concept, but as said, a choice. Perhaps we might feel something for others to which we display agape, but it is not an essencial part of the concept.

The KJV translates "agape" as "charity". This is much better than love and moves toward a concept of action based on choice and not feeling. Still, charity does't hit the nail on the head. In fact these is no single word that can be used. A good definition of agape would be:

Just as God seeks nothing but our highest and best good, so also we ought to seek nothing but the highest and best good of ALL others. Jesus framed it well when he said, we should love others as ourselves. A good practical test to measure our "agape" towards others by what we would want for ourselves. Would we want somebody else to do or say that to or about us? If the answer is yes, then we are on the agape track. If the answer is not, then a big red flag should go up and we should stop and search our souls.

In the end, it is best not to translate agape. Just use the word and understand the concept and that will avoid much confusion.

[Charles]

Just a little more about why I strongly feel a Bible students time is best spent in the study of the English Bible rather than the Greek text.

Anybody who has tried to learn a second language as an adult knows just how hard that it. It is not enough just to know the comparable words but you must also understand the matrix culture, shades and nuances of the words. You must think not only in the language, but in the culture as well.

This can be done, but it is very, very hard, and requires much study and dedication to the task.

Koine Greek was the "vulgar" language of the Greco-Roman world. It was the language of commerce and trade. It was the language of the home and marketplace. The formal language, the language of the educated, the elite, the artist, the playwrite and the poet was Attic greek. All of the Greek literature was written in Attic.

Koine Greek is a dead language and has been so for well over one thousand five hundred years. We are not even certain what it sounded like.

If it is so hard to become truly profficient as an adult in Spanish, French, German, Chinese, etc, how muc harder is it to become profficient in a dead language, that a few folks read, but nobody speaks.

It is for that reason that a serious Christian Bible student can make better use of his/her time in the English Bible. I believe in Bible study and would far rather have folks knowledgeable about the English Bible than undertake the study of the Greek that only a very very small number of people will ever truly understand.

[JimT]

Το λατρεύω.

Go Charles!

[Grizz]

thanks Charles for expanding my point. I don't agree that learning greek is all that hard, but I'm better wired for language than for math. maybe I'd think it is very hard if I tried to master it, but with the available study tools it's not difficult to gain insight into the contextual meaning of the texts as well as relevant cultural understandings.

You appear to be among the textual critics, forgive me if I misunderstood you.

Textual criticism has always seemed to be another variant of gnosticism, men deciding that the text couldn't have possibly 'meant that'. There are revisions in the revised standard version and others using those texts that alter the intent of the passages by committee, something that seems infinitely dangerous to me. You know, trying to decide what God meant rather than simply trying to convey what God said.

IOW, the scripture's testimony of itself is that it is "God-breathed", and I have very strong doubts that the textual criticism is also God-breathed. If the textual critics, the gnostics of their day, cannot be certified as prophetic utterers, then their points are pointless, and worse than that for those of weak faith.

What do you think of YLT or Green's LITV?

Regards,

Grizz

[Charles]

Grizz... I have never considered myself to be among the Textual Critics. I don't know how you understand that term or group of people, but I don't see myself that way.

To my understanding Textual Criticism is negative and destruction and I certainly don't do that. Textual critics seek to
disprove and not prove. Nope that is not me!

Gnosticism was a complex ancient Greek religion that many early Christian tried to blend into Christianity. Paul, John and others had to fight hard to keep this from happening. Gnosticism comes from the Greek work Gnosis which means knowledge. However theirs was not a system based on intellect, but on a duality between good and evil.

Modern Textual Critics place the major emphasis on human intellect and believe the Bible is to be filtered through the human intellect. Only those things that pass their intellectual muster are allowed to pass through the filter. They have it all wrong. Man does not judge scripture...scripture judges man!

I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, sufficient to give us all necessary knowledge for faith, practice and life.

The Biblical documents were written by men inspired by God. These inspired men came from a time and place in history and culture. The writing reflect who they were. They were also writing to folks who had a time and place in history and culture. Often they were writing to specific folks about specific events. The men also had a purpose in their writing.

None of this undercuts the inspired nature of Scripture. It is the Bible Students job to understand what God was saying to the original readers and what He is saying to us now. It is impossible to understand what God was saying to the original readers without undertaking a study of Biblical history and culture. None of this fits into my understanding of "textual criticism".

Now I strongly suspect that we come from different Christian traditions and there are many. We are like branches on a tree, many but still one. To often Christian concentrate on the things that make them different rather than the things that make them the same. This is a great shame and it weakens our witness to the world. When we fuss and fight over the trivial, we validate everything the unbeliever thinks about us.

The unbelieving world is not anti-Jesus. Who would not want to know about him and experience more of him? The unbelieving word is anti-Christian and often for good reason.

All of this is a the long way around to say I don't accept the lable of Textual Critic you are trying to paste on me. Not valid..no way!

Grace and Peace... Charles

[Grizz]

To my understanding Textual Criticism is negative and destruction and I certainly don't do that. Textual critics seek to disprove and not prove. Nope that is not me!

I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God, sufficient to give us all necessary knowledge for faith, practice and life.

.

Thanks for clarifying that, my misunderstanding. I stand with you and share your belief.

Grizz

[KirkD]

In addition to what has been said about the translation of agape, I would add that it also includes the idea of 'a commitment to what is best for the other person at ones own expense, up to and including the giving of ones own life for the other person,' where 'commitment' is the operative word.

I would also have to agree with Charles with regard to the study of koine Greek. I've studied koine Greek as well as ancient Hebrew, but I find that a good English translation has done most of the work for us. The only time I get into a Greek analysis of the text is to better understand a particular word, or to decide between two English translations of a particular verse, or when involved in a technical discussion where there is a difference of opinion of what is being said. All this to say that it is my experience that anyone can study the Bible in English, provided they have a good, peer-reviewed translation, and become extremely knowledgeable in good doctrine ..... knowledgeable enough to go on to become a good Bible teacher or preacher. Today's computational resources are the icing on the cake.

If anyone implies that a Christian needs a seminary education before they can properly study the Bible, don't believe them. God's Word has been written such that even a child can read and understand it (although their understanding and knowledge will increase over the years). In general, I find that God's commands in the Scripture are so clear and plain that even a child can understand them, but the rationale behind those commands can be so deep that it will take the rest of your life to even begin to understand the 'why' behind the simple commands.

[Charles]

"If anyone implies that a Christian needs a seminary education before they can properly study the Bible, don't believe them"


Those are true words if ever there were true words. During my years in South America one of my tasks was to teach "systematic bible study" to the folk down there. Don't let the word "systematic" through you, it is just an ordered approach to Bible Study rather than hit and miss. I taught this to folks in the slums of Quito, to the Andian Indians and to the Indians in the rain forest. If a person can read and has acccess to a Bible in their language, they can indeed understand it for themselves. My job was to give them to tools and they could then do the work.

Of course, there will always be some parts that we don't understand. I heard Billy Graham one say.." It isn't the parts of the Bible I don't understand that bother me. It is the parts I do understand that bother me!"

[Jeff Quinn]

I cannot understand , in any language, why the God of all creation would look upon the darkness of my heart, and send his perfect Son as a sacrificial lamb to die a cruel, shameful, and painful death so that I might have eternal life. You can write it out in every language ever written, and even draw me little pictures, but I do not understand.

I do not understand it at all, but accept it as His plan, and am just as grateful as all get-out for it!

[Charles]

Jeff, what you wrote reminds me of my favorite hymn "And Can It Be" by Charles Wesley

And can it be, that I should gain,
an interest in my Saviours blood?
Died he for me, who caused his pain,
for me, whom him to death persued?
Amazing love, how can it be,
that thou my God should die for me?

[C. Cash]

Wonderful words there fellas....very interesting and informative posts as wel!

[shdwlkr]

It was on the net in english and I copied it down to my pc. It is 800 plus pages as I copied everything that was there. Haven't had a chance to read yet but it seems interesting and will get time when the snow flies to read it.
http://www.sinaiticus.com/
Did you know there is another version in the Vatican called the Codex Vaticanus?

[Charles]

The Codex Sinaticus is also called the Tishendorf manuscript after the guy who found it. The Codex Vaticanus is a little newer, but both date back to the 4th century (IIRC). A "codex" is what we would call a book today with pages or leaves. The earlier NT documents were on scrolls. We have some of those that go back to the 2nd. century.

The codex is important because it containes all of the NT and is dated after the "cannon" was estabished. The canon being the authorized list of which documents were to be considered "scripture" and which were not. There are lots and lots of ancient Christian manuscripts out there that are not a part of "The Canon".

The process by which certain documents were included and others excluded to form the Canon of Scripture, is quite interesting and not without some amount of controversy even until today. But scholars will squabble over anything, even if they have to invent something to fuss about.

[Brant]

Well said Mr. Quinn.
B.

[JohndeFresno]

Well, then there are those of us who have relied upon several translations, e.g. parallel bibles and such, and the good ol' Strong's Concordance with its Greek and Aramaic dictionaries linked to the numbers found for each word in a particular version. We can't speak a single sentence in Greek, or even say "Good morning;" but "knowledge vastly increases" as the scriptures tell us in these final days, and the information is available if one seeks the answers. For instance, before I ever picked up a Greek dictionary, my Sunday School teacher explained what Agape love is - and how it can only be possible when one allows the Holy Spirit to reside within them.

The Lord provides the sharp, dedicated scholars, such as several presented on this forum, if we do our part and show an interest. But for those who really want to research things for themselves, there is some "faith donation" supported bible software available that comes with dozens of bibles that you can install, most of which are free, and some which cost around $20.00 each, depending upon what they are.

The software also provides dozens of bible study aids - commentaries, maps, daily devotions, bible dictionaries, and public domain books such as Fox's Book of Martyrs and Wars of the Jews - most for free. And the King James Version has a built in link to the Aramaic and Greek dictionaries, word for word as that is possible.

If downloading these files is impractical, you can donate to the site. For an amount that is less than a current hardbound book, you will in turn receive an installation CD by mail. See: http://www.e-sword.net/

[BAGTIC]

I cannot understand , in any language, why the God of all creation would look upon the darkness of my heart, and send his perfect Son as a sacrificial lamb to die a cruel, shameful, and painful death so that I might have eternal life. You can write it out in every language ever written, and even draw me little pictures, but I do not understand.

He didn't. Jesus came to bring a new covenant that showed the course to salvation. Whether Jesus died or not is irrelevant to God's plan of salvation. Jesus himself made it clear that our individual salvation depended on how well we kept the new covenant and its 'new commandments, and on that alone.

Sometimes when we send off missionaries to foreign lands to spread God's message so that other's souls may be saved the missionaries end up being martyred. Who would claim that such martyrdom effects the salvation of their disciples souls? I suspect not many. It is the bringing of the word that saves not the shedding of life.

[Jeff Quinn]

I cannot understand , in any language, why the God of all creation would look upon the darkness of my heart, and send his perfect Son as a sacrificial lamb to die a cruel, shameful, and painful death so that I might have eternal life. You can write it out in every language ever written, and even draw me little pictures, but I do not understand.

He didn't. Jesus came to bring a new covenant that showed the course to salvation. Whether Jesus died or not is irrelevant to God's plan of salvation. Jesus himself made it clear that our individual salvation depended on how well we kept the new covenant and its 'new commandments, and on that alone.

Sometimes when we send off missionaries to foreign lands to spread God's message so that other's souls may be saved the missionaries end up being martyred. Who would claim that such martyrdom effects the salvation of their disciples souls? I suspect not many. It is the bringing of the word that saves not the shedding of life.[/quote

That is incorrect.

Romans 5

1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Grizz]

He didn't. Jesus came to bring a new covenant that showed the course to salvation. Whether Jesus died or not is irrelevant to God's plan of salvation. Jesus himself made it clear that our individual salvation depended on how well we kept the new covenant and its 'new commandments, and on that alone.

BAGTIC
He 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Just about exactly opposite of your assertion.

He 9:22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission.

1Jn 1:2 Jesus paid for our sins with His own blood. He did not pay for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.

He 9:26 but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Christ's atoning sacrifice and resurrection from the dead is the entire core message of scripture from beginning to end. You reject it at your own peril. I truly hope you seek some counsel from a Godly follower of Christ.

Grizz

[JohndeFresno]

...Jesus himself made it clear that our individual salvation depended on how well we kept the new covenant and its 'new commandments, and on that alone...

I have to admit, I knew that this statement is so out there that I didn't want to mercilessly pile on with everybody else.

But I am genuinely curious - what could you be reading to make such a statement; or what scripture(s) did you base it upon?

[Charles]

Bagtec... I have no interest in beating up on you. I will only say your statments has no warrant in scripture, theology or chuch tradition. I will simply assert the following.

1. You make it sound like the New Covenant is some kind of book of rules or do's and dont's, to which we much give obedience. If that is what you are trying to say, that devolves into some kind of works salvation which is anything but scriptural.

2. The New Covenant is not a code or list of rules, it is a person. Jesus said..."This is my blood of the new convenant shed for you and for many". Jesus did not bring the New Covenant...Jesus is the New Covenant!

The NT makes it clear that faith in Jesus as the Christ, is the sine quo non of salvation.

We are all of course free to believe whatever we wish. But for those reading this, who might take you statment to heart, I need to post the above. Take care... Charles

[kmittleman]

Actually his statements sound a lot like various other world religions where one has to earn God's salvation through works. That's not the Gospel of Jesus Christ though. He had to die for us because we CAN'T earn salvation through works - we're born into sin and can't get out of it on our own.

BTW, I'm so happy you guys are on here - so nice to be surrounded by a great group of knowledgeable, committed Christian Brothers.

-Kevin