Je, Biblia ya ukweli/Halisi ni ipi?

Gavana said:
Mgen , UMEKUWA SIKIO LA KUFA , UNATAFUTA TUKUJIBU LAKINI HATUKUJIBU

SISOI TUKO KWENYE MADA YA THREAD,





Je Biblia ya ukweli/Halisi ni ipi?


Director's Cut

​
​
"The evangelists were inventors – not historians." – Porphyry, Against the Christians, c. 280 AD.​




It was well into the 2nd century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made different choices.


Search the Bible in vain for the gospels of Thomas, Matthaias or the ‘The Twelve’; for the Acts of Andrew or Acts of John; for the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache; for the Shepherd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. Yet for the first two centuries of Christianity all of these were holy scripture, the revealed Word of God.


On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion!


Clearly the Big Guy had had a major rethink. Roman bibles after the fourth century hedged their bets and included ‘doubtful’ and previously rejected material at the end as ‘Apocrypha’ (‘hidden’). Clearly this was God’s rough draft, not really meant for publication. Luther kept the apocrypha in his bible whereas Calvin and most other Protestant reformers excluded them.


To regard this wholesale editorial selection and censorship, and the rewriting which accompanied it, as a function purely of the human mind, influenced by considerations of ambition and wealth, power and politics, is, of course, to lose sight of the hand of god; the divine, beavering away in overdrive in central Europe and the eastern Mediterranean centuries ago!
Click to expand...
Umesha jibiwa kwamba BIBLIA YA UKWELI HALISI NI BIBLIA! Shahidi Mungu wako allah! Au naye humuamini?!
IMG_20190126_203015_735.jpeg
IMG_20190126_202803_595.jpeg
IMG_20190126_202904_062.jpeg


Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Kisoda2 said:
Ooh Now i see. Sasa kama huyo naye alikuwa mtafsiri tu, unapataje shida kwenye hilo.
Do you have any proof kuwa America Lutheran Church wanakubali USHOGA? na wana wamefundishwa kutoka kwenye Biblia?
Click to expand...
Tusihame mada elewa context kwamba msimamo wa Mtu mmoja be it mwakasege hauwezi ukawa msimamo wa Lutheran nzima so usilazimishe kwakuwa Mwakasege hatumii Lutheran bible ya kwanza basi ndio hiyo Bible haikuexist/haiexist ila kama shida yako ni ubishani tu basi soma hapa kuhusu walutheri ambao wanautambua ushoga na ndoa za jinsia moja waanfungisha

Stances on LGBTQ Issues: Evangelical Lutheran Church in Ameri | Human Rights Campaign

Kingine martin luther hakuwa mtafsiri bali mmoja wa waasisi muhimu kama sio waanzilishi wa makanisa ya kiprotestant ambayo yalijimega kutoka ukatoliki.... So ana ushawishi sana kwenye historia ya kanisa na anajua sana maandiko kuliko wewe au mimi ndio maana alikuwa na uwezo wa kuhoji kanisa katoliki na kujijengea wafuasi sasa kama martim luther alisema vitabu zaidi ya 7 vya Biblia havifai na aliwaita mitume ''uchwara'' kina Yuda!! Je unawezaje sema Biblia zao ni sawa!!

Nachotaka ukubali kwanza ni kwamba haziko sawa kabisa ndio tuanze mjadala

NB: Nasubiri majibu ya ukinzano nilioweka
 
Gavana said:
Mgen , biblia ya luther ni hii hapa kazi kwako

Online German Luther Bible.

Suala la Kutokamilika


Makanisa ya mwanzo ya kikristo hayakuwa na seti maalum (ya kiofisi - rasmi) ya maandiko Matakatifu.

Baadhi ya Makanisa yalikuwa na seti fulani ya vitabu wakati Makanisa mengine yalikuwa na seti tofauti ya vitabu. Kuna baadhi ya watu waliridhika hata kuwa na kitabu kimoja cha Injili katika vinne, wakiamini kwamba vyote vilikuwa sawa na vilikuwa na habari moja.


Kulikuwa hata vitabu ambavyo katika Biblia za leo havimo - kwa mfano kulikuwa vitabu kumi na tano vilivyozidi katika Agano la kale na vitabu kumi na sita katika Agano Jipya.


Kutokana na ukosefu wa mpangilio maalum katika kanisa kuhusiana na maandiko yake Matakatifu, Maaskofu walikutana pamoja ili kuweka sera ya kiofisi ya kanisa kuhusiana na suala la utatu Mtakatifu katika Mkutano wa Nicea mwaka 325 B.K. ambapo pia waliandaa na kujiwekea Maandiko Maalum Rasmi yatakayotumika katika Kanisa.


Walikusanya nakala moja kwa kila aina (seti) ya maandiko aliyokuwa ikitumika wakati ule na wakafanya maamuzi juu ya ni vitabu vipi vitambulike kuwa ndio maalum na rasmi kwa Wakristo wote na nchi zote za Kikristo (kuwa ni Maandiko Matakatifu). Hatimaye vitabu sitini na sita vilichaguliwa, 39 kwa ajili ya Agano la Kale na 27 kwa ajili ya Agano Jipya.


Vitabu saba katika kumi na tano vilivyozidi katika vitabu vya Agano la Kale viliendelea kutumiwa na kanisa Katoliki, lakini hata hivi baadaye vilitupiliwa mbali na Waprotestanti wakati wa harakati za mageuzi katika karne ya kumi na sita. HAKUNA HATA KIMOJA katika vitabu kumi na sita "vilivyozidi" vya Agano Jipya kilichofanywa kuwa ni sehemu ya Maandiko Matakatifu maalum na rasmi yanayotumika.


Vitabu hivi vilivyozidi vilipewa jina la "Apocrypha" - - neno la kigiriki lenye maana ya "iliyofichika" - vitabu hivi vya ziada ambavyo hapo awali vilikuwa sehemu ya Biblia vilitupiliwa mbali kwa kile kilichodaiwa na viongozi wa kanisa kuwa "vilikhitilafiana" na imani zilizokuwa zikikubaliwa na kanisa. "Waandishi wa vitabu vya Aprocrypha (yaani vitabu vya ziada) bila shaka walikuwa wachamungu na waliofanya kazi kwa dhati na uhodari mkubwa - na tukisoma waliyoyaandika, mara moja tutagundua kwamba maneno yao -- yalikuwa yameepukana na udhaifu wa kutokuwa sifa za kuwa maandiko matakatifu --".[ soma , Is the Bible Reliable? p. 30. (Je Biblia inaaminika? uk. 30)


La kushangaza zaidi ni kwamba rejea ya baadhi ya vitabu hivi vilivyofichikana (Apocrypha) zinaweza kupatikana katika Biblia ya leo inayotambulika kiofisi kama vile "kitabu cha vita vya Yehova" kilichotajwa katika Hesabu 21:14 "kitabu cha Jashar" kilichotajwa katika Joshua 10:13.


Hivyo, Biblia, tuliyonayo leo hii, si tu kwamba imekuwa (victim) muhanga wa kuingiliwa, kuongezwa na kupunguzwa bali pia haiwezi kuchukuliwa kuwa ni kamilifu. Inawezekanaje Maneno ya Mungu yakaondolewa na kutupiliwa mbali kwa sababu ya matakwa ya mwanaadamu?
Click to expand...
Umebakia martini martini! Kama Hujui Biblia Takatifu ni NENO HAI LA MUNGU. sivyo unavyo dhania wewe hivi vipande vya karatasi vilivyo andikwa! NI UJINGA ULIO KUBUHU KUDHANI LAT KARAB ZINAA INGEKUWA HAIKUANDIKWA BASI RUKSA KUZINI!

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
There are 73 books in the Catholic Bible, plus two more in an appendix to the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic Bible includes the following books, which were excluded from most Protestant Bibles: Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, and Baruch. The books of Esther and Daniel include additional chapters which were excluded in Protestant Bibles. The Latin Appendix also includes 3 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh.
There are 79 books in the Greek Orthodox Bible, including all the books in the Catholic Bible and appendix, plus Psalm 151 and 3 Maccabees. The Greek Bible also includes 4 Maccabees in an appendix.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Bible includes 86 books, including all the books in the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Bibles, plus Jubilees, Enoch, Synodicon, Diddascalia Apostolorum, Testament of the Lord, Qalementus, and 4 Baruch.



Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Mkuu @Zittojunior my two cents on this;
-Catholic Bible ndio yenye vitabu ambavyo upo ushahidi kutumika na early church (mitume) akiwemo Yesu mwenyewe.
-Hivyo vitabu saba vilianza kupata upinzani kutoka kwa wayahudi mapema sana lakini hoja zao hazikuwa za ki Mungu ikiwemo ile kuwa kwenye lugha nyingine.
-Upinzani wa wayahudi inaonesha toka mitume hawakukubaliana nao na waliendelea kuvitumia.
- Vitabu vya biblia vilipokusanywa na kuwekwa pamoja, Kanisa liliidhinisha vitabu 72/73 na si pungufu. Wakati huo hatukuwa na madhehebu hivyo wakristo walitumia hivyo vitabu.
- Biblia ya vitabu 72/73 ina sababu nyingi kuwa ni sahihi sababu Makanisa yote yalijitenga na Catholic church na kurekebisha bible zao ili ku suit mafundisho yao. Greek Orthodox Church wamechukua vyote 73 wakaongeza vingine 6. Ethiopian Orthodox wana 86 ambao walichukua vyote vya Catholic na Greek Orthodox na kuongeza vyao saba ambavyo madhehebu mengine yote yanakiri hivyo vitabu si sahihi na vinapingana na maandiko mengine mf. Enoch.
-Kama tunakubaliana katika makanisa yote ni only Catholic church ndio hawakuongeza wala kupunguza maandiko basi tukubaliane Biblia ya vitabu 72/73 ndio sahihi.

Mwisho nikupongeze mwanzisha mada kwa kuchochea fikra. Bila kujali msimamo wa dhehebu lako umechimba historia ili kupata facts. Wakristo wengi hatupendi kujua historia ndio maana wengi ukiwauliza simple questions wanaona kama unakufuru sababu akili zao zimefungwa kwenye maombi tu.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Gavana said:
Mgen , UMEKUWA SIKIO LA KUFA , UNATAFUTA TUKUJIBU LAKINI HATUKUJIBU

SISI TUKO KWENYE MADA YA THREAD,





Je Biblia ya ukweli/Halisi ni ipi?


Director's Cut

​
​
"The evangelists were inventors – not historians." – Porphyry, Against the Christians, c. 280 AD.​




It was well into the 2nd century before a number of these ‘testimonies’ were collected together and bound into a single volume. From the mass of available material ecclesiastical editors selected what would and what would not be included in the Good Book. But of course different editors made different choices.


Search the Bible in vain for the gospels of Thomas, Matthaias or the ‘The Twelve’; for the Acts of Andrew or Acts of John; for the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache; for the Shepherd of Hermas or the Apocalypse of Peter. Yet for the first two centuries of Christianity all of these were holy scripture, the revealed Word of God.


On the other hand rejected by the early church fathers were Paul’s letter to Philemon, the second and third letters of John, the second letter of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, all part of the canon after Christianity became the state religion!


Clearly the Big Guy had had a major rethink. Roman bibles after the fourth century hedged their bets and included ‘doubtful’ and previously rejected material at the end as ‘Apocrypha’ (‘hidden’). Clearly this was God’s rough draft, not really meant for publication. Luther kept the apocrypha in his bible whereas Calvin and most other Protestant reformers excluded them.


To regard this wholesale editorial selection and censorship, and the rewriting which accompanied it, as a function purely of the human mind, influenced by considerations of ambition and wealth, power and politics, is, of course, to lose sight of the hand of god; the divine, beavering away in overdrive in central Europe and the eastern Mediterranean centuries ago!
Click to expand...

Je Biblia ya ukweli/Halisi ni ipi?
Biblia ya ALLAH(Queen james Version) ndio sahihi!
 
zitto junior said:
Tusihame mada elewa context kwamba msimamo wa Mtu mmoja be it mwakasege hauwezi ukawa msimamo wa Lutheran nzima so usilazimishe kwakuwa Mwakasege hatumii Lutheran bible ya kwanza basi ndio hiyo Bible haikuexist/haiexist ila kama shida yako ni ubishani tu basi soma hapa kuhusu walutheri ambao wanautambua ushoga na ndoa za jinsia moja waanfungisha

Stances on LGBTQ Issues: Evangelical Lutheran Church in Ameri | Human Rights Campaign

Kingine martin luther hakuwa mtafsiri bali mmoja wa waasisi muhimu kama sio waanzilishi wa makanisa ya kiprotestant ambayo yalijimega kutoka ukatoliki.... So ana ushawishi sana kwenye historia ya kanisa na anajua sana maandiko kuliko wewe au mimi ndio maana alikuwa na uwezo wa kuhoji kanisa katoliki na kujijengea wafuasi sasa kama martim luther alisema vitabu zaidi ya 7 vya Biblia havifai na aliwaita mitume ''uchwara'' kina Yuda!! Je unawezaje sema Biblia zao ni sawa!!

Nachotaka ukubali kwanza ni kwamba haziko sawa kabisa ndio tuanze mjadala

NB: Nasubiri majibu ya ukinzano nilioweka
Click to expand...
Sasa kwenye article uliyoleta mbona hili kanisa lenyewe limeanzishwa juzi tu.
Je, luther mwenyewe aliukubali USHOGA? achilia mbali kuvikataa vitabu flani flani.
Kwenye maelezo yako toka mwanzo umesema RC/Luther/ Orthodox(Ethiopia) Biblia zao zinatofautiana kwa wingi wa vitabu baada ya kutafsiri kutoka kwenye original Bible (Aramec/Hebrew or Greece)
Sasa turudi kwenye swali lako:
Je Biblia ya ukweli/Halisi ni ipi?
Hapo kuna utata. Swali hili unalenga/simamia Biblia ipi/zipi kati ya ulizotaja. Maana nimekupa jibu la jumla sawa na swali lako nawe unaonekana kutoridhika.
Fafanua hapo najua jibu litapatikana soon.
 
Gavana said:
Getting Better All The Time!


adding-text.jpg


A page from "Gospel of St John" (Codex Sinaiticus). The copyist adds a new bit in the margin at verse 13. A later scribe will move the addition into the main body.
Click to expand...
Kwa mujibu wa ulicho ANDIKA koloani ni pumba na haiamiki sababu imetuaminisha uongo...
IMG_20190126_203015_735.jpeg


Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Gavana said:
SORRY CHARLIE tunaongea , UKITAKA TUKUJIBU FUNGUA UZI , UNAFAHAMU KISWAHILI KIUMBE WEWE????

UZI HUU HUU UNATOSHA USIWE MWOGA! WEWE UMEFIKIA KUFURU HATA YA KUMPUUZIA ALLAH NA MUHAMMAD WALIO KWAMBIA BIBLIA TAKATIFU HAINA MUSHKERI!

Je Biblia ya ukweli/Halisi ni ipi?

WALAHI BILAHI WATALAHI!; BIBLIA YA KWELI NI BIBLIA! SHAHIDI NI ALLAH! SASA KAZI KWAKO DOGO UMUAMINI ALLAH AU LINK! hhhhhhhhhh...kwikwikwikwi....


Business Begets Bibliolatry

What becomes very obvious when the parts of the book are rearranged into the order in which they were written is that the story grew with the telling. For example, if we look at the central mystery of Christianity, the ‘Resurrection’, we find that in Mark’s gospel (the earliest) the visitors to the tomb find a sitting figure, ‘a young man in a white robe’ (Mark 16.5). He could have been anybody. Thirty years later the story is rather different: we can choose between the sudden appearance of ‘two men’, standing in ‘shining garments’ (Luke 24.4); or ‘a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven … His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow’ (Matthew 28.2,3).

Often an anachronism within the gospels provides a clue to the true authorship of the text. For example, all three synoptic gospels have Jesus use the phrase ‘take up his cross’. This is Mark:
"And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." (Mark 8.34)​



Matthew (16.4) and Luke (9.23) use almost identical words.

What’s ‘wrong’ here is that the crucifixion has not yet happened – the phrase belongs to a Christian Church a century or more into the future!

Each and every verse of the Bible is a testament to the needs and purposes of a particular time or place, whether to restate a gem of folk wisdom, upstage a rival story, assimilate a popular pagan myth, quash an opponent’s arguments or serve a current political purpose. Necessarily, and unavoidably, the compendium is rife with contradictions and inconsistencies.

Which (if either!) is correct, for example, in the fishy bread story?

"And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men."

"And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. And they that had eaten were about four thousand: and he sent them away."​


The first quotation is from Mark 6.41,44: the second only a page or so later from Mark 8.6,9!

Did Jesus go ‘immediately' into the desert after baptism, as Mark tells us:

"And immediately the Spirit drove him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him." (Mark 1.12,13)​


Or did he take himself off to a wedding as John would have it?

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him... The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and find Phillip... And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage." (John 1.32;43: 2.1.2)​


Was Mark correct when he quoted Jesus that there would be ‘no signs’:

"And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation." (Mark 8.12)​


Or was John nearer the truth when he says:

"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (John 20.30)​
Click to expand...

Hizi sio zama ya deen! Kwa maana deen ni UTARATIBU ALIO JITUNGIA MWANADAMU KUMJUA MUUMBA WAKE, KUMTUMIKIA, KISHA KUMUABUDU KWA HAQI! KWA MAANA/MADHUMUNI HAYO DEEN KAUMU HII IMEJIFIA YENYEME! SABABU!; MUNGU MWENYEWE AMEJIDHIHIRISHA KWETU KTK UMBILE BORA LA KIBINADAMU NA UTUKUFU WAKE TUMEUONA! HIVYO BASI YEYOTE AMBAYE BADO YUPO KWENYE MAMBO YA DEEN ANAHITAJIKA KU-INJILISHWA!(gana hii imekuja kimakosa ulikuwa uende kwenye uzi wa Safuha)

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Kisoda2 said:
Sasa kwenye article uliyoleta mbona hili kanisa lenyewe limeanzishwa juzi tu.
Je, luther mwenyewe aliukubali USHOGA? achilia mbali kuvikataa vitabu flani flani.
Kwenye maelezo yako toka mwanzo umesema RC/Luther/ Orthodox(Ethiopia) Biblia zao zinatofautiana kwa wingi wa vitabu baada ya kutafsiri kutoka kwenye original Bible (Aramec/Hebrew or Greece)
Sasa turudi kwenye swali lako:
Je Biblia ya ukweli/Halisi ni ipi?
Hapo kuna utata. Swali hili unalenga/simamia Biblia ipi/zipi kati ya ulizotaja. Maana nimekupa jibu la jumla sawa na swali lako nawe unaonekana kutoridhika.
Fafanua hapo najua jibu litapatikana soon.
Click to expand...
Mkuu kwani madehebu ya kilutheri ni lazima yaanzishwe mwaka 1600?? Kwani kanisa la KKKT (lutheran ya Tanzania) na ministry za mwakasege zimeanzishwa mwaka gani?? Sasa mbona unajengea hoja kwa mwakasege aliyeanzisha ministry juzi tu alafu hutaki nijengee hoja kwa walutheri wenzie walioanzisha ministry zao "juzi" pia?? Mbona unajipinga tena ??

2. Narudia tena zunguka pote duniani kwenye makataba zote ukweli ni huu.... MARTIN LUTHER alikataa sio tu vitabu 7 vilivyokuwepo kwenye Bible ya RC bali alienda mbali na kuvitenga vitabu vingine zaidi ya 4 akiviita vya MANABII UCHWARA kikiwemo esther,waebrania,Yuda,Ufunuo n.k.....katafiti kwanza kabla hujabisha.

3. Shida sio kutafsiri tu shida ni kwamba nani alikuwa na original manuscript za Biblia?? Wayahudi wanadai Biblia yao ndio sahihi.... Waisrael (samaria) wanadai Biblia yao ya vitabu vya Torati tu ndio halali..... Bado Egypt watasema walitunza Bible hata kabla kanisa katoliki halijaanza.... Ethiopia nao wanadai vitabu vyao vya Biblia vilivuviwa na Roho mtakatifu na wamevitunza toka katoliki halijaanza.... Sasa hoja yangu inakuja hapa kama Biblia zinakinzana je ipi ni sahihi??

4.Mkuu ww unasema zote zipo sawa na hapa ndio mjadala unapokwama.... Nimekuwekea vifungu hapo juu kuonyesha zinakinzana hivyo mpaka hapo sio sawa.... Ungekubali kwanza hili alafu ndio tuendelee na mchakato wa kuitafuta Biblia halisi zaidi ya zote ili tuepuke na manabii wa uongo

I hope hoja yangu inaeleweka
 
Kwa wale wazee wa nondos, zilipo original manuscripts.

You may naturally enough ask: "Where has the Bible come from? Have you got the original writings that came from the hand of Moses, or Paul, or John?" No, none of it, not a scrap or a letter. But we know from history and tradition that these were the books they wrote, and they have been handed down to us in a most wonderful way. What we have now is the printed Bible; but before the invention of printing in 1450, the Bible existed only in handwriting—what we call manuscript—and we have in our possession now copies of the Bible in manuscript that were made as early as the fourth century. These copies, which you can see with your own eyes today, contain the books that the Catholic Bible contains today. That is how we know we are right in receiving these books as Scripture, as genuinely the work of the apostles and evangelists. Why is it that we have not the originals written by John and Paul and the rest? There are several reasons to account for the disappearance of the originals.

The persecutors of the Church for the first three hundred years of Christianity destroyed everything Christian they could lay their hands on. Over and over again, barbarous pagans burst in upon Christian cities, villages, and churches and burned all the sacred things they could find. And not only so, but they compelled Christians to deliver up their sacred books under pain of death and then consigned the books to flames. Among these, doubtless, some of the writings that came from the hand of the apostle and evangelist perished.

Again, we must remember, the physical material the inspired authors used for writing their Gospels and Epistles was very easily destroyed. It was called papyrus, very frail and brittle, and not made to last to any great age; and its delicate quality no doubt accounts for the loss of some of the choicest treasures of ancient literature, as well as of the original handwriting of the New Testament writers. We know of no manuscript of the New Testament existing now that is written on papyrus.

Furthermore, when in various churches throughout the first centuries copies were made of the inspired writings, there was not the same necessity for preserving the originals. The first Christians had no superstitious or idolatrous veneration for the sacred Scriptures, such as seems to prevail among some people today. They did not consider it necessary for salvation that the very handwriting of Paul or Matthew should be preserved, inspired by God though these men were. They had the living, infallible Church to teach and guide them by the mouth of her popes and bishops; and to teach them not only all that could be found in the sacred Scriptures, but the true meaning of it as well.

So we need not be surprised that they were content with mere copies of the original works of the inspired writers. As soon as a more beautiful or correct copy was made, an earlier and rougher one was simply allowed to perish. There is nothing unusual in this; it is the same in the secular world. We do not doubt the terms or provisions of the Magna Carta because we have not seen the original. A copy, if we are sure it is correct, is good enough for us.

So the originals, as they came from the hand of apostle and evangelist, have totally disappeared. This is what infidels and skeptics taunt us with and cast in our teeth: "You cannot produce," they say, "the handwriting of those from whom you derive your religion, neither the founder nor his apostles; your Gospels and Epistles are a fraud; they were not written by these men at all, but are the invention of a later age; consequently we cannot depend upon the contents of them or believe what they tell us about Jesus Christ."

These attacks fall harmlessly upon us Catholics because we do not profess to rest our religion upon the Bible alone and would be just as we are and what we are though there were no Bible at all. It is those who have staked their very existence upon that Book, and must stand or fall with it, who are called upon to defend themselves against the critics.

But I shall only remark here that the argument of skeptic would, if logically applied, discredit not only the Bible but many other books which they themselves accept and believe without hesitation. There is far more evidence for the Bible than there is for certain books of classical antiquity that no one dreams of disputing. There are, for example, only fifteen manuscripts of the works of Herodotus, and none earlier than the tenth century; yet he lived four hundred years before Christ. The oldest manuscript of the works of Thucydides is of the eleventh century; yet he flourished and wrote more than four hundred years before Christ. Shall we say then "I want to see the handwriting of Thucydides and Herodotus or else I shall not believe these are their genuine works. You have no copy of their writings near the time they lived; none, indeed, till 1400 years after them; they must be a fraud and a forgery"?

Scholars with no religion at all would say we were fit for an asylum if we took up that position. Yet it would be a far more reasonable attitude than the one they take toward the Bible. There are known to have been many thousands of copies of the Testament in existence by the third century—i.e., only a century or two after St John—and we know for certain there are three thousand existing today ranging from the fourth century downwards. The fact is, the wealth of evidence for the genuineness of the New Testament is simply stupendous, and in comparison with many ancient histories that are received without question on the authority of late and few and bad copies, the sacred volume is founded on a rock.

Now I wish to say something about the instruments used for the writing and transmission of holy Scriptures in the earliest days and make a brief review of the materials employed and the dangers of loss and of corruption that necessarily accompanied the work. It will convince us of the absolute need of some divinely protected authority like the Catholic Church to guard the Gospel from error and destruction and to preserve it from sharing the fate that is liable to overtake all things that are, as Paul says, contained in "earthen vessels."

Various materials were used in ancient times for writing: stone, pottery, bark of trees, leather, and clay tablets among the Babylonians and Egyptians. But before Christianity, and for the first few ages of our era, papyrus was used, which has given its name to our "paper." It was made from the bark of the reed, or bulrush, that once grew plentifully on the Nile banks. First split into layers, it was then glued by overlapping the edges and another layer glued to this at right angles to prevent splitting; after sizing and drying, it formed a suitable writing surface.

Thousands of rolls of papyrus have been found in Egyptian and Babylonian tombs and beneath the buried city of Herculaneum, owing their preservation probably to the fact of being buried. Though many copies of the Bible were probably written on this papyrus (and most likely the inspired writers used it themselves), none have survived the wreck of ages. It is this material St John is referring to when he says to his correspondent, "Having more things to write to you, I would not by paper and ink" (2 John 12).

When in the course of time papyrus fell into comparative disuse from its unsuitableness and fragility, the skins of animals came to be used. If it was made out of the skin of sheep or goats, it was called "parchment"; if made of the skin of delicate young calves, it was called "vellum." Vellum was used in earlier days, but being hard to obtain, gave place to a large extent to the coarser parchment. (Paul speaks about this stuff when he tells Timothy to "bring the books, but especially the parchments" [2 Tim. 4:13]. Most of the New Testament manuscripts we possess today are written on this material.)

A curious consequence of the costliness of vellum was that the same sheet was made to do duty twice over, and became what is termed a "palimpsest," which means "rubbed again." A scribe, say, of the tenth century, unable to purchase a new supply of vellum, would take a sheet containing, perhaps, a writing of the second century that had become worn out through age and difficult to decipher. He would wash or scrape out the old ink and use the surface over again for copying out some other work in which the living generation felt more interest.

It goes without saying that in many cases the writing thus blotted out was of far greater value than that which replaced it. Indeed, some of the most precious monuments of sacred learning are of this description, and they were discovered in this way. The process of erasing or sponging out the ancient ink was seldom so perfectly done as to prevent all traces of it still remaining, and some strokes of the older hand might often be seen peeping out beneath the more modern writing. In 1834 some chemical mixture was discovered that was applied with much success and had the effect of restoring the faded lines and letters of those venerable records.

Cardinal Mai, a man of colossal scholarship and untiring industry and a member of the Sacred College in Rome under Pope Gregory XVI, was a perfect expert in this branch of research, and by his ceaseless labors and ferret-like hunts in the Vatican library brought to light some remarkable old manuscripts and some priceless works of antiquity. Among these, all students have to thank him for restoring a long lost work of Cicero (De Republica) that was known to have existed previously and that the Cardinal unearthed from beneath Augustine’s Commentary on the Psalms.

The most important New Testament manuscript of this description is called the Codex of Ephraem. About two hundred years ago it was noticed that this curious-looking vellum, all soiled and stained and hitherto thought to contain only the theological discourses of Ephraem, an old Syrian Father, was showing faint lines of some older writing beneath. The chemical mixture was applied, and what should appear but a most ancient and valuable copy of Holy Scriptures in handwriting not later than the fifth century! This had been coolly scrubbed out by some impecunious scribe of the twelfth century to make room for his favorite work, the discourses of Ephraem. Let us charitably hope that the good monk (as he probably was) did not know what he was scrubbing out. At all events, it was brought into France by Queen Catherine de Medici and is now safely preserved in the Royal Library at Paris containing on the same page two works—one written on top of the other with a period of seven hundred years between them.

I have told you about the sheets used by the earliest writers of the New Testament: what kind of pen and ink they had? For the brittle papyrus a reed was used, much the same as that still in use in the East; but of course for writing on hard parchment or vellum a metal pen, or stylus, was required. It is to this John refers when he says, ‘I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write by pen and ink" (3 John 13). The strokes of these pens may still be seen quite clearly impressed on the parchment, even though all trace of the ink has utterly vanished. Besides this, a bodkin or needle was employed, along with a ruler, to divide a blank leaf or sheet into columns and lines. On nearly all the manuscripts these lines and marks may still be seen, sometimes so firmly and deeply drawn that those on one side of the leaf have penetrated through to the other side without cutting the vellum.

The ink used was a composition of soot or lampblack or burnt shavings of ivory mixed with gum or winelees or alum. In most ancient manuscripts, unfortunately, the ink has for the most part turned red or brown or become very pale or peeled off or eaten through the vellum. In many cases later hands have ruthlessly retraced the ancient letters, making the original writing look much coarser. But we know that many colored inks were used, such as red, green, blue, or purple, and they are often quite brilliant to this day.

As to the shape of the manuscripts, the oldest form was that of a roll. They were generally fixed on two rollers, so that the part read (for example in public worship) could be wound out of sight and a new portion brought to view. This was the kind of thing that was handed to our Lord when he went into the synagogue at Nazareth on the Sabbath. "He unfolded the book" and read; then "when he had folded the book, he restored it to the minister" (Luke 4:17, 20).

When not in use these rolls were kept in round boxes or cylinders and sometimes in cases of silver or cloth of great value. The leaves of parchment were sometimes of considerable size such as folio; but generally the shape was what we know as quarto or small folio, and some were octavo. The skin of one animal, especially if an antelope, could furnish many sheets of parchment. But if the animal was a small calf, its skin could only furnish very few sheets. An instance of this is the manuscript called the Sinaitic (now in St. Petersburg) whose sheets are so large that the skin of a single animal (believed to have been the youngest and finest antelope) could only provide two sheets, or eight pages.

The page was divided into two or three or four columns (though the latter is very rare). The writing was of two distinct kinds. One was called uncial (meaning an inch), consisting entirely of capital letters with no connection between the letters and no space between words at all. The other style, which developed later, was cursive (that is, a running hand) like our ordinary handwriting, with capitals only at the beginning of sentences. In this case the letters are joined together and there is a space between words. The uncial style was prevalent for the first three centuries of our era. In the fourth century cursive began and continued until the invention of printing.

Originally, I need hardly say, there was no such thing in the manuscripts as divisions into chapters and verses, and no points or full stops or commas to let you know where one sentence began and the next finished. Hence the reading of one of these ancient records is a difficult for the unscholarly. The division into chapters so familiar to us in our modern Bible was the invention either of Cardinal Hugo, a Dominican, in 1248, or more probably of Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, (d. 1227); and it is no calumny upon the reputation of either of these great men to say that the division is not very satisfactory. He is not happy in his method of splitting up the page of Scripture. The chapters are of very unequal length and frequently interrupt a narrative or argument or an incident in an inconvenient way (as any one may see by looking up such passages as Acts 21:40; or Acts 4 and 5; or 1 Corinthians 7 and 8.

The division again into verses was the work of Robert Stephens; and the first English version in which it appeared was the Geneva Bible (1560). This gentleman seems to have completed his task on a journey between Paris and Lyons (inter equitandum, as the Latin biographer phrases it), probably while stopping overnights in inns and hostels. "I think," an old commentator quaintly remarks, "it had been better done on his knees in the closet." To this I would venture to add that his achievement must share the same criticism of inappropriateness as the arrangement into chapters.

The manuscripts of the Bible now known to be in existence, as I before remarked, number about three thousand. The vast majority are in running hand and hence are subsequent to the fourth century. There are none of course later than the sixteenth century for then the book began to be printed, and none have yet been found earlier than the fourth. Their age—that is, the precise century in which they were written—is not always easy to determine. About the tenth century the scribes who copied them began to notify the date in a corner of the page; but before that time we can only judge by various characteristics that appear in the manuscripts.

For example, the more upright and regular the letters are, the less ornamentation they have about them, the nearer equality there is between the height and breadth of the characters, the more ancient we may be sure is the manuscript. We can often tell the age of a manuscript, approximately at least, by the kind of pictures the scribe had painted in it and the ornamenting of the first letter of a sentence or on the top of a page; for we know in what century that particular style of illumination prevailed.

It would be impossible to give anyone who had never seen any specimens of these wonderful old manuscripts a proper idea of their appearance or make him realize their unique beauty. There they are today perfect marvels of human skill and workmanship; manuscripts of every kind; old parchments all stained and worn; books of faded purple lettered with silver and their pages beautifully designed and ornamented; bundles of finest vellum, yellow with age and bright even yet with the gold and vermilion laid on by pious hands a thousand years ago in many shapes, in many colors, in many languages. There they are, scattered throughout the libraries and museums of Europe, challenging the admiration of everyone who beholds them for the astonishing beauty, clearness, and regularity of their lettering and the incomparable illumination of their capitals and headings. Still today, after so many centuries of change and chance, they charm the eye of all with their soft yet brilliant colors and defy our modern scribes to produce anything even approaching them in loveliness.

There lie the sacred records, hoary with age, fragile, slender, time-worn, bearing upon their front clear proofs of their ancient birth, yet with the bloom of youth still clinging about them. We simply stand and wonder; and we also despair. We speak glibly of the "Dark Ages" and despise their monks and, but one thing at least is certain: Not in the wide world today could any of their critics find a craftsman to make a copy of Holy Scripture worthy to be compared—for beauty, clearness, and finish—with any one of the hundreds of copies produced in the convents and monasteries of medieval Europe.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Gavana said:
A Liar for God?

​
"For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became a Jew, that I might gain the Jews ... To them that are without law, I became outside the law ... that I might gain them outside the law ... To the weak I became as weak, that I might gain the weak. I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." ​
​
– St Paul, 1 Corinthians 9.19,22.​



According to the story in Acts, following St Paul's successful mission to Cyprus and Lycaonia, the apostle made two extensive evangelising tours across the Greek world.

The conventional dating for the journeys is sometime during the 50s or 60s of the first century, with each tour lasting two or three years.

Acts records the apostle's presence at major cities like Athens, Thessalonika and Ephesus and also at minor towns like Derbe and Mitylene unmentioned by Paul himself.

Paul's own epistles actually confirm very little of the grand tour.

Curiously, Acts makes absolutely no reference to the seminal letters which, apparently, were one consequence of Paul's magnificent missionary effort as he struggled to encourage and discipline the fledgling churches.

Paul's adventures are chock-full of miracle, magic and myth – but are they history?
Click to expand...
Unalo hilo mpaka lifike...hhhhhhhhhh...
IMG-20180501-WA0023.jpeg


Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
zitto junior said:
Mkuu kwani madehebu ya kilutheri ni lazima yaanzishwe mwaka 1600?? Kwani kanisa la KKKT (lutheran ya Tanzania) na ministry za mwakasege zimeanzishwa mwaka gani?? Sasa mbona unajengea hoja kwa mwakasege aliyeanzisha ministry juzi tu alafu hutaki nijengee hoja kwa walutheri wenzie walioanzisha ministry zao "juzi" pia?? Mbona unajipinga tena ??

2. Narudia tena zunguka pote duniani kwenye makataba zote ukweli ni huu.... MARTIN LUTHER alikataa sio tu vitabu 7 vilivyokuwepo kwenye Bible ya RC bali alienda mbali na kuvitenga vitabu vingine zaidi ya 4 akiviita vya MANABII UCHWARA kikiwemo esther,waebrania,Yuda,Ufunuo n.k.....katafiti kwanza kabla hujabisha.

3. Shida sio kutafsiri tu shida ni kwamba nani alikuwa na original manuscript za Biblia?? Wayahudi wanadai Biblia yao ndio sahihi.... Waisrael (samaria) wanadai Biblia yao ya vitabu vya Torati tu ndio halali..... Bado Egypt watasema walitunza Bible hata kabla kanisa katoliki halijaanza.... Ethiopia nao wanadai vitabu vyao vya Biblia vilivuviwa na Roho mtakatifu na wamevitunza toka katoliki halijaanza.... Sasa hoja yangu inakuja hapa kama Biblia zinakinzana je ipi ni sahihi??

4.Mkuu ww unasema zote zipo sawa na hapa ndio mjadala unapokwama.... Nimekuwekea vifungu hapo juu kuonyesha zinakinzana hivyo mpaka hapo sio sawa.... Ungekubali kwanza hili alafu ndio tuendelee na mchakato wa kuitafuta Biblia halisi zaidi ya zote ili tuepuke na manabii wa uongo

I hope hoja yangu inaeleweka
Click to expand...
Mkuu sijengi hoja kwa Mwakasege wala Malasusa.
Biblia wanazotumia Lutheran hapa TZ ndio hizo zenye 66 books including ESTHER, UFUNUO nk.
Je, wamemgeuka mwasisi wao?

Kwa maelezo yako 3.
inatosha kabisa kuelewa jibu langu, kwanini nimesema zipo sawa kwa mtizamo na uelewa wa mtumiaji.

Unless unambie wewe mstari huu hukubaliani nao.
Matthew 7:20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Discussions

Back
Top Bottom
Forums
New posts
Post thread
Back