• Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Current Bible has been rewritten a bunch of times by different people. Definitely not canon.

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s not a millenia-long game of whisper down the lane. We have access to the original text. And we still cross-reference different translations to be sure.

      • Dave@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Uh, aren’t the original texts that were compiled to make the bible long gone? What “original texts” are you referring to? A cursory search couldn’t find anything except Christian pages saying the original texts no longer exist.

          • Dave@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            It’s authoritative but not original. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text

            It was primarily copied, edited, and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries of the Common Era (CE).

            The differences attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that multiple versions of the Hebrew scriptures already existed by the end of the Second Temple period.[1] Which is closest to a theoretical Urtext is disputed, as is whether such a singular text ever existed.

            That text is the best we have, but is not original. Plus, it’s disputed as to whether there was ever one “original”, since the bible is a compilation of various texts which may not have had the exact same text all together in one book as an original.

            The text you have linked is from hundreds of years after there would have been an original.

        • JoShmoe@ani.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I guess you’re choosing to ignore the generations of Jews who kept the tradition and texts alive.

          • Dave@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            10 months ago

            The original claim was:

            It’s not a millenia-long game of whisper down the lane. We have access to the original text. And we still cross-reference different translations to be sure.

            All I said is that the original texts are long gone. Sure the generations of Jews kept the word of God and traditions alive, but we don’t have the original texts. We have the Masoretic text, and we know that is different to what was in use prior because of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 1940s and 50s that were mostly the same but with some differences. And the Dead Sea Scolls were not original either, with scrolls found from different Jewish sects.

            The different scripts were also written at different times, separated by at least many hundreds of years.

            We may have different ideas of what “original” means. In my view, “generations of Jews who kept the tradition and texts alive” is quite different from having the original texts.