Restoring the Original Bible - by Ernest L. Martin

[student1]

The Bible Wheel is not, as you say a new arrangement, but the old arrangement of Jerome which is incorrect.

In actual fact, although I "believe" you feel the arrangement of Dr. Martin, distorts or negates your Bible Wheel, I don't feel that way. I personally believe that when you finally get it you will find your "corrected" Bible wheel, after seeing correctly what Dr. Martin says, will establish your Bible Wheel beyond your own understanding at the moment. I am not arguing against it, I am arguing for it, and a much expanded understanding of it.

[student1]

Martin's statement is factually correct in that the four Greek New Testaments published in the 19th century by Lachmann (1862), Tischendorf (1872), Tregelles (1872), and Westcott and Hort (1881) "all without exception placed their arrangement of the books in the same order." But his statement is egregiously misleading because it suggests a consensus that has never existed, then or now.

I find it very interesting that you admit this much, and then argue totally against what you admit. Why would these men accept the obvious if it was not correct? Why even use them if they are wrong on this point, which Dr. Martin agrees with and you don't? These are the "standard" volumes to work with in the world of Bible translation, yet you negate them because you think, or seem to think, they negate your Wheel. I suggest strongly that they IMPROVE your wheel, and that they were much more accepted than you and I are in the field. Why in the world would the world accept them as "authorities" and then turn around and say they don't know what they are talking about when they say that the arrangement that Dr. Martin agrees with is what THEY say in the old manuscripts and history??????? I agree with them, with Dr. Martin, with the OLD Jewish numbering, etc. What's wrong with that?

[student1]

I appreciate your point, but there is one fundamental difference that you have missed. The Bible Wheel is not a "new" arrangement of the ORDER of the books of the Bible. It is "new" on in the sense of a "point of view" of a pre-existing structure. I did nothing but "roll up" the list of 66 books like a scroll on a spindle wheel of 22 Spokes corresponding to the 22 Hebrew letters, which themselves are eternally established in the very text of Holy Scripture, most notably in Psalm 119, the great Psalm of the WORD. Martin's work is altogether different. He began by making outrageously false statements about the history of the Bible and accused Jerome of inventing a new arrangment for the purpose of exalting Rome! Anyone who knows anything about the Bible knows that the order Jerome followed existed before he was born. I documented this in my review of his book. Did you read it?

Yes, I totally read it. But, Jerome was the OFFICIAL and FINAL authority for this order and he himself admitted that he did NOT, i.e. NOT follow the arrangement that he admitted the Jews followed!! Now, why would that be, IF he knew better? He changed the order for some reason, and it was not from historical precedent, but from another reason. That is obvious from his own writings on the subject, and the quotes of Eusebius on it.

If they knew better, then we also can follow their example and know better also. Don't you think?

[student1]

The existence of a variety manuscript orders is common knowledge amongst students of the canon. Martin's claim for one particular order being "correct" has no basis in fact. I documented this at length in my refutation of his book. If you want to support Martin's work, you will have to answer those points that I made.

That's EXACTLY what I plan to do as time permits.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I don't know what you mean by "programming words." The word "hybrid" was originally an agricultural term first used in 1601 (according to Websters). I was using it in its third sense which is "something heterogeneous in origin or composition." And that is EXACTLY what Martin created when he melded a Jewish pattern of the OT with one variation on an ancient Christian pattern. My point stands.

I mean simply that those kinds of words are NEGATIVE programming to set up the reader's mind to believe that YOU the writer is right and that the person you are talking about is wrong. In other words, you are preprogramming the reader to believe that what you say is correct and that your "opponent" is not. They are negative words, and are the type suggested in a book, among several, titled, "How to win every argument".

Instead of saying simply that you disagree with the author, you are setting up the author for a fall by saying he uses "hybrids", and other negative words.

That is not correct. There are no "connotations" with the word "hybrid." It is simply an extremely precise description of the new thing that Martin created.

[student1]

That is not correct. There are no "connotations" with the word "hybrid." It is simply an extremely precise description of the new thing that Martin created.

I beg to disagree. Hybrid, in this context has a totally negative impact. A hybrid is something that is not "natural" and thus you are accusing Dr. Martin of creating something on his own that is not natural or true. You cannot show that this is true by any stretch. Jerome says 22 books. That is not a hybrid. Eusebius quotes the 22 books. That is not a hybrid. The ancient Jews quote 22. That is not a hybrid. Martin quotes what these men say, so if there is a hybrid then it is the fault of those men, not Dr. Martin. Was Josephus wrong? Was Jerome wrong? Was Eusebius wrong? If so, accuse them, not Dr. Martin.

"There is no question Jerome 'fully understood' that in the Aaronic/Levitical Scriptures there were originally 22 books. Of this Jerome himself wrote: 'As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the compass of the human voice is contained within their limits so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and as it were, while still at the breast' (Jerome, Preface to Samuel and Kings, NPNF, vol. VI. p. 489)

Now, my friend, if that is true, and is an actual quote of Jerome, then, my friend, Jerome is the source of Dr. Martin's "hybrid". Thus, you argue against the wrong man. The above quote, NOT FROM MARTIN, proves that Jerome changed what he knew to be correct to something different. You cannot get around his own words except by ignoring them or trying to somehow claim he meant something else.

Now, I suggest, after reading his own statement above, then look at the arrangement he gave us of the OT. It is NOT what he claimed when he said, "so WE [please note that again, WE] reckon twenty-two books.....". If you can prove that this is not a quote from the writings of Jerome, then please give us the proof from HIS writings, not from Dr. Martin's who is only following what Jerome himself said, among many others. Please note also that this is NOT quoted from any of Dr. Martin's works. So, if you wish to pick a "fight" with it, please consult Jerome and tell HIM he is wrong in his own words.

[student1]

That is not correct. There are no "connotations" with the word "hybrid." It is simply an extremely precise description of the new thing that Martin created.

I tend to disagree with that.
Dr. Martin did NOT create a NEW thing.
What he presented was known and presented by many others before he came along. So, your use, negatively, of "hybrid" is not accurate.
Precise? I think not.

[Victor]

Victor,
Thanks for your comment.
You are incorrect in the fact that there is no 22 book to be found. Read Josephus and you find that there are 22 books. Read Eusebius and you find that he quotes the same number.

There are only 22 books when one goes with the original and oldest version of the Scriptures according to the "oracles" of the Jews, which Paul shows is the source of the OT.

Hello back, student.

Please note that in my first post above I stated two arguments:

1. Martin did not "restore" C because it did not exist before him. Only "A" and B existed.
2. The Jews wanted A to have 22 books but they never settled down at it.

Argument 1 was the center and reason of my post. Of course 2 can be discussed and is important too, but I only mentioned it as a secondary note.

Please note that in your reply you left out any mention of argument 1. Is it not a simple and straightforward idea?

We can move on to point 2 after point 1 is clear.

[Craig.Paardekooper]

The number of books in the OT was 24 according to the Israelites, but was eventually accepted as 39 by the Church. So the criteria seems to be "acceptance by the Church" rather than "the original"

So the Bible Wheel is a "modern" phenomena that only emerges in Church times, specifically in the Protestant Church times. This is even more the case because the Bible was only divided into chapters and verses in modern times too.

This does not detract from the existence of patterns within the Protestant Bible. If such patterns are consistent and impossible to contrive with human hands then we can only conclude that the Protestant Bible is in some way vindicated.

[student1]

The number of books in the OT was 24 according to the Israelites, but was eventually accepted as 39 by the Church. So the criteria seems to be "acceptance by the Church" rather than "the original"

So the Bible Wheel is a "modern" phenomena that only emerges in Church times, specifically in the Protestant Church times. This is even more the case because the Bible was only divided into chapters and verses in modern times too.

This does not detract from the existence of patterns within the Protestant Bible. If such patterns are consistent and impossible to contrive with human hands then we can only conclude that the Protestant Bible is in some way vindicated.

The Israelite, as you put it, number for the books was 22, not 24. 24 is a "modern" change as mentioned by Richard, I believe, in one of his posts. Again, read Jerome, and Josephus, and you will see they both said 22, not 24. Why? Because they knew what the number of books was in their day. The number 24 came much later and is not the "original" number.