Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Notice the above... even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, in other words those who had not been tainted by Adam's sin. Obviously, if these did not inherit Adam's "original" sin, then there is no such thing as original sin, just the consequences of the first sin which is death.
It could also refer to this.
NIV Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
Some sin through bad influence and others chose to do so without another persons influence, thus not like Adam, but still sinning.
Well actually Vizio, scholars do estimate between 300,000 and 400,000 variants in the manuscripts. Dan Wallace leans to the high side of that estimate. But most of those variants are meaningless.
The poster I responded to was suggesting that there was on average 3 variants per word. That seems a LOT higher than anything I've heard. From what I've seen, the NT is about 99.5% pure.
07-19-2014, 12:59 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Since it changed his religious views it obviously has a personal meaning to him. Although, in fairness, he has written that he begins his New Testament courses by telling his students that no one should necessarily reach his same conclusion as an agnostic, they should understand any beliefs they retain as "faith." Isn't that what Christians believe, despite the many attempts to "justify" faith with Noah's Ark being found or some other equally obnoxious idol?
Here are the facts: there are about 140,000 words in the Greek New Testament, and scholars estimate there are about 400,000 variant readings, or about 3 per word on average! Yes, it is a fair statement to say that 96% of them are simply misspellings, placing words in improper order, or some other "mistake." About 3% give different but plausible meanings. That leaves a mere ONE PERCENT (.01 x 400,000 = 4000) more significant errors that include additions, probable subtractions (which textual criticism can and has found), and changes intended to sway the thoughts of readers.
So if you wish to reach the conclusion that the 99% "insignificant" changes make up the only important parts of the Bible---go for it. But don't cry you are an inerrantist when the 4000 significant errors are glaring out of the New Testament. And folks who write about "there are no significant changes between the original autographs and the copies we have," are inevitably inerrantists. The truth means all of us have to critically assess scripture and carry away more than a Sunday School understanding of the "Word of God," as important as the documents may be.
Exactly, and I would highlight the above as well.
Having different plausible meanings is not very helpful. What you are doing is creating more ambiguity and vagueness.
The fundamentalists think that by offering up multiple plausible solutions to a problematic text that they are doing some sort of redemptive apologetic when if fact they just muddy the waters.
Someone points out verse X as a problem and then the apologist comes along as says that the solution can be n1, n2, n3, n....
Well if the Scriptures were 'inspired' for faith and practice what help is it to those who are looking to the Scriptures for these things to find that a verse has multiple possible solutions? The apologist in his attempt to undo a problem creates more problems - whether it is trying to figure out the original or what to believe and practice. They think that by creating possibilities they solve something when in fact it just creates an ambiguous and vague text that was supposed to be inspired by an all-powerful God.
The poster I responded to was suggesting that there was on average 3 variants per word. That seems a LOT higher than anything I've heard. From what I've seen, the NT is about 99.5% pure.
I may have overestimated. the New Testament includes 27 books, 260 chapters, 7,959 verses and a total word count of 181,253. With 400,000 errors that is a mere 2.21 variations per word.
I may have overestimated. the New Testament includes 27 books, 260 chapters, 7,959 verses and a total word count of 181,253. With 400,000 errors that is a mere 2.21 variations per word.
Hope that makes everyone feel much better.
Personally, I'm highly skeptical of those statistics.
Having said that, I'll echo Mike's charge. Give us a dozen or so of the major ones so we can discuss it.
Let's see the OP started out with the claim that 'the Bible is the inerrant word of God.'
This is basically saying that the Bilbe we have now is inerrant.
Yet the OP then says that inerrantcy refers only to the autographs and that the Bible, we have now (which are from copies of these supposed inerrant autographs) do have errors and variations.
If so then the phrase 'the Bible is the inerrant word of God' is completely bogus.
Furthermore, the OP then went on to state that we can construct the original autographs from the error and variation filled copies that we now have not realizing that the men he quoted to support his take on inerrantcy refuted that very notion - in other words we cannot reconstruct, with 100% accuracy, the autographs. The point of the man he quoted (Wallace) was that we have more information (i.e. 110%) than necessary to reconstruct the original but that we can not do so because of our inability to choose from this information what was the correct reading with 100% accuracy.
Beyond this the OP tried to argue that errors and variations do not really matter since no doctrine was altered in spite of such errors and variations.
He does this without listing such 'doctrines' that have not been touched by these errors or variations nor has he been able to reconcile God's character with his notion of preservation - why not preserve the autographs not only from doctrinal errors and variation but from general errors and variations - I mean he is God nothing is to hard for him. As an example - is the pre-trib position of the OP a 'doctrine' that was preserved or is that open to general error and variations?
All of this is in spite of the numerous errors and contradictions that have been pointed out to the OP in other threads - whether or not they touch doctrine or not does not matter - The Bible is not the inerrant word of any God.
The thread has thus been refuted:
And likewise so has this thread - since having 110% means that the original can be constructed (that is hypothetically) it has not and can not since no one can figure out what 10% to get rid of in order to have the original.
Actually I posted those quotes not with regard to Bible inerrancy so much, but with regard to textual reliability. And no, that thread was not refuted. I think however that I copied those quotes from a different thread. In posts #198 and 207 I had already addressed the issue of textual criticism and textual reliability.
Here is post #255 of that thread. - https://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...rd-god-26.html. Note the bolded that the topic of this thread is not about whether the Bible is infallible, but rather concerns the textual reliability of the Bible with regard to the original autographs.
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
To the best of our knowledge the original autographs are not extant. In response to those who say that because we do not have the original autographs we therefore cannot know if our Bible is accurate, I am providing a few comments from some highly regarded Bible scholars. The topic of this thread is not about whether the Bible is infallible, but rather concerns the textual reliability of the Bible with regard to the original autographs.
F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. He stated...
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. [The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce, pgs. 14-15.]
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the most highly regarded scholars of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism. He served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies and was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He commented...
But the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament , whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic quotations is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. [The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth Edition, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 230]
Daniel B. Wallace (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament Studies. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, and has consulted on several Bible translations. He made these comments...
To sum up the evidence on the number of variants, there are a lot of variants because there are a lot of manuscripts. Even in the early centuries, the text of the NT is found in a sufficient number of MSS, versions, and writings of the church fathers to give us the essentials of the original text. [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace, pg. 40]
Even Bart D. Ehrman who puts a skeptical spin on things when writing for the general public made the following statement in a college textbook as quoted by Dan Wallace in 'Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament' on pg. 24...
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Ehrman wrote that in a college textbook called 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To the Early Christian Writings', 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pg. 481.
In an article by Dan Wallace, he wrote...
'Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.' [The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site
In post #309, while I mentioned inerrancy in reply to a poster, I again posted the quotes of the scholars with regard to the accuracy of the New Testament documents.
At any rate, this present thread concerns the extent to which Scribes changed the New Testament, and whether the text we have now is what they wrote then. As the posted quotes from the scholars show, and what Dr. Wallace said in the videos posted at the beginning of this thread, our Bibles are textually reliable.
And as Ehrman said, "In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
The mentioned scholars do not agree with you. But you are entitled to your opinion.
Last edited by Michael Way; 07-19-2014 at 01:26 PM..
07-19-2014, 01:51 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Ehrman wrote that in a college textbook called 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To the Early Christian Writings', 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pg. 481.
In an article by Dan Wallace, he wrote...
'Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.' [The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?
Study By: Daniel B. Wallace The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site [/indent]
In post #309, while I mentioned inerrancy in reply to a poster, I again posted the quotes of the scholars with regard to the accuracy of the New Testament documents.
At any rate, this present thread concerns the extent to which Scribes changed the New Testament, and whether the text we have now is what they wrote then. As the posted quotes from the scholars show, and what Dr. Wallace said in the videos posted at the beginning of this thread, our Bibles are textually reliable.
And as Ehrman said, "In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
The mentioned scholars do not agree with you. But you are entitled to your opinion.
Actually they do - you just misrepresent their points.
Note the above two quotes:
Wallace says that they cannot produce with certainty the exact wording of the original. His point about the 110% is that what was the original is there in the mss evidence but what the original is is not certain. They have too much information and they can not know what 10% to get rid of to arrive at the original. Hello!
Bart's quote is just telling you what people like Wallace believe - it is not what he believes. Furthermore, his quote says 'reasonable probably not 100%'. When he says scholars are convinced that they can reconstruct the original that does not mean that they have done so let alone 100% accurately.
So your assertion that the original can be accurately produced with certainty is wrong by your own quotes.
Personally, I'm highly skeptical of those statistics.
Having said that, I'll echo Mike's charge. Give us a dozen or so of the major ones so we can discuss it.
Very well, I've already provided one in the Genesis scribal misinterpretation of the word "sin" in Genesis. The word sin has a different connotation from the original Hebrew which is "missing the mark." It lends credence to universalist claims of salvation for all because "sinners" are not condemned, they are forgiven for "missing the mark."
Now mind you I do not believe that myself, but for reasons other than just scripture. The misinterpretation has led to all sorts of dogma against "bad" people. One of the other posters very well addressed the issue of "sin" as an improper term.
Now let's talk about some of YOUR views that are based on highly skeptical language. You have previously stated that MEN should be the only ones in the pulpit. And others have used the Corinthian language to say women should not "speak" in the church (but obviously singing isn't speaking) so an entire conservative doctrine revolves around highly suspect language.
"For it is not permitted for them to speak, but to be in subjection, just as the law says." I Cor 14:34. It is much like the passage in I Timothy 2.
Both appear to be a straightforward injunction for women to speak, let alone teach. According to Ehrman, who as Mike555 likes to point out talks about what MOST scholars think regarding scribal errors, Ehrman says MOST SCHOLARS are convinced that Paul did not write the I Timothy passage, but there is no doubt he wrote I Corinthians. BUT, and it is a huge but,
Quote:
For as it turns out, the verses in question (vv. 34-35) are shuffled around in some of our important textual witnesses. In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40. That has led some scholars to surmise that the verses were not written by Paul but originated as a kind of marginal note added by a scribe, possibly under the influence of I Tim 2. The note was then inserted in different places of the text by various scribes---some placing the note after verse 33 and others after verse 40.
Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, under the section entitled Women and the Texts of Scripture.
He goes on to state that if you lift the questionable verses out of I Corinthians the passage flows seamlessly as a discussion of the role of Christian prophets, and that the discussion about women is intrusive in the context, breaking the instructions Paul is giving about a different matter. In fact, it goes against what Paul already wrote in I Cor 11:2-16 where he speaks of praying and prophesying, activities always done aloud in Christian worship services. In this earlier passage Paul clearly understands that women both can and do speak in services. His only instruction was for the culture of the day, for women to wear a covering on their heads.
It is very strange indeed that three chapters later, Paul calls on women to shut up and ask their questions at home!!!
Scribal intentional errors having impact in the modern world.
Digest the above two. Later on this evening we will explore the Trinity--which I also believe--but that has definitely been influenced by scribal additions to the text.
I may have overestimated. the New Testament includes 27 books, 260 chapters, 7,959 verses and a total word count of 181,253. With 400,000 errors that is a mere 2.21 variations per word.
Hope that makes everyone feel much better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Personally, I'm highly skeptical of those statistics.
Having said that, I'll echo Mike's charge. Give us a dozen or so of the major ones so we can discuss it.
Statistics even when accurate don't tell the whole story when you have no way to know what is missing or added. For example, these two sentences differ by a single word (about 3%). . . is the difference significant???
We have mounds of evidence in our files that you did brutally murder your whole family including the children and the dog with premeditation and malice.
We have mounds of evidence in our files that you did not brutally murder your whole family including the children and the dog with premeditation and malice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
