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.
The lying pen of the scribes which is referred to in Jeremiah has nothing to do with the Bible being corrupted but rather refers to the fact that not only the scribes, but the false prophets and the priests were lying by denying that God was about to bring judgment on Judah. They were claiming that that was peace and that the sword was not going to come upon their land. This was a denial of what God had said. The Book of Jeremiah accurately records this.
Concerning the Roman Catholic Church, if you are referring to the Johannine comma - 1 John 5:7-8, the doctrine of the Trinity is not dependent upon that passage. The Johannine comma does not alter or change any point of doctrine. It does not affect Biblical reliability.
Some comments from Scholars in the field of Biblical textual criticism.
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
You are welcome to your opinion, but I do not agree with it. On the other hand, I do give credence to experts in the field of Biblical textual criticism such as those mentioned above who are qualified to make the statements they have made. More than that, I believe the Word of God.
Like I said to JJ I have already shown many times where the lying pen of the scribes was exposed by Jesus.
and like I said people ADDED to the scriptures thing they believed, 1 john 5:7-8 being one example.
You have already agreed before Mike that those scriptures are an interpolation so you cannot turn around and say man has not added to the scriptures. Just because one believes in the trinity gives them no right to add something to scripture that was never there before. And your continual backing of that addition show nothing but your own bias.
Now you are faced with creating still another doctrine, which many have, including Wallace---God is able to preserve that which He wrote (even if it has been preserved imperfectly).
And the proof that we have no original manuscripts is overwhelming. Anyone who claims that we, therefore have EXACTLY what God wrote down is a liar. And because there is doubt, we cannot be overwhelmingly assured that every DOCTRINE is as it was originally presented.
The OP is simply barking up a tree long dead. While the New Testament may say ALL scripture is God-breathed, what it does not say is ALL COPIES of scripture are God-breathed. And those copies, good people, are what we have.
Brother some very nice and informative info in your posts here.
Now you are faced with creating still another doctrine, which many have, including Wallace---God is able to preserve that which He wrote (even if it has been preserved imperfectly).
And the proof that we have no original manuscripts is overwhelming. Anyone who claims that we, therefore have EXACTLY what God wrote down is a liar. And because there is doubt, we cannot be overwhelmingly assured that every DOCTRINE is as it was originally presented.
The OP is simply barking up a tree long dead. While the New Testament may say ALL scripture is God-breathed, what it does not say is ALL COPIES of scripture are God-breathed. And those copies, good people, are what we have.
No one has claimed that the original autographs are extant and the bolded comment therefore is a false issue. If we did have the original autographs there would be no need for Biblical Textual criticism. Through a comparison of the available manuscripts the anomalies in the manuscripts can be detected and weeded out bringing us closer to the original writings. And no one is claiming that a 100 percent restoration of the original text is likely. But we can get very close.
Again, these quotes are from noted Biblical textual scholars.
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
You have also already been told that Bible inerrancy and textual reliability are two different issues and so I don't know why you wrote the last two sentences of your post other than to argue. Regardless of your personal opinion, textual scholars state that we are getting closer to the original writings. As Dr. Wallace says, ''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.''
Last edited by Michael Way; 07-18-2014 at 10:01 PM..
Like I said to JJ I have already shown many times where the lying pen of the scribes was exposed by Jesus.
and like I said people ADDED to the scriptures thing they believed, 1 john 5:7-8 being one example.
You have already agreed before Mike that those scriptures are an interpolation so you cannot turn around and say man has not added to the scriptures. Just because one believes in the trinity gives them no right to add something to scripture that was never there before. And your continual backing of that addition show nothing but your own bias.
No one is denying that there have been alterations in the New Testament manuscripts. But Jeremiah 8:8 (the lying pen of the scribes), refers to something else entirely as I have already stated in this thread. I have also already mentioned 1 John 5:7-8. It does not change any point of doctrine.
The point of this thread is to present the two videos by Dr. Wallace on the textual reliability of the Bible. As per the OP, Dr. Wallace states that no essential Christian belief is jeopardized by any viable variant in the New Testament manuscripts. By the way, Bart Ehrman agrees with this. At 41:47 into the video Dr. Wallace quotes what Dr. Ehrman stated in the Appendix of the paperback version of his book 'Misquoting Jesus.' Ehrman states, ''Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.''
Now I don't care whether you believe that or not. I provided the videos so that people can listen to what Dr. Wallace has to say on the subject.
No one is denying that there have been alterations in the New Testament manuscripts. But Jeremiah 8:8 (the lying pen of the scribes), refers to something else entirely as I have already stated in this thread. I have also already mentioned 1 John 5:7-8. It does not change any point of doctrine.
The point of this thread is to present the two videos by Dr. Wallace on the textual reliability of the Bible. As per the OP, Dr. Wallace states that no essential Christian belief is jeopardized by any viable variant in the New Testament manuscripts. By the way, Bart Ehrman agrees with this. At 41:47 into the video Dr. Wallace quotes what Dr. Ehrman stated in the Appendix of the paperback version of his book 'Misquoting Jesus.' Ehrman states, ''Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.''
Now I don't care whether you believe that or not. I provided the videos so that people can listen to what Dr. Wallace has to say on the subject.
That all fine and dandy Mike but I can disagree with you videos and you.
And like I said your continual backing of things being added to the scripture show your bias.
How in the world can you agree that the scriptures have been added to and still hold that the bible is the unadulterated word of God is beyond me for the two views are just not compatible with each other.
Peoples integrity comes into question when they hold two different opposing views Mike. It is kind of like trying to serve God and mammon at the same time.
That can NOT ever be verified because we do not have and never did have the original manuscripts to compare them to.
I have watched nearly all of Ehrman's debates on YouTube, the most famous being the ones with Craig, Wallace, D'Souza, Licona(2) and White, which got particularly nasty. I notice Ehrman always debates with the same text but he says something which always jumps out at me, "If God didn't care enough to preserve the original texts, then why should we?"
I have often pondered that question. Surely the God who miraculously caused the Dead Sea Scrolls to be preserved could certainly have done the same with the original gospels. Anyone ever wonder like me why God didn't do so?
The NT contains the message of Jesus regardless of the many errors and alterations introduced by the scribes and many others. The NT is a spiritual guide and the written words contain the message of God.
The NT conveys a message from God, but it is not the word of God. The NT cannot be the word of God because the NT has the failing of humans. Despite the failings, the NT has a wonderful message.
In summary the NT is not the infallible word of God, but it carries the essential message from God. Within this context a perfect manuscript is not needed.
Well, for all the quotes about what Ehrman wrote in a prelude, here is Ehrman himself saying what he now believes--after much further study--about errors in the NT.
Nobody is denying that there have been scribal alterations. This has already been addressed. But, again, the point that Wallace and the other textual scholars who have been quoted are making is that no essential Christian belief is jeopardized by any viable variant in the New Testament manuscripts. That is what Dr. Wallace is discussing in the two videos presented in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That can NOT ever be verified because we do not have and never did have the original manuscripts to compare them to.
The Textual experts quoted in post #12 do not agree with you. Neither do people who have a higher view of the Bible than you do.
Bart Ehrman on why the gospels themselves are unreliable. None were written by eyewitnesses. Powerful explanation of how we have arrived at much of Christianity as it is viewed today.
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.
