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.
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.
Questioning my integrity and the integrity of all who acknowledge that the Bible is the Word of God does not help your argument. It is simply an ad hominem attack.
I already told you in post #12 that you are entitled to your opinion. From post #12 - ''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.''
Again, no doctrine of the Word of God has been lost or changed by any of the variants in the manuscripts.
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."
Hello all.
With all due respect, this quote seems suspicious; I would like to see the context in which it was written and what "scholars" Ehrman was addressing. Was he actually talking about all scholars? Some scholars? Scholars with whom he disagrees? It just seems as if it was plucked out of a larger thought.
As for the rest of this thread, I'm genuinely confused. I'm not sure how the biblical literalist takes comfort in the idea that "essential Christian beliefs are not jeopardized" by variations in the NT. I have seen debates among Christians that hinge on a single passage...even a single word within a passage. I would think that any inconsistency would be a major concern when judgements can be made based on such minutia. If one word is suspect, then any part of the writing can be suspect. I say this because we can only address the inconsistencies (or "variations" if you prefer) between texts that we have, but as far as I can tell no one in this conversation believes that we have the originals. As soon as we accept that inconsistencies exist, we must also accept that we have no way of knowing if there are inconsistencies between the copies we have and the originals. Therefore we have no way of knowing what the original (inspired) text says.
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.
You are attempting to change the issue from whether the Biblical text we have now is what was written then, to whether the original autographs themselves were reliable. That is not what Dr. Wallace is addressing in the videos and is not the focus of this thread.
Questioning my integrity and the integrity of all who acknowledge that the Bible is the Word of God does not help your argument. It is simply an ad hominem attack.
I already told you in post #12 that you are entitled to your opinion. From post #12 - ''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.''
Again, no doctrine of the Word of God has been lost or changed by any of the variants in the manuscripts.
And I don't care whether you believe that or not.
But is not your integrity in the very name of the thread in question when I have very clearly shown that sources YOU named and have tried using to underpin your beliefs do not hold nearly as clear a point of view that you opined in the original post.
Daniel Wallace does believe there are some significant errors in the scripture.
Bart Ehrman everyone has heard from themselves, but you have at least three times quoted a line which he apparently rejects in the immediacy of the now. So in effect you have cherry picked from at least two scholars writings, and that leads me to suspect that the others you have quoted have suffered a similar fate.
That you wish to BELIEVE the "Word of God" is unchanged from the original manuscripts is one thing. When you try to maintain established scholars hold to your same belief, that is quite another, and people have every right and even an obligation to question the integrity of those particular statements. Perhaps you would be more successful with integrity utilizing your own interpretation of scripture rather than bringing named scholars into the picture. None can question the integrity of your own view of scripture, even if it is not one held by us or the majority of established scholars. We may question your accuracy in interpretation, but that is a separate issue from integrity.
You are attempting to change the issue from whether the Biblical text we have now is what was written then, to whether the original autographs themselves were reliable. That is not what Dr. Wallace is addressing in the videos and is not the focus of this thread.
No, if you LISTEN to Ehrman, he says the gospels are unreliable, that we do not know who wrote them, that they are positioned solely because they were oral traditions written down decades after the events, and copied for decades and decades after that---leading to the inevitable conclusion that the scribes DID in fact change the NT. It seems as if every time anyone whatsoever provides a different view of things your charge against them is it is not the focus of the thread. Perhaps then the name of the thread should be much more narrowly titled.
With all due respect, this quote seems suspicious; I would like to see the context in which it was written and what "scholars" Ehrman was addressing. Was he actually talking about all scholars? Some scholars? Scholars with whom he disagrees? It just seems as if it was plucked out of a larger thought.
As for the rest of this thread, I'm genuinely confused. I'm not sure how the biblical literalist takes comfort in the idea that "essential Christian beliefs are not jeopardized" by variations in the NT. I have seen debates among Christians that hinge on a single passage...even a single word within a passage. I would think that any inconsistency would be a major concern when judgements can be made based on such minutia. If one word is suspect, then any part of the writing can be suspect. I say this because we can only address the inconsistencies (or "variations" if you prefer) between texts that we have, but as far as I can tell no one in this conversation believes that we have the originals. As soon as we accept that inconsistencies exist, we must also accept that we have no way of knowing if there are inconsistencies between the copies we have and the originals. Therefore we have no way of knowing what the original (inspired) text says.
That's how I see things.
Thanks.
The name of the textbook that Ehrman wrote it in was given. ''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.''
Buy the book.
As for this thread, I simply posted two videos of Daniel Wallace addressing the issue of whether the Biblical text we have now is what was written then.
Listen to the videos and just maybe you will see things differently.
With all due respect, this quote seems suspicious; I would like to see the context in which it was written and what "scholars" Ehrman was addressing. Was he actually talking about all scholars? Some scholars? Scholars with whom he disagrees? It just seems as if it was plucked out of a larger thought.
As for the rest of this thread, I'm genuinely confused. I'm not sure how the biblical literalist takes comfort in the idea that "essential Christian beliefs are not jeopardized" by variations in the NT. I have seen debates among Christians that hinge on a single passage...even a single word within a passage. I would think that any inconsistency would be a major concern when judgements can be made based on such minutia. If one word is suspect, then any part of the writing can be suspect. I say this because we can only address the inconsistencies (or "variations" if you prefer) between texts that we have, but as far as I can tell no one in this conversation believes that we have the originals. As soon as we accept that inconsistencies exist, we must also accept that we have no way of knowing if there are inconsistencies between the copies we have and the originals. Therefore we have no way of knowing what the original (inspired) text says.
That's how I see things.
Thanks.
Good point. And it is also interesting to note that Ehrman points out in his book, Misquoting Jesus, that if there is so little difference in words or meaning to the textual differences of the NT why do both the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and the Dallas Baptist Seminary both raise millions of dollars to study the texts? "Because," he asks, "it means nothing?"
What do they say to contributors to whom they go to raise money? "We would like you to give us a $100,000 so we can further study the NT texts to prove there is no significant difference between any of them!"
They study them because they know for a fact there are great differences and hundreds of thousands of errors between the 5700 manuscripts and partial manuscripts in existence.
Hyker, you may wish to read some of Ehrman's later works that show how his scholarship, if not his faith, developed. In 2011 he wrote the following in his book, Forged, about some of the people who claimed to be gospel and even letter writers of the Bible.
We may never know what drove these people . . .to hide their own identity and to claim, deceitfully, that they were someone else. Their readers, had they known, would probably have called them liars and condemned what they did. But in their own eyes, their conscience may have been free from blame, and their motives may have been as pure as the driven snow. They had a truth to convey, and they were happy to lie in order to proclaim it.”—from Forged
Forged - Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are
by Bart Ehrman
Last edited by Wardendresden; 07-19-2014 at 01:00 AM..
The name of the textbook that Ehrman wrote it in was given. ''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.''
Buy the book.
Hello Mike555.
I apologize, I thought that you would have it. I didn't realize that you picked up this quote second-hand without critically assessing its context.
But is not your integrity in the very name of the thread in question when I have very clearly shown that sources YOU named and have tried using to underpin your beliefs do not hold nearly as clear a point of view that you opined in the original post.
Daniel Wallace does believe there are some significant errors in the scripture.
Bart Ehrman everyone has heard from themselves, but you have at least three times quoted a line which he apparently rejects in the immediacy of the now. So in effect you have cherry picked from at least two scholars writings, and that leads me to suspect that the others you have quoted have suffered a similar fate.
That you wish to BELIEVE the "Word of God" is unchanged from the original manuscripts is one thing. When you try to maintain established scholars hold to your same belief, that is quite another, and people have every right and even an obligation to question the integrity of those particular statements. Perhaps you would be more successful with integrity utilizing your own interpretation of scripture rather than bringing named scholars into the picture. None can question the integrity of your own view of scripture, even if it is not one held by us or the majority of established scholars. We may question your accuracy in interpretation, but that is a separate issue from integrity.
My integrity is not in question. And again the suggestion that it is is an ad hominem attack.
It has been already been stated that Wallace acknowledges that there are errors in the manuscripts. He also states that no essential Christian belief is jeopardized by any viable variant in the New Testament manuscripts.
You have already been told that Dr. Ehrman stated in the Appendix of the paperback version of his book 'Misquoting Jesus' which came out in 2007 that ''Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.'' Dr. Ehrman wrote that as an agnostic. And as Dr. Wallace stated, Ehrman cannot deny it since he said it and it's in print.
The quotes I provided from the Scholars mentioned in post #12 speak for themselves.
Furthermore, the quote of Dr. Ehrman in post #12 concerns what scholars believe. The fact that Ehrman is now an agnostic does not alter the fact that he stated that scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy.
"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.
And you have twisted what I have said and what this thread is about. The issue is what is addressed in the video's. The title of the first video - ''How badly Did the Scribes Change the New Testament.'' Dr. Wallace addresses that. The subject of the second video is ''Is what we have now what they wrote then.'' Dr. Wallace addresses that.
I apologize, I thought that you would have it. I didn't realize that you picked up this quote second-hand without critically assessing its context.
Thanks.
Your sarcasm is not needed. Ehrman stated what he stated. - "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."
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.
