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.
Ehrman's personal beliefs at the time he wrote the college textbook 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian writings', 3rd edition, 2003, are not the issue. However, Ehrman was already pretty much a skeptic, if not already agnostic at the time he wrote it. His statement, "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.", concerns the beliefs of other scholars. What Ehrman believed or didn't believe when he wrote that has nothing to do with his statement concerning other scholars.
Dan Wallace who has known Ehrman for over 30 years says this about Ehrman. ''It seems that Ehrman puts a far more skeptical spin on things when speaking in the public square than he does when speaking to professional colleagues.'' [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, p. 25.] It was Dan Wallace who referenced Ehrman's statement in which he 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."
And once again, Ehrman stated in the Appendix of the paperback version of his book 'Misquoting Jesus' that ''Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.'' The agnostic Ehrman wrote that.
Your statement that I bolded misrepresents what has been said on this thread. Once again, the subject, the very title of the first video is ''How Badly Did Scribes Change the New Testament.'' And Dr. Wallace addresses that issue. You seem intent on trying to make it seem that I am denying that. I posted this thread to present the two video's in which Dr. Wallace speaks on the stated subject.
This was my only comment in post #1.
I like listening to Dr. Dan Wallace speak. In this video he addresses the issue stated in the title of this thread.
He 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.''
Well, here's the video.
And this was my only comment in post #2.
The material in this presentation of Dr. Wallace is largely the same as in his speech in the video in the OP since the subject is, ''Is what we have now what they wrote then'', but he provides some information which is not in the first. Plus there is a good question/answer session during the last 26 minutes of the session.
The video's were then posted after the respective comments. You are making false claims about my purpose in posting this thread.
YOU are the one in post #12 who placed this in play
Quote:
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?
Mike555 post #12, How Badly Did Scribes Change the New Testament Bible?
Now you try to call foul when people have caught you in a misrepresentation on the part of Wallace, and an outright fabrication on the part of Ehrman. If you had simply stated Ehrman was admitting to what other scholars thought, that, at least, would have been a more honest assessment. But you allowed it to mislead--and it did for at least two other readers as well.
So if this is not an issue of integrity then it is once more the obtuse fashion in which you present material.
GINOLJC, to all
Addressing the OP only. I haven’t read all of the posting to this topic, which is a good topic. but the Lord Jesus Christ, God, know how to preserve his word. for he have spoke it. Psalm 12:6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever”. so let the unbelieving be, as Revelation 22:11 states, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still”. so let those who question the bible stay in unbelief, for John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. and the New Testament is about Jesus the Christ. so this subject really separates those who are guided by the Holy Spirit, or unbelieving scholars. bless are they who have not seen but "BELIEVE".
be blessed.
The issue being addressed by Dr. Wallace in the videos is not Biblical inerrancy but whether the Biblical text that we have today is reliable regarding what was originally written despite all the variants in the manuscript copies. Dr. Wallace's position is that it is. And he is correct.
YOU are the one in post #12 who placed this in play
Mike555 post #12, How Badly Did Scribes Change the New Testament Bible?
Now you try to call foul when people have caught you in a misrepresentation on the part of Wallace, and an outright fabrication on the part of Ehrman. If you had simply stated Ehrman was admitting to what other scholars thought, that, at least, would have been a more honest assessment. But you allowed it to mislead--and it did for at least two other readers as well.
So if this is not an issue of integrity then it is once more the obtuse fashion in which you present material.
Dr. Wallace did not misrepresent anything, and neither did I. And there were no fabrications. The quotes are all valid. I did not mislead anyone. It was only because you made an issue out of it that more clarification was needed concerning Dr. Ehrman's statement.
Dr. Ehrman's statement clearly regarded the fact that scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable accuracy. Here is the quote again.
"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 issue being addressed by Dr. Wallace in the videos is not Biblical inerrancy but whether the Biblical text that we have today is reliable regarding what was originally written despite all the variants in the manuscript copies. Dr. Wallace's position is that it is. And he is correct.
Mike, I agree. I'm only address the lack of inerrancy to affect the believers.
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
Not to digress, but seminars like New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and the Dallas Baptist Seminary that ask for hundreds of thousands of dollars to study manuscripts are NOT putting that money toward studying manuscripts. They're using it to beautify their campuses with state-of-the-art gymnasiums, cafeterias, student lounges and the like because it is these features that draw students in to enroll at these seminaries at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars in tuition per student. That tuition is what keep school boards' salaries paid.
Rule No. 1--Follow the money!
Rule No. 2--See Rule No 1!
Last edited by thrillobyte; 07-19-2014 at 11:09 AM..
Not to digress, but seminars like New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and the Dallas Baptist Seminary that ask for hundreds of thousands of dollars to study manuscripts are NOT putting that money toward studying manuscripts. They're using it to beautify their campuses with state-of-the-art gymnasiums, cafeterias, student lounges and the like because it is these features that draw students in to enroll at these seminaries at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars in tuition per student. That tuition is what keep school boards' salaries paid.
Rule No. 1--Follow the money!
Rule No. 2--See Rule No 1!
This has nothing to do with what Dr. Wallace is talking about and the purpose for which I started this thread.
07-19-2014, 10:42 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyker
Hello all.
I would have to agree with this sentiment.
Thanks.
Yes, me too! I dealt with these exact quotes in two threads and particularly Bart's quote. He just has them ready for copy and paste for any issue regarding the Bible. He has started numerous threads and posted this stuff in every one of them. He has been called on it many times - he just ignores it and copies and pastes over and over as if it means something.
As to the first part of the OP - who cares? No one really thinks that it is a big deal if you can derive the main Christian doctrines from these error filled and contradictory texts. The real issue is about innerrancy and inspiration. Yet Mike uses those quotes for every controversial subject regarding the scriptures.
The OP is exactly correct. I am well versed on the NT is the Greek language. I am a graduate of a Lutheran Seminary. I took 10 courses on the graduate level at that Seminary on the NT Greek, I still use the Greek weekly. The variants do not and never have changed, challenged or questioned the doctrines that the Bible teaches. In many cases the variants are differences in words or tenses. Sometimes a definite article was slipped in. Sometimes it is merely a case of word order. The John 8 text cited already,and the long ending to Mark are the largest, but again, those variants don't challenge Christian doctrine, unless you're one of those crazy snake handlers in WV.
The OP is exactly correct. I am well versed on the NT is the Greek language. I am a graduate of a Lutheran Seminary. I took 10 courses on the graduate level at that Seminary on the NT Greek, I still use the Greek weekly. The variants do not and never have changed, challenged or questioned the doctrines that the Bible teaches. In many cases the variants are differences in words or tenses. Sometimes a definite article was slipped in. Sometimes it is merely a case of word order. The John 8 text cited already,and the long ending to Mark are the largest, but again, those variants don't challenge Christian doctrine, unless you're one of those crazy snake handlers in WV.
Thanks augiedogie. It's nice to have someone other than a Bible detractor bother to post on the issue.
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.
