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.
This has nothing to do with what Dr. Wallace is talking about and the purpose for which I started this thread.
No, but it ties in with wardendresden's comment about the millions of dollars supposedly going into trying to solve the contentious issue you and Dresden are going at each other about. Actually, I should say you and about ten other members are going at each other about. You are one heck of a brave guy, taking this issue on, Mike, because you DO know you're going to lose, right? All the evidence is on the side of your foes.
No, but it ties in with wardendresden's comment about the millions of dollars supposedly going into trying to solve the contentious issue you and Dresden are going at each other about. Actually, I should say you and about ten other members are going at each other about. You are one heck of a brave guy, taking this issue on, Mike, because you DO know you're going to lose, right? All the evidence is on the side of your foes.
Biblical textual criticism has already shown the reliability of our Biblical texts which is the issue that the videos I posted address.
This has nothing to do with what Dr. Wallace is talking about and the purpose for which I started this thread.
Well Dr. Crampton, a literal, inerrantist like yourself, but far more formally biblically educated, said this about Dr. Wallace WHO YOU CLAIM STATES THERE ARE FEW CHANGES MADE BY SCRIBES in the NT.
Quote:
As it turns out, Wallace too denies that “there is a doctrine of preservation [of Scripture]” taught in the Bible (51-52). God’s Word has not been providentially “kept pure in all ages.”He agrees with his opponent (Dr. Bart Ehrman) that Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, and 1 John 5:7 are not of apostolic origin. Allegedly, they are “additions of orthodox scribes…who changed the New Testament text to bring it more into conformity with their views” (28-29). Such comments from an evangelical scholar are quite disturbing.
W. Gary Crampton as quoted in post #17, How Badly Did the Scribes Change the New Testament.
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.
You are one of about 50% of seminary students who hang in there, augie. Statistics show that seminaries like Dallas, Fuller and your alma mater are faith-killers. 50% of high school grads who are all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed Christians eager to become ministers either drop out, lose their faith during college, or after becoming ministers strictly because of the issue the OP raised about the scriptures being inerrant. Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker, and Jerry deWitt are only three of the tens of thousands of former on-fire-for-the-Lord Christians who dropped out of Christianity after finding out the Bible is rife with errors and certainly NOT inspired by God.
Ehrman often states how when he wrote a paper on a Markan statement that conflicted with general consensus and handed it in to his Professor, Bruce Metzger, the professor wrote at the bottom, "Maybe Mark just made a mistake". That, Ehrman states, started him on his road to agnosticism and then atheism.
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.
Now add to those "few" errors the horrible translations that have impacted the scriptures--and they are truly horrible. In Genesis, the word "sin" is not an exact translation of the Hebrew. The better translation would be "missing the mark." But an entire doctrine of original sin (which I believe personally, however, for other reasons) has arisen around a mistranslation by---SCRIBES!!!
Missing the mark, which was brought into the homiletics of some evangelical churches about 40 years ago, has now been conveniently dropped in favor of sin which some Christians utilize as a hammer to beat non-Christians over the head with. In fact, a more literal translation would be that they are not "sinners" but people who have "missed the mark," an entirely different perspective at least by people in today's world. And the hammer on sin is absolutely a doctrinal message that many Christians, including myself, use today without a total understanding of the term. Who knows how the Hebrews might have viewed it?
So the combination of scribal errors AND mistranslations has meant that textual criticism is quite critical to get any appreciation for the intent of the original writers. And there is much to legitimately debate about that. And that strange, unfortunate combination has and does impact doctrine taught by the church, both evangelical and more moderate.
We all ought to at least be honest enough to accept that we frequently haven't a clue about what we spout off to others, not from the texts we have, anyway.
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!
Absolutely and .... so what if they do so for study as that does not mean the text is corrupt as other scholars see no need for that type of study. Now looking for other things in the text, like word use in context, grammatical issues are always beneficial in understanding the text and do not mean there is any doubt about the text.
Now add to those "few" errors the horrible translations that have impacted the scriptures--and they are truly horrible. In Genesis, the word "sin" is not an exact translation of the Hebrew. The better translation would be "missing the mark." But an entire doctrine of original sin (which I believe personally, however, for other reasons) has arisen around a mistranslation by---SCRIBES!!!
Missing the mark, which was brought into the homiletics of some evangelical churches about 40 years ago, has now been conveniently dropped in favor of sin which some Christians utilize as a hammer to beat non-Christians over the head with. In fact, a more literal translation would be that they are not "sinners" but people who have "missed the mark," an entirely different perspective at least by people in today's world. And the hammer on sin is absolutely a doctrinal message that many Christians, including myself, use today without a total understanding of the term. Who knows how the Hebrews might have viewed it?
So the combination of scribal errors AND mistranslations has meant that textual criticism is quite critical to get any appreciation for the intent of the original writers. And there is much to legitimately debate about that. And that strange, unfortunate combination has and does impact doctrine taught by the church, both evangelical and more moderate.
We all ought to at least be honest enough to accept that we frequently haven't a clue about what we spout off to others, not from the texts we have, anyway.
Except that Adam's sin was spoken by Paul in Greek 2000 years ago.
"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." ~ Romans 5:12-14
So I think your '40 years ago' theory is a bit... incorrect.
The pundits of "since we don't have the 'originals' we can't know for sure thus the Bible isn't reliable" is making this an excuse to justify their rejection of the truth .... nothing more.
It's nonsense to think that there was only one copy of the "originals" at the time of Jesus when one considers each synagogue had scriptures being read from them not to mention the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus didn't carry around the "authorized official originals" when he read them nor do we have Jesus or his enemies accusing one another of not using the "authorized official originals".
The same people that make this an issue is the same crowd who opposes anything from the Bible that doesn't suit their fancy.
It's a lot easier to find fault with the Bible and come out with alternatives than it is to conform yourself to the truth.
Now add to those "few" errors the horrible translations that have impacted the scriptures--and they are truly horrible. In Genesis, the word "sin" is not an exact translation of the Hebrew. The better translation would be "missing the mark." But an entire doctrine of original sin (which I believe personally, however, for other reasons) has arisen around a mistranslation by---SCRIBES!!!
Missing the mark, which was brought into the homiletics of some evangelical churches about 40 years ago, has now been conveniently dropped in favor of sin which some Christians utilize as a hammer to beat non-Christians over the head with. In fact, a more literal translation would be that they are not "sinners" but people who have "missed the mark," an entirely different perspective at least by people in today's world. And the hammer on sin is absolutely a doctrinal message that many Christians, including myself, use today without a total understanding of the term. Who knows how the Hebrews might have viewed it?
So the combination of scribal errors AND mistranslations has meant that textual criticism is quite critical to get any appreciation for the intent of the original writers. And there is much to legitimately debate about that. And that strange, unfortunate combination has and does impact doctrine taught by the church, both evangelical and more moderate.
We all ought to at least be honest enough to accept that we frequently haven't a clue about what we spout off to others, not from the texts we have, anyway.
Word meaning by itself does not indicate trhe meaning in a given context.
The word:
TWOT(638e) taJ'x; (µa‰‰Â¹Â°t) sin, sin offering.
The root occurs about 580 times in the Old Testament and is thus its principle word for sin. The basic meaning of the root is to miss a mark or a way. It is used two or three times in Ugaritic to mean "sin" (UT 19:no. 952, Ais WUS 1019).
The verbal forms occur in enough secular contexts to provide a basic picture of the word's meaning. In Jud 20:16 the left-handed slingers of Benjamin are said to have the skill to throw stones at targets and "not miss." In a different context, Prov 19:2 speaks of a man in a hurry who "misses his way" (RSV, NEB, KJV has "sinneth"). A similar idea of not finding a goal appears in Prov 8:36; the concept of failure is implied.
The verb has the connotation of breach of civil law, i.e. failure to live up to expectations, in Gen 40:1. Compare the international overtones of 2Kings 18:14, and the accusatory thrust of the word, fault, in Exo 5:7. The Egyptians had failed to supply straw for brick-making. Serious breakdown in personal relationship is highlighted by the verb, negatively in 1Sam 19:4, and 1Sam 24:12 but by confession of Saul in 1Sam 26:21. Compare Jud 11:27.
Thus "sin" is indicative that we have not done what we should, we have failed to do as we should, we have breached God's law and negatively impacted our relationship with Him. The single word "Sin" in English carries such connotations to the reader.
It is a bad act we need to quit doing, avoid doing in the future and repent for.
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.
What do you suppose Ehrman's "end game" is? Why do you think he does this schtick? The bottom line is he's made a lot of money being the "rational skeptic". He's made quite a comfortable living bilking the masses that simply don't want to believe...no matter how unreasonable his views are.
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.
