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.
As I said, I don't think it's possible to know, and for me it isn't that important. Certainly I would agree that the authors of both Matthew and Luke had a specific purpose in mind when they wrote their birth stories---they needed Jesus to be born in Bethlehem rather than born in Nazareth which is much more likely. For me, what difference does it make? It just shows that men in that time were as prone as men today in trying to make things "fit," whether it be prophecy or in conflating the two birth stories to become a third that includes all elements but doesn't represent the thought processes of either. It's one of the more interesting things to compare between the two authors. Obviously neither aware of what the other wrote, and no third source for any kind of commonality.
I happen to think that Luke was entirely familiar with Matthew and intentionally wrote things that turned Matthew upside down. Matthew's Gospel is very Jewish in outlook. Luke was talking to a gentile audience. I see Luke practically shouting This is NOT Matthew's version. But that is getting off topic. Maybe another thread ... after I do everything I need to do tomorrow ... or sometime ...
I am attacking your false ideas. Anyone who reads the posts knows that. What you are doing is personalizing those attacks. You are a nameless, faceless entity to me, and there is less to know about the real you on CD than there is me. So get over it.
Textual criticism has uncovered numerous, numerous issues with regard to cardinal doctrines. Now the apologists among them, who are few and far between, like Dr. Wallace, try to make "internal" spins on the messages. But then you have to make the spin as holy as you do the scripture. That is the weakness of fundamentalists. They have to spin dozens of stories of how things "MIGHT" have happened in order to keep the DOCTRINES they are trying to protect by claiming "meaningless" textual variants, intact.
No, the textual variants themselves question the Trinity--I didn't say prove it is false--but enough so that no one should question the Christianity of someone who DOESN'T hold to the Trinity. Evangelicals, by and large DO question the Christianity of those who don't hold to the Trinity. That is misuse of the scripture as determined by the variants.
With regard to Mary, the word virgin has always meant "young woman" in Hebrew. The birth stories themselves are not connected except for being in Bethlehem, and are the result of creative thought to meet the prophecy about Bethlehem. The stories concocted by fundamentalists trying to "mesh" the two are convoluted and ignorant.
If God is able to dictate what men should write, then He's able to make them say the same thing. But He doesn't. Instead He inspired then and men and women now--to express their faith--as humans do, with weakness and sometimes error.
Your faith is in a book, when Christianity is about faith in Christ. The book doesn't need protection from you or anyone else. It does need discernment which fundamentalists have been loathe to do, taking it at face value when it is frequently allegorical.
400,000 textual variants may have only a one percent SIGNIFICANCY, but one percent of 400,000 is still 4000---and that IS significant. Stick to tangling with an amateur like me, McClellan is far more than you've shown you can handle in a debate.
Anyone who reads enough of your posts knows that you do resort to personal attacks, such as when you accused me of attempting to mislead people when I posted those quotes of some textual scholars. Such as when you accused me on another thread of worshipping the apostle Paul, and other totally uncalled for comments of that nature. Yes you make personal attacks and accusations no matter how you try to deny it. In this post you make a general accusation about fundamentalists spinning stories simply because you disagree with them. And you specifically accused Dr. Wallace of resorting to spinning.
The textual criticism has not uncovered numerous issues with regard to the cardinal doctrines. And in questioning the virgin birth of Jesus you are flat our ignoring the fact that Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she would conceive a son by reason of the Holy Spirit coming upon her (Luke 1:26-35). This was in reply to her asking how she could conceive when she was a virgin. Or are you going to claim that a ''young woman'' cannot conceive?
Matthew records the fact that an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him that the child conceived in Mary was of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:21).
But hey!!! If you don't want to believe that just say that Mathew and Luke invented the stories. How convenient!!! Oh wait . . . you did exactly that. You accused them of making a creative story.
Your philosophy seems to be that you are free to attack the Bible but no one has the right to defend it against those attacks.
And I don't need you telling me who are what my faith is in, or what Christianity is about.
And it is less than one percent, and the issue is in what way are they significant? They do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.
But this is all wasted on you as you think you have it all figured out. You don't.
If you disagree with what Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock have said, and if you disagree with textual criticism, that is your right to do so. I simply posted the video for informational purposes.
Regarding your example, if it was valid it would have been uncovered already.
Don't put words in my mouth. While the original autographs are without error, the manuscript copies have variants. New Testament textual criticism examines those variants for the purpose of attempting to determine the reading of the original New Testament autographs.
The greater point is that there are no surviving copies of the original manuscripts. Whether they wrote on paper, wood, papyrus or whatever, we do not have even one word penned by the original author.
So pontificating about whether or not the original autographs were flawless and perfect is pretty irrelevant. All we have is copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. Textual criticism comes down to sorting out how accurate the copies are to the original. Since we don't have any originals, scholars have no choice: They have to guess.
Reading this thread would be enough to turn any thinking person to atheism. If Christians cannot agree on the most "fundamental" of doctrines like whether their "holy" book is inspired or not, how are they going to proselytize to pagans?
No wonder Christianity is collapsing in on itself like a house of cards.
I predict that as more and more people see the Bible for what it really is---a book filled with violence, perversion, half-truths and outright lies they will continue to abandon Christianity in record numbers. They only people who will fill their shoes are the poor, ignorant and uneducated in Africa that Benny the Hinn now caters to, having been effectively "banished" from America and Europe where people are too intelligent to fall for his spiel.
Anyone who reads enough of your posts knows that you do resort to personal attacks, such as when you accused me of attempting to mislead people when I posted those quotes of some textual scholars. Such as when you accused me on another thread of worshipping the apostle Paul, and other totally uncalled for comments of that nature. Yes you make personal attacks and accusations no matter how you try to deny it. In this post you make a general accusation about fundamentalists spinning stories simply because you disagree with them. And you specifically accused Dr. Wallace of resorting to spinning.
The textual criticism has not uncovered numerous issues with regard to the cardinal doctrines. And in questioning the virgin birth of Jesus you are flat our ignoring the fact that Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she would conceive a son by reason of the Holy Spirit coming upon her (Luke 1:26-35). This was in reply to her asking how she could conceive when she was a virgin. Or are you going to claim that a ''young woman'' cannot conceive?
Matthew records the fact that an angel appeared to Joseph in a dream and told him that the child conceived in Mary was of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:21).
But hey!!! If you don't want to believe that just say that Mathew and Luke invented the stories. How convenient!!! Oh wait . . . you did exactly that. You accused them of making a creative story.
Your philosophy seems to be that you are free to attack the Bible but no one has the right to defend it against those attacks.
And I don't need you telling me who are what my faith is in, or what Christianity is about.
And it is less than one percent, and the issue is in what way are they significant? They do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith.
But this is all wasted on you as you think you have it all figured out. You don't.
You betcha you were misleading---and I posted PLENTY of material by two of them to prove they did not hold those positions today. It's called point and counterpoint. If you believe it is a personal attack, it's because you have no grasp of the rules of debate. And if you post it again, I will make the same accusation and provide the same material. You then resorted to saying, "Well, that's what they posted then."
I've since, elsewhere posted a quote by Benedict Arnold that showed him to be quite a patriot, then posted one of him showing his regret at having ever put on the uniform of another nation. An honest evaluation of any scholar or person reveals EVERYTHING about them. You didn't bother to state Ehrman had become an agnostic and what he wrote that you quoted was before he reached that decision. You didn't bother to show that Wallace has said many things that, as I proved, many, many other conservative bible believers think PUTS WALLACE IN THE SAME CAMP with Ehrman.
That is at BEST being misleading.
And Dr. Wallace is spinning. Another professional textual critic has told you as much. The textual critics you hold dearest to your heart are few and far between, and most of them don't even believe the Bible the way you do. I've even posted statements by Dr. Wallace where he has flat out stated that too many conservatives aren't open to the complexities of evaluating scripture. As another conservative pastor noted, "He doesn't believe the Bible is really inerrant, but he believes he is an inerrantist."
With regard to the virgin birth, certainly the author of Luke stated what he did in a tome written long after Mary, Joseph, and most of the others were gone. In fact, it doesn't even pretend to state that any of the disciples were present for this pronouncement by Mary. I guess it was carried in a story line not noted by the much earlier author, Mark. And you still have no ability to reconcile the two plainly differing birth stories in order to preserve the theology you are trying to present on this thread, that the bible is inerrant and infallible.
By the way, YOU are the one telling everyone what your faith is in--and its been continuous now for at well over a year.
Reading this thread would be enough to turn any thinking person to atheism. If Christians cannot agree on the most "fundamental" of doctrines like whether their "holy" book is inspired or not, how are they going to proselytize to pagans?
No wonder Christianity is collapsing in on itself like a house of cards.
I predict that as more and more people see the Bible for what it really is---a book filled with violence, perversion, half-truths and outright lies they will continue to abandon Christianity in record numbers. They only people who will fill their shoes are the poor, ignorant and uneducated in Africa that Benny the Hinn now caters to, having been effectively "banished" from America and Europe where people are too intelligent to fall for his spiel.
There is an old joke in Catholic schools: Yes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Now put it back on the shelf and read the Catechism.
You betcha you were misleading---and I posted PLENTY of material by two of them to prove they did not hold those positions today.
Not true at all. I was not misleading and you did not post anything to show that Dr. Wallace has changed his positions with regard to what was quoted.
Here are Dr. Wallace's statements.
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]
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
Dr. Wallace still holds those views today.
As for Dr. Ehrman, his statement was,
"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.
As you have been told two or three times now, his statement concerns what other scholars believe, and has nothing to do with his own personal beliefs You seem unable to grasp that very simple fact.
"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.
As you have been told two or three times now, his statement concerns what other scholars believe, and has nothing to do with his own personal beliefs You seem unable to grasp that very simple fact.
You accuse others of spinning the truth, but it is you who do what you so freely accuse others of doing.
I'll take these in two separate posts. First, please note that you did not have anything to say about one percent of viable textual variants being the number 4000---for the NT alone. Second, it is well known that the OLDER the manuscript the greater the DIFFERENCES in the manuscripts---as the copies went down through history more and more of the variations began to disappear as the existing church drummed them out.
So how about Dr. Ehrman--can we reconstruct the original words of the NT? Here is from his current blog, which I paid $24.95 for a year's subscription--all of which he donates to charities to feed and shelter the homeless. These are where textual variants ARE meaningful. I have highlighted a few.
For purposes of illustration, I’ll stick with the Gospels, where the majority of my own work has been. I’m giving these more or less at random
Surely it matters whether in Mark’s Gospel Jesus, after his resurrection, told his disciples that those who were baptized in his name would speak in foreign tongues, handle venomous snakes, and drink poison without being harmed. But if he did or not (not historically, but in Mark) all depends on a textual variant
Even more, it matters whether, in Mark, Jesus even *appeared” to his disciples after his death. Again, it depends on a variant. (And you can’t say “it doesn’t matter – because he *does* appear to them in Matthew, Luke, and John – unless you really want to go for the “lumped-together approach)
It matters if in the Gospel of John Jesus forgave a woman for adultery simply by telling her not to do it again (no penance – let alone death by stoning!)
It matters if Matthew and Luke occasionally refer to Joseph as Jesus’ actual father (as in some variants).
It matters if in Luke Jesus was said to have become the Son of God when he was baptized (as in what is probably the oldest form of the text).
It matters if in Mark Jesus gets angry with a poor leper who somewhat pathetically asks him to heal him.
It matters if in the Gospel of Luke – this is a big one, for my money – Jesus does *not* understand his upcoming death as an atonement for sin. In fact, it matters whether Luke even *has* a doctrine of the atonement, or if he understood the importance of Jesus’ death in a completely different way.
It matters, also in Luke, if Jesus was calm and in control the entire time going up to his death (in contrast to Mark), or whether he was in such deep agony that he began “sweating blood” (well, literally, sweating “great drops as if of blood.”)
It matters if in Luke Jesus was said to have ascended on the very day of his resurrection – since the same author, in the book of Acts, indicates that the ascension was in fact forty days later.
It matters if the Gospel of John ever called Jesus “the unique God” (ο μονογενης Θεος), a title that would seem to apply to God the Father but not to the Son of God Jesus, who, to be sure, is divine in John, but is decidedly NOT the “one and only, unique God” himself.
With Dr. Ehrman, I rest my counterpoint. Quite clearly he believes textual variants matter. I suspect he and Mr. McClellan would see a lot of this in similar fashion. To keep quoting Dr. Ehrman on something recorded in a college textbook over a decade ago is clearly misleading.
You are now aware of Dr. Ehrman's position. Should you quote him again with the same words I will again state that it is not only misleading, but dishonest once you have gained knowledge.
I'll take these in two separate posts. First, please note that you did not have anything to say about one percent of viable textual variants being the number 4000---for the NT alone. Second, it is well known that the OLDER the manuscript the greater the DIFFERENCES in the manuscripts---as the copies went down through history more and more of the variations began to disappear as the existing church drummed them out.
So how about Dr. Ehrman--can we reconstruct the original words of the NT? Here is from his current blog, which I paid $24.95 for a year's subscription--all of which he donates to charities to feed and shelter the homeless. These are where textual variants ARE meaningful. I have highlighted a few.
For purposes of illustration, I’ll stick with the Gospels, where the majority of my own work has been. I’m giving these more or less at random
Surely it matters whether in Mark’s Gospel Jesus, after his resurrection, told his disciples that those who were baptized in his name would speak in foreign tongues, handle venomous snakes, and drink poison without being harmed. But if he did or not (not historically, but in Mark) all depends on a textual variant
Even more, it matters whether, in Mark, Jesus even *appeared” to his disciples after his death. Again, it depends on a variant. (And you can’t say “it doesn’t matter – because he *does* appear to them in Matthew, Luke, and John – unless you really want to go for the “lumped-together approach)
It matters if in the Gospel of John Jesus forgave a woman for adultery simply by telling her not to do it again (no penance – let alone death by stoning!)
It matters if Matthew and Luke occasionally refer to Joseph as Jesus’ actual father (as in some variants).
It matters if in Luke Jesus was said to have become the Son of God when he was baptized (as in what is probably the oldest form of the text).
It matters if in Mark Jesus gets angry with a poor leper who somewhat pathetically asks him to heal him.
It matters if in the Gospel of Luke – this is a big one, for my money – Jesus does *not* understand his upcoming death as an atonement for sin. In fact, it matters whether Luke even *has* a doctrine of the atonement, or if he understood the importance of Jesus’ death in a completely different way.
It matters, also in Luke, if Jesus was calm and in control the entire time going up to his death (in contrast to Mark), or whether he was in such deep agony that he began “sweating blood” (well, literally, sweating “great drops as if of blood.”)
It matters if in Luke Jesus was said to have ascended on the very day of his resurrection – since the same author, in the book of Acts, indicates that the ascension was in fact forty days later.
It matters if the Gospel of John ever called Jesus “the unique God” (ο μονογενης Θεος), a title that would seem to apply to God the Father but not to the Son of God Jesus, who, to be sure, is divine in John, but is decidedly NOT the “one and only, unique God” himself.
With Dr. Ehrman, I rest my counterpoint. Quite clearly he believes textual variants matter. I suspect he and Mr. McClellan would see a lot of this in similar fashion. To keep quoting Dr. Ehrman on something recorded in a college textbook over a decade ago is clearly misleading.
You are now aware of Dr. Ehrman's position. Should you quote him again with the same words I will again state that it is not only misleading, but dishonest once you have gained knowledge.
We are talking about the statements of Dr. Wallace and Dr. Ehrman which I quoted.
And you are diverting from the content of Dr. Ehrman's statement which I quoted concerning the views of other scholars and are instead talking about his current views on the variants.
Are you so bereft of understanding that you cannot understand that Ehrman's statement concerned the beliefs of other scholars and that what he personally believes then or now has no relevancy regarding that statement? Are you truly unable to grasp that? Here's 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."
He's talking about other scholars beliefs. What he currently believes has no bearing concerning his statement about other scholars and there is nothing misleading about quoting that statement.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-24-2014 at 09:12 PM..
Not true at all. I was not misleading and you did not post anything to show that Dr. Wallace has changed his positions with regard to what was quoted.
Here are Dr. Wallace's statements.
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]
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
Dr. Wallace still holds those views today.
Now for Dr. Wallace. You utilize the quotes above to support your own stated belief in a number of threads that the Bible is inerrant. Here is how Dr. Wallace DIVORCES himself from inerrancy. From an August 10, 2006 essay where Dr. Wallace is defending himself from evangelicals accusing him of selling out on inerrancy:
"Before I discuss the particular accusations against me regarding inerrancy, I would like to preface my remarks with notes about my methodological approach to this issue. This preface is actually the heart of this paper because it is where the confusion has come. Here goes: The center of all theology, of the entirety of the Christian faith, is Christ himself. The cross is the center of time: all before leads up to it; all after it is shaped by it. If Christ were not God in the flesh, he would not have been raised from the dead. And if he were not raised from the dead, none of us would have any hope. My theology grows out from Christ, is based on Christ, and focuses on Christ.
Years ago, I would have naively believed that all Christians could give their hearty amens to the previous paragraph. Sadly, this is not the case. There are many whose starting point and foundation is bibliology. They begin with the assumption that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and that the way one must define inerrancy is in twentieth-century philosophical terms. I won’t get into the details of how inerrancy (in America at least) has been filtered through the grid of Scottish Common Sense Realism, as that would take us far afield from the main objective here. Suffice it to say that many evangelicals believe that without an inerrant Bible we can’t know anything about Jesus Christ. They often ask the question, “How can we be sure that anything in the Bible is true? How can we be sure that Jesus Christ is who he said he was, or even that he existed, if the Bible is not inerrant?” https://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy
Anyone is welcome to peruse the rest of Dr. Wallace's defense for themselves. He may be conservative, but the reason he is not an inerrantist is because he recognizes small things like the scribal addition of the woman caught in adultery in the gospel of John, and the fact that I John 5:6-7 are also additions---
Quote:
Next, Wallace trots out the old, unproven-to-this-day, argument that the complete text of 1st John 5:6-7 was only included because of a challenge Erasmus made, and that the manuscript evidence was fabricated for his benefit.
So quoting Dr. Wallace without revealing ALL of his beliefs is an attempt to mislead. If it was an honest mistake because you were unaware---now you KNOW. If you attempt to put the quotes above out there again with out pointing out where Dr. Wallace REALLY stands, then it will be dishonest as well.
Neither Ehrman nor Wallace stand with your truthful statement that there are 400,000 textual variants, but you untruthful assertion that it is no big deal. Guess it depends on what doctrines one considers important. If you do not consider inerrancy and the Trinity to be important I take back my comment. Just tell us, like I've told others about the virgin birth--it's not all that important. I'll take you at your word.
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.
