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.
Inspiration, and thus inerrancy refers to the original autographs. Not to the manuscript copies. God the Holy Spirit so superintended the writers of the original autographs that they wrote without error. The estimated 400,000 ''errors,'' the technical term used by scholars is ''textual variants'', in the New Testament manuscript copies do not negate the inerrancy of the original autographs.
And the vast majority of the textual variants in the extant manuscript copies are absolutely meaningless. They are things such as differences in spelling or word order. Using the pronoun 'He' instead of 'Jesus' as in Matt. 4:18 is a textual variant among manuscripts as is 'Jesus' instead of 'Jesus Christ' as in 1 Corinthians 9:1. There are only a few variants that have some degree of meaning, and they are easily recognized today. But they still do not result in any essential doctrine of the Christian faith being affected. The insertion of the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 in four late medieval manuscripts does not affect the doctrine of the Trinity since the doctrine of the Trinity was arrived at from other Scripture in the early Church long before the insertion of the Comma. A couple of manuscripts say the number of the beast is 616 while most manuscripts have 666. That is a meaningful variant but doesn't affect any essential doctrine. New Testament textual scholar Dan Wallace states, ''
Most Scholars agree that Mark 16:9-20 is not original and can be disregarded. And most Bible translations indicate in some way that those verses are not original.
The goal of lower textual criticism is to reproduce the original Biblical text by identifying and comparing all of the textual variants. The fact that there are at the present time over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, and perhaps as many as 20,000 manuscripts in total when those of other languages are included makes it possible to make these identifications and comparisons.
Dan Wallace comments;
'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
Our modern Biblical texts are reliable and have not been hopelessly corrupted contrary to the contentions of some.
As for properly interpreting the Bible, the issue is not what it means to you, but what did the writers of Scripture intend to convey. And proper interpretation depends upon a number of things. Here is an article which addresses that subject.
So, the question is why God would be so particular in the first place and then turn His back on the result. Makes no sense.
Actually, the way that God chose to preserve His written Word makes perfect sense. Here is the reason why. Had there been only a very few manuscript copies made which could have fallen into the hands of a single person or organization, then that person or organization could have altered the text without us having any way of knowing that any alternations to the text had been made. But by having the New Testament text explosively distributed across the Roman Empire and beyond over the first few centuries this made it impossible for any one person or organization to get his or its hands on all the copies and thus make undetectable doctrinal changes to all the manuscripts. No one person or group has ever had its hands on all the manuscript copies. The original text is contained among the copies in the midst of all the variants. By comparing all available manuscripts and identifying the variants and weeding out the few meaningful variants (remember that most of the 400,000 variants are absolutely meaningless) it is possible to work back toward the original text, although probably not 100 percent.
Again, as Textual critics say, the variants do not affect or jeopardize any essential doctrine of the Christian faith.
Actually, the way that God chose to preserve His written Word makes perfect sense. Here is the reason why. Had there been only a very few manuscript copies made which could have fallen into the hands of a single person or organization, then that person or organization could have altered the text without us having any way of knowing that any alternations to the text had been made. But by having the New Testament text explosively distributed across the Roman Empire and beyond over the first few centuries this made it impossible for any one person or organization to get his or its hands on all the copies and thus make undetectable doctrinal changes to all the manuscripts. No one person or group has ever had its hands on all the manuscript copies. The original text is contained among the copies in the midst of all the variants. By comparing all available manuscripts and identifying the variants and weeding out the few meaningful variants (remember that most of the 400,000 variants are absolutely meaningless) it is possible to work back toward the original text, although probably not 100 percent.
Again, as Textual critics say, the variants do not affect or jeopardize any essential doctrine of the Christian faith.
And since we do not have access to the ORIGINALS, is what you just said not 100% true?
Actually, the way that God chose to preserve His written Word makes perfect sense. Here is the reason why. Had there been only a very few manuscript copies made which could have fallen into the hands of a single person or organization, then that person or organization could have altered the text without us having any way of knowing that any alternations to the text had been made. But by having the New Testament text explosively distributed across the Roman Empire and beyond over the first few centuries this made it impossible for any one person or organization to get his or its hands on all the copies and thus make undetectable doctrinal changes to all the manuscripts. No one person or group has ever had its hands on all the manuscript copies. The original text is contained among the copies in the midst of all the variants. By comparing all available manuscripts and identifying the variants and weeding out the few meaningful variants (remember that most of the 400,000 variants are absolutely meaningless) it is possible to work back toward the original text, although probably not 100 percent.
Again, as Textual critics say, the variants do not affect or jeopardize any essential doctrine of the Christian faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
So, basically, you are saying that God does not have the power to preserve that He had to formulate,
Inspiration, and thus inerrancy refers to the original autographs. Not to the manuscript copies. God the Holy Spirit so superintended the writers of the original autographs that they wrote without error. The estimated 400,000 ''errors,'' the technical term used by scholars is ''textual variants'', in the New Testament manuscript copies do not negate the inerrancy of the original autographs.
And the vast majority of the textual variants in the extant manuscript copies are absolutely meaningless. They are things such as differences in spelling or word order. Using the pronoun 'He' instead of 'Jesus' as in Matt. 4:18 is a textual variant among manuscripts as is 'Jesus' instead of 'Jesus Christ' as in 1 Corinthians 9:1. There are only a few variants that have some degree of meaning, and they are easily recognized today. But they still do not result in any essential doctrine of the Christian faith being affected. The insertion of the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 in four late medieval manuscripts does not affect the doctrine of the Trinity since the doctrine of the Trinity was arrived at from other Scripture in the early Church long before the insertion of the Comma. A couple of manuscripts say the number of the beast is 616 while most manuscripts have 666. That is a meaningful variant but doesn't affect any essential doctrine. New Testament textual scholar Dan Wallace states, ''
Most Scholars agree that Mark 16:9-20 is not original and can be disregarded. And most Bible translations indicate in some way that those verses are not original.
The goal of lower textual criticism is to reproduce the original Biblical text by identifying and comparing all of the textual variants. The fact that there are at the present time over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, and perhaps as many as 20,000 manuscripts in total when those of other languages are included makes it possible to make these identifications and comparisons.
Dan Wallace comments;
'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
Our modern Biblical texts are reliable and have not been hopelessly corrupted contrary to the contentions of some.
As for properly interpreting the Bible, the issue is not what it means to you, but what did the writers of Scripture intend to convey. And proper interpretation depends upon a number of things. Here is an article which addresses that subject.
Actually, the way that God chose to preserve His written Word makes perfect sense. Here is the reason why. Had there been only a very few manuscript copies made which could have fallen into the hands of a single person or organization, then that person or organization could have altered the text without us having any way of knowing that any alternations to the text had been made. But by having the New Testament text explosively distributed across the Roman Empire and beyond over the first few centuries this made it impossible for any one person or organization to get his or its hands on all the copies and thus make undetectable doctrinal changes to all the manuscripts. No one person or group has ever had its hands on all the manuscript copies. The original text is contained among the copies in the midst of all the variants. By comparing all available manuscripts and identifying the variants and weeding out the few meaningful variants (remember that most of the 400,000 variants are absolutely meaningless) it is possible to work back toward the original text, although probably not 100 percent.
Again, as Textual critics say, the variants do not affect or jeopardize any essential doctrine of the Christian faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zthatzmanz28
And since we do not have access to the ORIGINALS, is what you just said not 100% true?
We don't have the original autographs. However, what was written in those original autographs still exists among all the variants of the manuscript copies.
Note once again what New Testament textual scholar Dan Wallace stated on the matter.
'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
In 2003, Bart Erhman, now an agnostic, wrote in a college textbook
"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 New Testament: A Historical Introduction To the Early Christian Writings', 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pg. 481.
Did or does God direct EVERY copy or just the originals? Critical thinking minds want to know..
I already stated that it is only the original autographs that were inspired or God-breathed. The scribes who copied the manuscript copies made the usual mistakes that arise in the process of copying.
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.
