Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-18-2012, 06:31 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,914 posts, read 26,143,925 times
Reputation: 16060

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
Your post has some good information, but I'm not so sure I would be quoting someone from 1890(!) for reliable and up-to-date information concerning the topic.
The Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing when they claim that modern scholarship has added aboslutely nothing to the understanding of the Bible - they do this by quoting a Jewish Orthodox source from the 1800s. But they also claim they use the Dead Sea Scrolls in their translation, so we have a bit of a contradiction there...

I'm not sure what you mean by "the reliability of the reading of the Bible". Which reading? What reliability?
What I mean is that if you compare the number of available manuscripts both fragmentary and complete, of ancient secular writers and the distance in time beteen those manuscripts and the original writings, with the number of New Testament manuscripts both fragmentary and complete, and the distance in time between those manuscripts and the original autographs, we have far more to work with to establish how closely the Bible we have today accurately records what was in the original autographs, then we do concerning the manuscripts of secular writings and how accurately they reflect the original writings of those authors.



And the only thing that has changed between 1890 and now is that we have more manuscripts available to us, and more work in the field of textual criticism has been done, resulting in very good translations such as the NASB to name just one.


Accuracy of the New Testament

In The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[10] They concluded, "Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected […]. In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater"[10]

10.^ a b K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions & to the Theory & Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 1995, op. cit., p. 29-30

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But you know what's more reliable than textual criticism?

God's promise to preserve His word forever!!! The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-18-2012, 08:19 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,024,865 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
What I mean is that if you compare the number of available manuscripts both fragmentary and complete, of ancient secular writers and the distance in time beteen those manuscripts and the original writings, with the number of New Testament manuscripts both fragmentary and complete, and the distance in time between those manuscripts and the original autographs, we have far more to work with to establish how closely the Bible we have today accurately records what was in the original autographs, then we do concerning the manuscripts of secular writings and how accurately they reflect the original writings of those authors.



And the only thing that has changed between 1890 and now is that we have more manuscripts available to us, and more work in the field of textual criticism has been done, resulting in very good translations such as the NASB to name just one.


Accuracy of the New Testament

In The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland compare the total number of variant-free verses, and the number of variants per page (excluding orthographic errors), among the seven major editions of the Greek NT (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk, Bover, and Nestle-Aland) concluding 62.9%, or 4999/7947, agreement.[10] They concluded, "Thus in nearly two-thirds of the New Testament text, the seven editions of the Greek New Testament which we have reviewed are in complete accord, with no differences other than in orthographical details (e.g., the spelling of names, etc.). Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted. This result is quite amazing, demonstrating a far greater agreement among the Greek texts of the New Testament during the past century than textual scholars would have suspected […]. In the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation the agreement is less, while in the letters it is much greater"[10]

10.^ a b K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions & to the Theory & Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 1995, op. cit., p. 29-30

Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


But you know what's more reliable than textual criticism?

God's promise to preserve His word forever!!! The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8).

The quote from the Aland is not referring to Greek manuscripts persay - but to other scholars work in collating the manuscripts into what they feel is a correct version: their own critical Greek editions. So the comparison is not what you think it's saying. Within the actual texts and manuscripts that the "seven major editions" use for their own critical editions there ARE many variants, and more than the quote hints at. It's strange what they are doing there - they are comparing their critical text to other scholar's critical text, and then pointing out how few variations there are among each other's work. That's not the same as saying the thousands of manuscripts and fragments agree substantially.

Does that make sense?

As for Isaiah - you're confusing what "God's Word" means. He is NOT referring to The Bible as a whole (commonly referred to, by later Christians, as the "Word of God" , or even the many books of the Hebrew Bible. The proclamation, or the "word of Yahweh", is in reference to the Jews stay in Exile, and how they are to be returned to their homeland shortly.
"Comfort, comfort my people," says your God.
"Speak kindly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her,
That her sentence is served, her penalty is paid,
That she has received from Yahweh's hand double for all her sins."

[Judah was taken into Exile because of their sins against Yahweh, and now they have paid the penalty - and more. The next section speaks of the Jews return to their homeland.]

A voice calls:
"Clear a road in the steppe for Yahweh,
Grade a highway in the desert for our God.
Let every valley be filled, and every mountain and hill be leveled;
Let the ridge become a plain, and the hillocks a prairie.
The glory of Yahweh will be revealed, and all flesh will see together;
For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken."

[The imagery of a road being cleared is usual for kings and monarchs, as is the later shepherd imagery. Yahweh is coming to get his people from Exile. His proclamation, his WORD, will be realized in His deed when he brings them out of Exile.]

A voice said: "Proclaim!" And I said, "What shall I proclaim?"
"All flesh is grass, and its constancy like the blossom of the field.
The grass withers, the blossom fades,
When the wind of Yahweh blows on them.
<Surely the people is grass.>
The grass withers, the blossom fades;
But the word of God shall endure forever."

[As should be clear from the context, the "word of God" (vs. 8) is related to the proclamation that comes from "the mouth of Yahweh" (vs. 5) - that He will do what He said through the prophetic oracle.]

Get you up on a high mountain, messenger Zion!
Lift your voice with power, messenger Jerusalem!
Lift it, do not fear!
Say to the cities of Judah: See, it is your God!
See the Lord Yahweh,
He comes in strength, and his arm rules for him:
His reward is with him, and his prize goes before him,
Like a shepherd who feeds his flock, who gathers the lambs with his arm,
And takes them to his bosom, and leads the nursing ewes to rest.

[The cities of Judah, especially Jerusalem, has been waiting for the return of its inhabitants, and now they shall seem them coming back, brought back by God, as a royal shepherd to His people.]

(Isaiah 40:1-11, AB)
I hope the entire passage gives the correct context for the term "the word of God" - it is not referring to "The Bible" (a library of texts that had not yet come into existence), and it is certainly not referring to the New Testament - which would not appear for another 600-700 years later. "The word of God" is Yahweh's proclamation and actions - the people can trust on it. No matter what promises had been made before (that he would forever forsake and curse them if they abandoned Him and his Law), his new message via Isaiah was something to be trusted, something that "shall endure forever" (vs. 8) - unlike the ephemeral "grass" and "blossom", which is like "flesh" (vss. 6, 7), which "whithers" and "fades".

This is the danger of taking verses out of context and applying them to discussions, just because our concordance has found a phrase or word that appears to fit our current idea of something - one must be sure of the original meaning of the verse or phrase, or one runs the risk of misrepresenting the text and God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2012, 08:31 PM
 
63,451 posts, read 39,704,022 times
Reputation: 7788
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
The quote from the Aland is not referring to Greek manuscripts persay - but to other scholars work in collating the manuscripts into what they feel is a correct version: their own critical Greek editions. So the comparison is not what you think it's saying. Within the actual texts and manuscripts that the "seven major editions" use for their own critical editions there ARE many variants, and more than the quote hints at. It's strange what they are doing there - they are comparing their critical text to other scholar's critical text, and then pointing out how few variations there are among each other's work. That's not the same as saying the thousands of manuscripts and fragments agree substantially.

Does that make sense?

As for Isaiah - you're confusing what "God's Word" means. He is NOT referring to The Bible as a whole (commonly referred to, by later Christians, as the "Word of God" , or even the many books of the Hebrew Bible. The proclamation, or the "word of Yahweh", is in reference to the Jews stay in Exile, and how they are to be returned to their homeland shortly.
"Comfort, comfort my people," says your God.
"Speak kindly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her,
That her sentence is served, her penalty is paid,
That she has received from Yahweh's hand double for all her sins."

[Judah was taken into Exile because of their sins against Yahweh, and now they have paid the penalty - and more. The next section speaks of the Jews return to their homeland.]

A voice calls:
"Clear a road in the steppe for Yahweh,
Grade a highway in the desert for our God.
Let every valley be filled, and every mountain and hill be leveled;
Let the ridge become a plain, and the hillocks a prairie.
The glory of Yahweh will be revealed, and all flesh will see together;
For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken."

[The imagery of a road being cleared is usual for kings and monarchs, as is the later shepherd imagery. Yahweh is coming to get his people from Exile. His proclamation, his WORD, will be realized in His deed when he brings them out of Exile.]

A voice said: "Proclaim!" And I said, "What shall I proclaim?"
"All flesh is grass, and its constancy like the blossom of the field.
The grass withers, the blossom fades,
When the wind of Yahweh blows on them.
<Surely the people is grass.>
The grass withers, the blossom fades;
But the word of God shall endure forever."

[As should be clear from the context, the "word of God" (vs. 8) is related to the proclamation that comes from "the mouth of Yahweh" (vs. 5) - that He will do what He said through the prophetic oracle.]

Get you up on a high mountain, messenger Zion!
Lift your voice with power, messenger Jerusalem!
Lift it, do not fear!
Say to the cities of Judah: See, it is your God!
See the Lord Yahweh,
He comes in strength, and his arm rules for him:
His reward is with him, and his prize goes before him,
Like a shepherd who feeds his flock, who gathers the lambs with his arm,
And takes them to his bosom, and leads the nursing ewes to rest.

[The cities of Judah, especially Jerusalem, has been waiting for the return of its inhabitants, and now they shall seem them coming back, brought back by God, as a royal shepherd to His people.]

(Isaiah 40:1-11, AB)
I hope the entire passage gives the correct context for the term "the word of God" - it is not referring to "The Bible" (a library of texts that had not yet come into existence), and it is certainly not referring to the New Testament - which would not appear for another 600-700 years later. "The word of God" is Yahweh's proclamation and actions - the people can trust on it. No matter what promises had been made before (that he would forever forsake and curse them if they abandoned Him and his Law), his new message via Isaiah was something to be trusted, something that "shall endure forever" (vs. 8) - unlike the ephemeral "grass" and "blossom", which is like "flesh" (vss. 6, 7), which "whithers" and "fades".

This is the danger of taking verses out of context and applying them to discussions, just because our concordance has found a phrase or word that appears to fit our current idea of something - one must be sure of the original meaning of the verse or phrase, or one runs the risk of misrepresenting the text and God.
Sadly this king of scholarship will have no impact on the unreasoning credulity of the "Bible is the word of God" crowd, Whoppers. They have been indoctrinated thoroughly to despise the "wisdom of man" in favor of the ancient ignorance of our ancestors as they read it in English today . . . all as a sign of their Faith. Mike is impervious to any scholarship antithetical to his Mentors' having been indoctrinated from age five.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2012, 09:41 PM
 
3,483 posts, read 4,024,865 times
Reputation: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Sadly this king of scholarship will have no impact on the unreasoning credulity of the "Bible is the word of God" crowd, Whoppers. They have been indoctrinated thoroughly to despise the "wisdom of man" in favor of the ancient ignorance of our ancestors as they read it in English today . . . all as a sign of their Faith. Mike is impervious to any scholarship antithetical to his Mentors' having been indoctrinated from age five.
Well, hopefully he will at least see that the Isaiah reference is not a reference to "The Bible" as a whole, or even a book of the Bible. Hopefully it might highlight how a certain Gospel writer mis-used the passage, as well: modern believers are not the only ones who have quoted scripture to their purpose!

I agree that there is a decided antipathy for any conclusions reached by humans among many conservatives, and this is ironic in itself - as you point out.

The quotation from Aland's Greek Text is frequently misquoted to apply to something it's not really saying, in addition. I have seen it done before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 01:03 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,914 posts, read 26,143,925 times
Reputation: 16060
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
The quote from the Aland is not referring to Greek manuscripts persay - but to other scholars work in collating the manuscripts into what they feel is a correct version: their own critical Greek editions. So the comparison is not what you think it's saying. Within the actual texts and manuscripts that the "seven major editions" use for their own critical editions there ARE many variants, and more than the quote hints at. It's strange what they are doing there - they are comparing their critical text to other scholar's critical text, and then pointing out how few variations there are among each other's work. That's not the same as saying the thousands of manuscripts and fragments agree substantially.

Does that make sense?
I am well aware of what is being referred to. Is was plainly stated that the seven major editions of the Greek New Testament are in complete agreement with each other regarding nearly two thirds of the New Testament.

The Novum Testamentum Graece edited by Eberhard and Erwin Nestle, and Kurt Aland, and the Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies are the best in modern textual scholarship. A large number of manuscripts are used to determine what is thought to be closest to the original. As for the significant variations...

Do you want to know what are considered significant variations?

For example:

1.) In Mark 1:1 many manuscripts don't include the phrase 'the Son of God.' But whether or not the original autograph included that phrase is irrelevent because either way it changes nothing of doctrinal importance. Jesus Christ IS the Son of God whether He is stated to be so in that particular verse or not.

2.) Mark 7:16 'If any man has ears to hear, let him hear.', is not included in many manuscripts. Whether it was in the original autograph or not doesn't change the message.

3.) Luke 8:43 Some manuscripts add to that verse the phrase 'who had spent all her living upon physicians.' Again, it doesn't affect anything whether that phrase was in the original autographs are not.

4.) Luke 22:19:20 Some manuscripts don't include 22:19b-20, 'which is given for you . . . which is poured out as a sacrifice for you.' Matthew 26:26 says only ''Take, eat; this is My body.' It doesn't say 'which is given for you.' Mark 14:22 also says simply ''Take it, this is My body.'' So the phrase 'which is given for you' in Luke 22:19 may not be in the original autograph. Then again, only some manuscripts don't include the phrase 'which is given for you'. As for verse 20 referring to His blood being poured out, it is included in most manuscripts for Luke, and it is in Matthew and Mark.


5.) Matthew 17:21 'But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.'' Many manuscripts do not contain this verse and was probably not in the original. Mark 9:29 mentions only that prayer is necessary. Not fasting.

Those are just a few examples. The varients don't change anything of doctrinal importance.

If there is something wildly different in a few manuscripts as compared to the rest, textual criticism can pretty much disregard it as not being in the original autographs.

Quote:
As for Isaiah - you're confusing what "God's Word" means. He is NOT referring to The Bible as a whole (commonly referred to, by later Christians, as the "Word of God" , or even the many books of the Hebrew Bible. The proclamation, or the "word of Yahweh", is in reference to the Jews stay in Exile, and how they are to be returned to their homeland shortly.
"Comfort, comfort my people," says your God.
"Speak kindly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her,
That her sentence is served, her penalty is paid,
That she has received from Yahweh's hand double for all her sins."

[Judah was taken into Exile because of their sins against Yahweh, and now they have paid the penalty - and more. The next section speaks of the Jews return to their homeland.]

A voice calls:
"Clear a road in the steppe for Yahweh,
Grade a highway in the desert for our God.
Let every valley be filled, and every mountain and hill be leveled;
Let the ridge become a plain, and the hillocks a prairie.
The glory of Yahweh will be revealed, and all flesh will see together;
For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken."

[The imagery of a road being cleared is usual for kings and monarchs, as is the later shepherd imagery. Yahweh is coming to get his people from Exile. His proclamation, his WORD, will be realized in His deed when he brings them out of Exile.]

A voice said: "Proclaim!" And I said, "What shall I proclaim?"
"All flesh is grass, and its constancy like the blossom of the field.
The grass withers, the blossom fades,
When the wind of Yahweh blows on them.
<Surely the people is grass.>
The grass withers, the blossom fades;
But the word of God shall endure forever."

[As should be clear from the context, the "word of God" (vs. 8) is related to the proclamation that comes from "the mouth of Yahweh" (vs. 5) - that He will do what He said through the prophetic oracle.]

Get you up on a high mountain, messenger Zion!
Lift your voice with power, messenger Jerusalem!
Lift it, do not fear!
Say to the cities of Judah: See, it is your God!
See the Lord Yahweh,
He comes in strength, and his arm rules for him:
His reward is with him, and his prize goes before him,
Like a shepherd who feeds his flock, who gathers the lambs with his arm,
And takes them to his bosom, and leads the nursing ewes to rest.

[The cities of Judah, especially Jerusalem, has been waiting for the return of its inhabitants, and now they shall seem them coming back, brought back by God, as a royal shepherd to His people.]

(Isaiah 40:1-11, AB)
I hope the entire passage gives the correct context for the term "the word of God" - it is not referring to "The Bible" (a library of texts that had not yet come into existence), and it is certainly not referring to the New Testament - which would not appear for another 600-700 years later. "The word of God" is Yahweh's proclamation and actions - the people can trust on it. No matter what promises had been made before (that he would forever forsake and curse them if they abandoned Him and his Law), his new message via Isaiah was something to be trusted, something that "shall endure forever" (vs. 8) - unlike the ephemeral "grass" and "blossom", which is like "flesh" (vss. 6, 7), which "whithers" and "fades".

This is the danger of taking verses out of context and applying them to discussions, just because our concordance has found a phrase or word that appears to fit our current idea of something - one must be sure of the original meaning of the verse or phrase, or one runs the risk of misrepresenting the text and God.
People keep trying to separate God from His word. The word of God whether given orally or in written form is the word of God. The Scriptures, both Old and New Testament are the word of God and will stand forever. As you'll notice, Peter quoted Isaiah 40:6-8 with regard to the preached gospel by which they were saved.

Isaiah 40:6-8 is contrasting the difference between people and God. People are temporary and they change. They are like wild grass and flowers that come up in the springtime but then fade and fail when the weather gets hot (Psalms 37:2, 102:11, 103:15-16). But God's word endures forever. His word stands. Now in the context of Isaiah 40, God is giving through Isaiah, words of comfort to the people that their time of trial was about over. The 70 year captivity was almost at an end. In 40:3 he is calling for the people to prepare the way for the Lord. And Isaiah was thinking of the Millennial kingdom not knowing because it had not been revealed, that there would be two comings of the Lord, separated by the church-age.

In 1 Peter 1:24-25 Peter quotes Isaiah 40:6-8 in reference to the word that was preached to his readers. The word preached to them was the gospel as mentioned in verse 12. The gospel which is a part of the word of God abides forever.

The word of the Lord, the doctrine delivered by God concerning Jesus Christ stands forever. And with the completion of the New Testament Scriptures, all doctrine is recorded and preserved for us.

God's word, God's promises, endure forever. And the Scriptures, being God's word endures forever.

To make it even more clear, Jesus said ''It is written that man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'' (Matthew 4:4). Now God's word, everything He chose to communicate to man, has been preserved in writing so that man can have the words of God by which spiritual nourishment may be attained.

Last edited by Michael Way; 02-19-2012 at 02:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 01:19 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,914 posts, read 26,143,925 times
Reputation: 16060
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
Well, hopefully he will at least see that the Isaiah reference is not a reference to "The Bible" as a whole, or even a book of the Bible. Hopefully it might highlight how a certain Gospel writer mis-used the passage, as well: modern believers are not the only ones who have quoted scripture to their purpose!

I agree that there is a decided antipathy for any conclusions reached by humans among many conservatives, and this is ironic in itself - as you point out.

The quotation from Aland's Greek Text is frequently misquoted to apply to something it's not really saying, in addition. I have seen it done before.
Refer to post #35. Isaiah 40:6-8 is a promise that God's word stands forever and that includes His words recorded in the Scriptures. And Aland's quote was not been misquoted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 01:31 AM
 
289 posts, read 310,199 times
Reputation: 199
Honestly, I'm not quite following how you can say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
God's word, God's promises, endure forever. And the Scriptures, being God's word endures forever.
while at the same time asserting:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
The varients don't change anything of doctrinal importance.
as though "variations" on God's word are ok as long as the "general idea" comes through. Because, frankly, I'm getting the "the NT is inerrant" vibe from this discussion, perhaps from quotes such as:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
God's promise to preserve His word forever!!! The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever. (Isaiah 40:8).
and, maybe it's just my poor understanding, but to me, "preserv[ing] His word forever" and "stands forever" should equate to either:

a) no variations, or preferably
b) possessing the "original"


Otherwise, it's not really "forever", now is it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 01:56 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,914 posts, read 26,143,925 times
Reputation: 16060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyfor View Post
Honestly, I'm not quite following how you can say:



while at the same time asserting:



as though "variations" on God's word are ok as long as the "general idea" comes through. Because, frankly, I'm getting the "the NT is inerrant" vibe from this discussion, perhaps from quotes such as:



and, maybe it's just my poor understanding, but to me, "preserv[ing] His word forever" and "stands forever" should equate to either:

a) no variations, or preferably
b) possessing the "original"


Otherwise, it's not really "forever", now is it?

It's very simple. The original autograhs were God-breathed. And inerrant. The manuscript copies have variations and errors which do not change or cause any point of doctrine to be lost. God's message has been preserved in the Bibles we have today. And I gave examples of some of those variants to demonstrate that. Nothing of what God communicated to the human writers of the original autographs has been lost. And there are no contradictions in the Bible. Inerrancy does not allow there to be any contradictions. Apparent contradictions are simply misunderstanding on the part of the one who thinks there is. For instance, a poster recently claimed that the gospel of John contradicted the other gospels concerning the day that Jesus was crucified. But the four gospels are in agreement that Jesus died on the day of preparation, the day before Passover. The passages which say this are Matthew 27:57,62; Mark 15:42-43; Luke 23:54-55; and John 19:31.


Jesus Himself the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). He was referring to the Old Testament but it applies to the New Testament as well. That is a clear statement of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Last edited by Michael Way; 02-19-2012 at 02:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 04:59 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,914 posts, read 26,143,925 times
Reputation: 16060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
It's very simple. The original autograhs were God-breathed. And inerrant. The manuscript copies have variations and errors which do not change or cause any point of doctrine to be lost. God's message has been preserved in the Bibles we have today. And I gave examples of some of those variants to demonstrate that. Nothing of what God communicated to the human writers of the original autographs has been lost. And there are no contradictions in the Bible. Inerrancy does not allow there to be any contradictions. Apparent contradictions are simply misunderstanding on the part of the one who thinks there is. For instance, a poster recently claimed that the gospel of John contradicted the other gospels concerning the day that Jesus was crucified. But the four gospels are in agreement that Jesus died on the day of preparation, the day before Passover. The passages which say this are Matthew 27:57,62; Mark 15:42-43; Luke 23:54-55; and John 19:31.


Jesus Himself the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). He was referring to the Old Testament but it applies to the New Testament as well. That is a clear statement of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Correction. All four gospels say that Jesus died on the day of preparation before the Sabbath. Not the Passover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2012, 05:29 AM
 
Location: US
32,530 posts, read 21,853,082 times
Reputation: 2226
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
I'm posting this from a different thread. You're going to have to come up with some pretty good references to counter what another member of this forum posted elsewhere.

If we go to the heart of the matter, we find that christians often make claims which are patently false in support of the beliefs. The claim that there are “25,000 ancient manuscripts from the New Testament, of which at least 5600 are copies from the original Greek. Of these there are only 40 lines of disputed text” is patently false, not to mention academically dishonest and grotesquely misleading.

There are no first century works. There are no second century works either. The earliest writings can only be dated to the first part of the third century, sometime between 200 and 225 CE. In spite of the fact that it is often claimed that there are 5,600 "ancient copies" of the New Testament, the reality is that there is one and only one complete version of the New Testament, and that is Codex Sinaiticus.

So, of the 5,600 alleged “ancient copies” of the New Testament, you have one complete copy (Codex Sinaiticus) and nearly 300 incomplete copies.

What about the other 5,300 “ancient copies?” They aren’t’ copies, as you will see.

Of the those, only a small percentage (12 out of 300 or 4%) even remotely resemble the New Testament. Those 12 are the only texts used when preparing editions of the New Testament (excluding the KJV which is based solely on the faulty Textus Receptus). The remaining 96% are not used because they are either too fragmentary, conflict with other texts, or both. I will list them in order of completeness:

1) Codex Sinaiticus circa 350 CE. Once again, this is the ONLY COMPLETE version of the New Testament.

2) Codex Alexandrinus circa 450 CE. It is nearly complete and very close doctrinally to Codex Sinaiticus, except for the Epistles. There are more than 40 disputed lines of text between Codices Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus.

3) Codex Vaticanus circa 350 CE. It is true that all of Revelation is missing, as are 46 chapters of Genesis, 30 Psalms, all of the pastoral epistles, and Hebrews 9 thru 13. This codex is doctrinally influenced by the Alexandrian school. The gospels differ greatly from Codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus (more than the 40 lines of disputed text).

4) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus circa 450 CE. Most of you wouldn’t even recognize this as the New Testament, because there are 100s of lines of disputed text. It contains portions of every book except for 2 Thessalonians and 2 John.

5) Codex Bezae/Cantabrigiensis circa 450 CE. This book contains the gospels and Acts only. It is heavily Western influenced and contains dozens of lines of disputed text.

6) Codex Claromontanus circa 550 CE. It contains only the Epistles by Paul and Hebrews. This and the following two codices are based on Western Doctrine.

7) Codices Augiensis and Boernerianus circa 850 CE. Contains only Paul’s Epistles.

8) Codex Regius circa 750 CE. Only the gospels. It most often agrees with Codex Vaticanus. Again, several hundred lines of disputed text, not 40 lines.

9) Codex Washingtonianus circa 425 CE. No relation to President George Washington. A Byzantine work of portions of the gospels only. Parts of John appear to be copied from Codex Alexandrinus.

10) Codex Koridethi circa 850 CE. Gospel parts only. Parts of Mark appear to have been quoted from the works of Origen and Eusebius in the 3rd and 4th Centuries respectively.

11) Codex Athous Laurae circa 900 CE. Contains parts of gospels, Acts, most of Paul and the Epistles. A mix of the Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine doctrines. Hundreds of lines of disputed text.

That’s it.

All other copies are fragmentary. What about the other 280-odd “New Testaments?” The majority of those are the various versions of the Textus Receptus (there is no such thing as a “standard” Textus Receptus), a text which had at one time had 1,838 disputed lines of text, and all date after 1500, so they are by no means “ancient” in spite of what people claim.

The remainder are worse than Codex Athous Laurae. They exist only as a few chapters or parts of several chapters, and they conflict heavily.
I'd also say that it should be written in first century Hebrew...If it is genuine...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top