How Badly Did Scribes Change the New Testament Bible? (Dr. Daniel B. Wallace) (women, dogma)

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx

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.

Notice the above... even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, in other words those who had not been tainted by Adam's sin. Obviously, if these did not inherit Adam's "original" sin, then there is no such thing as original sin, just the consequences of the first sin which is death.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

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.


W. Gary Crampton as quoted in post #17, How Badly Did the Scribes Change the New Testament.

So much for the purity of the videos you posted.

Again you twist what I said and make a false allegation. Dr. Wallace has stated (as I have already mentioned in post #21) that there are between 300,000 and 400,000 textual variants in the manuscript copies. But most of them are minor and meaningless. And again, Wallace stated in the video that no essential Christian belief is jeopardized by any viable variant in the New Testament manuscripts.

He has also stated the following in an article that 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

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

So has William Lane Craig. They're ALL in it for the $$$'s, not to mention the power and prestige.

[Wardendresden]

Originally Posted by Vizio

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.

Since it changed his religious views it obviously has a personal meaning to him. Although, in fairness, he has written that he begins his New Testament courses by telling his students that no one should necessarily reach his same conclusion as an agnostic, they should understand any beliefs they retain as "faith." Isn't that what Christians believe, despite the many attempts to "justify" faith with Noah's Ark being found or some other equally obnoxious idol?

Here are the facts: there are about 140,000 words in the Greek New Testament, and scholars estimate there are about 400,000 variant readings, or about 3 per word on average! Yes, it is a fair statement to say that 96% of them are simply misspellings, placing words in improper order, or some other "mistake." About 3% give different but plausible meanings. That leaves a mere ONE PERCENT (.01 x 400,000 = 4000) more significant errors that include additions, probable subtractions (which textual criticism can and has found), and changes intended to sway the thoughts of readers.

So if you wish to reach the conclusion that the 99% "insignificant" changes make up the only important parts of the Bible---go for it. But don't cry you are an inerrantist when the 4000 significant errors are glaring out of the New Testament. And folks who write about "there are no significant changes between the original autographs and the copies we have," are inevitably inerrantists. The truth means all of us have to critically assess scripture and carry away more than a Sunday School understanding of the "Word of God," as important as the documents may be.

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx

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.

Paul never once used the term, "original sin". He did imply that because of Adam's sin death entered into the cosmos, but he never once said we inherit the sin Adam committed like we inherit genes.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Since it changed his religious views it obviously has a personal meaning to him. Although, in fairness, he has written that he begins his New Testament courses by telling his students that no one should necessarily reach his same conclusion as an agnostic, they should understand any beliefs they retain as "faith." Isn't that what Christians believe, despite the many attempts to "justify" faith with Noah's Ark being found or some other equally obnoxious idol?

Here are the facts: there are about 140,000 words in the Greek New Testament, and scholars estimate there are about 400,000 variant readings, or about 3 per word on average! Yes, it is a fair statement to say that 96% of them are simply misspellings, placing words in improper order, or some other "mistake." About 3% give different but plausible meanings. That leaves a mere ONE PERCENT (.01 x 400,000 = 4000) more significant errors that include additions, probable subtractions (which textual criticism can and has found), and changes intended to sway the thoughts of readers.

So if you wish to reach the conclusion that the 99% "insignificant" changes make up the only important parts of the Bible---go for it. But don't cry you are an inerrantist when the 4000 significant errors are glaring out of the New Testament. And folks who write about "there are no significant changes between the original autographs and the copies we have," are inevitably inerrantists. The truth means all of us have to critically assess scripture and carry away more than a Sunday School understanding of the "Word of God," as important as the documents may be.

What "scholars" estimate 400,000 variant readings?

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Wardendresden

Since it changed his religious views it obviously has a personal meaning to him. Although, in fairness, he has written that he begins his New Testament courses by telling his students that no one should necessarily reach his same conclusion as an agnostic, they should understand any beliefs they retain as "faith." Isn't that what Christians believe, despite the many attempts to "justify" faith with Noah's Ark being found or some other equally obnoxious idol?

Here are the facts: there are about 140,000 words in the Greek New Testament, and scholars estimate there are about 400,000 variant readings, or about 3 per word on average! Yes, it is a fair statement to say that 96% of them are simply misspellings, placing words in improper order, or some other "mistake." About 3% give different but plausible meanings. That leaves a mere ONE PERCENT (.01 x 400,000 = 4000) more significant errors that include additions, probable subtractions (which textual criticism can and has found), and changes intended to sway the thoughts of readers.

So if you wish to reach the conclusion that the 99% "insignificant" changes make up the only important parts of the Bible---go for it. But don't cry you are an inerrantist when the 4000 significant errors are glaring out of the New Testament. And folks who write about "there are no significant changes between the original autographs and the copies we have," are inevitably inerrantists. The truth means all of us have to critically assess scripture and carry away more than a Sunday School understanding of the "Word of God," as important as the documents may be.

Why don't you try naming just a couple dozen of those significant errors that you think endangers any essential Christian belief?

[Hyker]

Hello twin.spin

Originally Posted by twin.spin

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.

What makes you so certain that you can know the hearts and minds of others?

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".

This discussion has thus far been about the New Testament, which did not exist at during the lifetime of Jesus.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Mike555

Again you twist what I said and make a false allegation. Dr. Wallace has stated (as I have already mentioned in post #21) that there are between 300,000 and 400,000 textual variants in the manuscript copies. But most of them are minor and meaningless. And again, Wallace stated in the video that no essential Christian belief is jeopardized by any viable variant in the New Testament manuscripts.

He has also stated the following in an article that 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

See, the same material you posed in a thread one year ago accept those quotes where to substantiate inerrantcy. https://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...rd-god-40.html

I'll state what I stated in that thread:

Let's see the OP started out with the claim that 'the Bible is the inerrant word of God.'

This is basically saying that the Bilbe we have now is inerrant.

Yet the OP then says that inerrantcy refers only to the autographs and that the Bible, we have now (which are from copies of these supposed inerrant autographs) do have errors and variations.

If so then the phrase 'the Bible is the inerrant word of God' is completely bogus.

Furthermore, the OP then went on to state that we can construct the original autographs from the error and variation filled copies that we now have not realizing that the men he quoted to support his take on inerrantcy refuted that very notion - in other words we cannot reconstruct, with 100% accuracy, the autographs. The point of the man he quoted (Wallace) was that we have more information (i.e. 110%) than necessary to reconstruct the original but that we can not do so because of our inability to choose from this information what was the correct reading with 100% accuracy.

Beyond this the OP tried to argue that errors and variations do not really matter since no doctrine was altered in spite of such errors and variations.

He does this without listing such 'doctrines' that have not been touched by these errors or variations nor has he been able to reconcile God's character with his notion of preservation - why not preserve the autographs not only from doctrinal errors and variation but from general errors and variations - I mean he is God nothing is to hard for him. As an example - is the pre-trib position of the OP a 'doctrine' that was preserved or is that open to general error and variations?

All of this is in spite of the numerous errors and contradictions that have been pointed out to the OP in other threads - whether or not they touch doctrine or not does not matter - The Bible is not the inerrant word of any God.

The thread has thus been refuted:

And likewise so has this thread - since having 110% means that the original can be constructed (that is hypothetically) it has not and can not since no one can figure out what 10% to get rid of in order to have the original.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Vizio

What "scholars" estimate 400,000 variant readings?

Well actually Vizio, scholars do estimate between 300,000 and 400,000 variants in the manuscripts. Dan Wallace leans to the high side of that estimate. But most of those variants are meaningless.