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.
It's only a fact if YOU are the one choosing which doctrines are cardinal. Obviously you are NOT considering inerrancy to be a cardinal doctrine because that has been patently proven false.
Cardinal doctrines according to Religioustolerance.org:
There appears to be a general consensus by conservative and some mainline Protestant faith groups that a list of common beliefs might include:
The incorrectness of inerrancy of scripture had definitely been PROVEN BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT, by textual criticism. And even without textual criticism careful reading of the Bible uncovered a host of problems as far back as the mid eighteenth century.
Now what has happened is that almost all the classically trained conservative scholars have re-defined inerrancy so that they still claim it while admitting errors exist. That is a level of dishonesty reached only by politicians! Thank God textual criticism IS disproving some cardinal documents. And the Trinity, the first on the list, is still very much in debate by textual critics. The cardinal doctrines too often get in the way of a spirit-filled life.
Inerrancy does not mean that the manuscript copies are without mistakes. Inerrancy applies to the original autographs only. The doctrine of inerrancy states that the original autographs of the Bible are inspired [God-breathed] (2 Tim. 3:16). Textual criticism does not seek to examine the truthfulness of what the authors of the original autographs wrote under the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit and so does not, and cannot disprove inerrancy. The purpose of New Testament textual criticism is simply to, as nearly as possible reconstruct the reading of the original autographs by examining the extant New Testament documents.
On the one hand you deny inerrancy, but then with the other hand you affirm that the Bible is inerrant as you did with this statement - ''I do not have to argue for the total historical or factual or even textual reliability of every word of Scripture, and yet can still affirm that all of Scripture is true and is God’s reliable communication (word) to us.''https://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...-inspired.htmlpost #196.
Saying that you affirm that all of Scripture is true and is God's reliable communication (word) to us is affirming Biblical inerrancy. And you even admitted in that post that you contradict yourself.
And with that, there is no further point in bothering replying to you. You have admitted that the Bible is inerrant without using the word inerrant. But with your other hand you will still deny inerrancy.
No cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by the variants in the New Testament manuscripts as textual scholars through the years have stated. And that is the subject discussed in the video in the OP.
and if someone doesn't go watch the video, they will have the impression that you are referring to the entire bible. Even in the video, no one ever states that none of this is true for the old testament, or that their remarks are limited to the manuscripts of the new testament.
If someone doesn't watch the video then he has no business making any comments on this thread since the thread is about the interview on that video, and my comments on the OP are excerpts of what was said in the video.
Your comments in post #89 that the deity of Christ, and His resurrection are affected by the variants are nonsense. Neither doctrine is in the least bit threatened by the variants. And the shorter ending of Mark does not ''complicate'' Jesus' resurrection. Mark's gospel account ends at Mark 16:7 where it is stated that Jesus is risen in verse 6. And Jesus had stated in Mark 10:34 that He would rise again.
Since your profession is textual criticism, your comment with regard to the video that no one ever states that none of this is true for the Old Testament or that their remarks are limited to the manuscripts of the New Testament is simply dishonest. You know that the reference to the 300,000 to 400,000 variants is to the New Testament manuscripts. Not the Old Testament. So when they state that the variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith they obviously are referring to the New Testament only.
You have made it clear that you do not agree with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock. I have made it clear that I do not agree with you. I do agree with them. I am not going to play 'Yes it is, no it isn't. Yes it is, no it isn't. Yes it is, no it isn't' with you. We disagree and we will leave it at that.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-24-2014 at 07:26 AM..
Inerrancy does not mean that the manuscript copies are without mistakes. Inerrancy applies to the original autographs only. The doctrine of inerrancy states that the original autographs of the Bible are inspired [God-breathed] (2 Tim. 3:16). Textual criticism does not seek to examine the truthfulness of what the authors of the original autographs wrote under the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit and so does not, and cannot disprove inerrancy. The purpose of New Testament textual criticism is simply to, as nearly as possible reconstruct the reading of the original autographs by examining the extant New Testament documents.
On the one hand you deny inerrancy, but then with the other hand you affirm that the Bible is inerrant as you did with this statement - ''I do not have to argue for the total historical or factual or even textual reliability of every word of Scripture, and yet can still affirm that all of Scripture is true and is God’s reliable communication (word) to us.''https://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...-inspired.htmlpost #196.
Saying that you affirm that all of Scripture is true and is God's reliable communication (word) to us is affirming Biblical inerrancy. And you even admitted in that post that you contradict yourself.
And with that, there is no further point in bothering replying to you. You have admitted that the Bible is inerrant without using the word inerrant. But with your other hand you will still deny inerrancy.
No cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by the variants in the New Testament manuscripts as textual scholars through the years have stated. And that is the subject discussed in the video in the OP.
Not so Mike, maybe he believes like I do that all scripture is inspired but not everything in our bible is scripture.
If someone doesn't watch the video then he has no business making any comments on this thread since the thread is about the interview on that video, and my comments on the OP are excerpts of what was said in the video.
Your comments in post #89 that the deity of Christ, and His resurrection are affected by the variants are nonsense. Neither doctrine is in the least bit threatened by the variants. And the shorter ending of Mark does not ''complicate'' Jesus' resurrection. Mark's gospel account ends at Mark 16:7 where it is stated that Jesus is risen in verse 6. And Jesus had stated in Mark 10:34 that He would rise again.
Since your profession is textual criticism, your comment with regard to the video that no one ever states that none of this is true for the Old Testament or that their remarks are limited to the manuscripts of the New Testament is simply dishonest. You know that the reference to the 300,000 to 400,000 variants is to the New Testament manuscripts. Not the Old Testament. So when they state that the variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith they obviously are referring to the New Testament only.
You have made it clear that you do not agree with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock. I have made it clear that I do not agree with you. I do agree with them. I am not going to play 'Yes it is, no it isn't. Yes it is, no it isn't. Yes it is, no it isn't' with you. We disagree and we will leave it at that.
And the video says nothing about it just being the NT, and I already complained about the dishonesty in the title as using the bible and not just the NT if that was what was being discussed.
Inerrancy does not mean that the manuscript copies are without mistakes. Inerrancy applies to the original autographs only. The doctrine of inerrancy states that the original autographs of the Bible are inspired [God-breathed] (2 Tim. 3:16). Textual criticism does not seek to examine the truthfulness of what the authors of the original autographs wrote under the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit and so does not, and cannot disprove inerrancy. The purpose of New Testament textual criticism is simply to, as nearly as possible reconstruct the reading of the original autographs by examining the extant New Testament documents.
On the one hand you deny inerrancy, but then with the other hand you affirm that the Bible is inerrant as you did with this statement - ''I do not have to argue for the total historical or factual or even textual reliability of every word of Scripture, and yet can still affirm that all of Scripture is true and is God’s reliable communication (word) to us.''https://www.city-data.com/forum/chris...-inspired.htmlpost #196.
Saying that you affirm that all of Scripture is true and is God's reliable communication (word) to us is affirming Biblical inerrancy. And you even admitted in that post that you contradict yourself.
And with that, there is no further point in bothering replying to you. You have admitted that the Bible is inerrant without using the word inerrant. But with your other hand you will still deny inerrancy.
No cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by the variants in the New Testament manuscripts as textual scholars through the years have stated. And that is the subject discussed in the video in the OP.
Everyone has got this thread figured out now, Mike. You have met a master in textual studies who has bested you on every turn. And, no, it is not me.
Inerrancy of something that we do not have is a moot question. Then you argue that variations are "no big deal," because you BELIEVE they are so close to the original that their ideas are perfect. Mr. McClellan has ably advanced the idea that many doctrines are questionable based on the variation of text---unless YOU are the one who narrows the scope down so that you maintain control of every post.
I got my rear end handed to me on the thread "God Hates Sinners," but I never resorted to crying "off topic," or "it's only focused on hate, don't mention love." These are the arguments of those whose thought processes have been compromised by the arguments presented.
This thread is, like, Mr. McClellan says, entirely about theology, about inerrancy, and about how you view those cardinal doctrines that YOU hold as important. You've already dismissed smaller groups of Christians like the snake handlers as unimportant because to that's not a cardinal doctrine. But their entire focus is on a variant that cannot be found in the earliest documents.
You refuse to accept that there may be no scriptural evidence for the trinity--and there might not be according to textual critics I've read--but I still believe in it. There is a high probability of no virgin birth--and to me it is an issue like the snake handlers for you--a non-issue. I simply don't know and will let the experts battle it out. Finally, and I say this carefully, there is LIMITED evidence concerning the resurrection--which I believe in to the very core of my being.
And there is the difference between your approach and my approach to scripture. For you scripture must be everything because of all the threads you start attempting to protect it. For me it is only a guide because I've had a kind of road to Damascus experience with God--more than once. Whatever the textual variants uncover, they will never cancel out my life experience. In that sense, I, too, believe 400,000 textual variants--no big deal. But for those who are stuck with needing physical evidence, they must cling to the Bible like a life preserver because there is no root in their soul from having met the Son of God. And that, sir, is the entire reason you continue to post threads on the reliability of scripture. Mr. McClellan is simply more eloquent and less long-winded than myself.
Everyone has got this thread figured out now, Mike. You have met a master in textual studies who has bested you on every turn. And, no, it is not me.
Inerrancy of something that we do not have is a moot question. Then you argue that variations are "no big deal," because you BELIEVE they are so close to the original that their ideas are perfect. Mr. McClellan has ably advanced the idea that many doctrines are questionable based on the variation of text---unless YOU are the one who narrows the scope down so that you maintain control of every post.
I got my rear end handed to me on the thread "God Hates Sinners," but I never resorted to crying "off topic," or "it's only focused on hate, don't mention love." These are the arguments of those whose thought processes have been compromised by the arguments presented.
This thread is, like, Mr. McClellan says, entirely about theology, about inerrancy, and about how you view those cardinal doctrines that YOU hold as important. You've already dismissed smaller groups of Christians like the snake handlers as unimportant because to that's not a cardinal doctrine. But their entire focus is on a variant that cannot be found in the earliest documents.
You refuse to accept that there may be no scriptural evidence for the trinity--and there might not be according to textual critics I've read--but I still believe in it. There is a high probability of no virgin birth--and to me it is an issue like the snake handlers for you--a non-issue. I simply don't know and will let the experts battle it out. Finally, and I say this carefully, there is LIMITED evidence concerning the resurrection--which I believe in to the very core of my being.
And there is the difference between your approach and my approach to scripture. For you scripture must be everything because of all the threads you start attempting to protect it. For me it is only a guide because I've had a kind of road to Damascus experience with God--more than once. Whatever the textual variants uncover, they will never cancel out my life experience. In that sense, I, too, believe 400,000 textual variants--no big deal. But for those who are stuck with needing physical evidence, they must cling to the Bible like a life preserver because there is no root in their soul from having met the Son of God. And that, sir, is the entire reason you continue to post threads on the reliability of scripture. Mr. McClellan is simply more eloquent and less long-winded than myself.
I've had discussions with McClellan before. He is mistaken despite your claims to the contrary. And so are you. No cardinal doctrine is affected by the variants. And certainly not the virgin birth. Only a fool would say that the virgin birth is a non-issue. McClellan has not bested me and he has not bested Dr. Wallace or Dr. Bock, their interview being what this thread concerns.
And again, for all the good it will do, New Testament textual criticism is not concerned with establishing inerrancy. It is concerned with attempting to identify the reading of the original New Testament autographs.
As for you, you can't discuss anything without making it personal and attacking those with whom you disagree. Anyone who has read enough of your post knows that.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-24-2014 at 12:37 PM..
If someone doesn't watch the video then he has no business making any comments on this thread since the thread is about the interview on that video, and my comments on the OP are excerpts of what was said in the video.
The OP is about all these textual variants being "no big deal," which is simply not true. One doesn't need to go see the video to know the facts behind the claim. I'm well aware of Daniel Wallace's position on this question and the evidence he adduces. My concern is with the theological claim that the textual variants throughout the Bible are "no big deal." That's simply not true. Now you're trying to parse away the problems and whittle the argument down to manageable pieces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Your comments in post #89 that the deity of Christ, and His resurrection are affected by the variants are nonsense. Neither doctrine is in the least bit threatened by the variants. And the shorter ending of Mark does not ''complicate'' Jesus' resurrection. Mark's gospel account ends at Mark 16:7 where it is stated that Jesus is risen in verse 6. And Jesus had stated in Mark 10:34 that He would rise again.
You'll note if you go back and read my comments more carefully that what I said was that the short ending of Mark complicates the post-resurrection traditions. I also pointed out that the textual instability of the resurrection narrative itself compared to the other shared traditions about Christ's ministry is indicative of a late composition. Now, regarding the deity of Christ, the trinitarian notion of his deity is completely absent from the Bible. Full stop. That's an invention of the next few centuries. What the variants and different texts from the New Testament show is a development toward identifying Christ with God's agency, but with his being? Nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Since your profession is textual criticism, your comment with regard to the video that no one ever states that none of this is true for the Old Testament or that their remarks are limited to the manuscripts of the New Testament is simply dishonest. You know that the reference to the 300,000 to 400,000 variants is to the New Testament manuscripts. Not the Old Testament.
One can infer this, but nowhere do they state that they are not claiming the same for the Old Testament. They repeatedly refer to the variants of "the Bible," which, as far as I'm aware, still constitutes the Old and New Testaments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
So when they state that the variants do not affect any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith they obviously are referring to the New Testament only.
You have made it clear that you do not agree with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock. I have made it clear that I do not agree with you. I do agree with them. I am not going to play 'Yes it is, no it isn't. Yes it is, no it isn't. Yes it is, no it isn't' with you. We disagree and we will leave it at that.
But I can provide an argument for my positions. You can't provide any argument for your position apart from "I agree with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock." That's not an argument, that's just a flagrant appeal to authority.
I've had discussions with McClellan before. He is mistaken despite your claims to the contrary.
You keep telling me this, but you provide nothing in the way of evidence or an argument. You also don't engage any of my evidence or arguments. You just keep saying it. That's not how this works.
The OP is about all these textual variants being "no big deal," which is simply not true. One doesn't need to go see the video to know the facts behind the claim. I'm well aware of Daniel Wallace's position on this question and the evidence he adduces. My concern is with the theological claim that the textual variants throughout the Bible are "no big deal." That's simply not true. Now you're trying to parse away the problems and whittle the argument down to manageable pieces.
That is your opinion and you are wrong. And this is fully explained in the interview in the video.
Quote:
You'll note if you go back and read my comments more carefully that what I said was that the short ending of Mark complicates the post-resurrection traditions. I also pointed out that the textual instability of the resurrection narrative itself compared to the other shared traditions about Christ's ministry is indicative of a late composition. Now, regarding the deity of Christ, the trinitarian notion of his deity is completely absent from the Bible. Full stop. That's an invention of the next few centuries. What the variants and different texts from the New Testament show is a development toward identifying Christ with God's agency, but with his being? Nowhere.
And you will note that I told you that the short ending of Mark does NOT complicate the resurrection. Jesus' resurrection is mentioned prior to that.
Christ's deity is plainly revealed in the Bible. As for the concept of the trinity it too is taught in the Bible although the word 'trinity' is not used. God is said to be one. Yet there are three who are identified as God. This is clearly taught and is no invention.
Quote:
One can infer this, but nowhere do they state that they are not claiming the same for the Old Testament. They repeatedly refer to the variants of "the Bible," which, as far as I'm aware, still constitutes the Old and New Testaments.
You are again being dishonest. Again, as a textual critic you should understand that that 300,000 to 400,000 variants refers to the New Testament manuscripts. Not to the Old Testament.
Quote:
But I can provide an argument for my positions. You can't provide any argument for your position apart from "I agree with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Bock." That's not an argument, that's just a flagrant appeal to authority.
You cannot provide any evidence for your argument that the Bible does not teach the trinity. This is leaving the subject of textual criticism, but go ahead and try to prove your claim that the Bible does not teach the concept of what has come to be called the trinity.
That is your opinion and you are wrong. And this is fully explained in the interview in the video.
No it's not. It's explained if you adopt all the theological presuppositions that you and the people in the video adopt, but I and most textual critics do not adopt all those presuppositions. The claim is hardly addressed at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
And you will note that I told you that the short ending of Mark does NOT complicate the resurrection. Jesus' resurrection is mentioned prior to that.
And I never said the short ending of Mark complicates the resurrection, did I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Christ's deity is plainly revealed in the Bible. As for the concept of the trinity it too is taught in the Bible although the word 'trinity' is not used. God is said to be one. Yet there are three who are identified as God. This is clearly taught and is no invention.
No, that's just your modern and manipulative hermeneutic. The Bible clearly references multiple gods as real and effective. There are not three that are identified as YHWH, and to presuppose that God exhausts the category of deity is to completely reject the Bible itself in favor of your Nicene dogmatism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You are again being dishonest. Again, as a textual critic you should understand that that 300,000 to 400,000 variants refers to the New Testament manuscripts. Not to the Old Testament.
How many Old Testament manuscripts do we have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
You cannot provide any evidence for your argument that the Bible does not teach the trinity.
I absolutely can. Here are all the places where the Trinity is taught:
Quote:
. . .
You cannot provide any scriptures that promote a trinitarian view of God and Jesus, you can only triangulate a series of scriptures and then impose a strict and manipulative hermeneutic so that the many verses that complicate the Trinity are forced into silence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
This is leaving the subject of textual criticism, but go ahead and try to prove your claim that the Bible does not teach the concept of what has come to be called the trinity.
Happily. You cannot point to a single verse that demands a trinitarian reading.
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.
