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.
In this short 10 minute video from 2009 - 'Textual variants in the Bible,' in an interview with John Ankerberg, Dr. Daniel Wallace and Dr. Darrel Bock discuss why the estimated 400,000 textual variants in our 20,000 to 30,000 manuscripts simply are not a big deal.
''I think Ehrman is absolutely right when he says there are as many as 400,000 textual variants in our manuscripts. But what he doesn't communicate very clearly is that these differences are for the most part absolutely irrelevant. Seventy five percent of them are spelling differences or nonsense errors.''
He goes on to categorize the variants.
75% are spelling differences or nonsense errors.
About 25% (so a little less) are variants having to do with word order. Or with synonyms.
Next are variants that are meaningful but which cannot be traced back to the original text. They are found only in later manuscripts.
And then, less than 1% are the variants which are both meaningful and viable meaning that they have an impact. But the question is, what do they impact?
At 9:30 into the video Dr. Bock says,
''Virtually every textual critic in the last few centuries has been saying this. ''When all is said and done, no doctrine of the Christian faith is impacted by this remainder (referring to the category of variants that are both meaningful and viable).''
Dr. Wallace says at the end of the video,
''Ehrman tries to give the impression that these manuscript variants are supposed to change our historical view of Jesus or they are supposed to touch Christian doctrine in some way. But he doesn't produce the evidence that shows that. And so people read his book and they have this chicken little mentality that says, 'My gosh, the sky is falling. I don't know what to believe anymore'. But you start looking at the evidence, you say the deity of Christ is untouched by these viable variants, the virgin birth is untouched, the resurrection of Christ is untouched. Everything the Bible teaches that is a cardinal truth, an essential truth is found there in the manuscripts and is untouched by the variants.''
For the complete interview, listen to the video. It's only 10 minutes long.
09-21-2014, 03:42 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Not This Again! How many times have you started a thread like this? At least 4 within approximately the last year?
1/3/2013 - The Bible does not merely contain the word of God it is the Word of God.
5/2/2013 - Some comments by Biblical Scholars on the Textual Reliability of the Bible.
1/10/2014 - An Embarrassment of Riches: Bible Reliability.
7/17/2014 - How Badly did Scribes Change the New Testament Bible?
And that's just what I found with quick search.
And now this one with the same people quoting the same things. Obsessed much?
Great observation Shiloh1. It almost appears that the poster is attempting prove something to himself.
From post#2 of your thread The Strawman Argument of Biblical Reliability
By AREQUIPA:
The nub of the argument seems to be this:
"‘The skeptic must explain how the NT text can appear in history via multiple lines of transmission and yet each line presents the same text, yet without any controlling authority’ and ‘The original readings are still in the mss tradition.’ (Emphasis is in the original slide presented)."
For one thing, I don't believe the skeptic has to do any such thing. For a start to explain how it happened that way is to accept the suggestion that that was the way it happened. That has yet to be demonstrated by the Bible -believer.
I would ask them to explain how, if the lines of transmission are reliable, we seem to have (quite apart from non -canonical gospels, simply left out because the Roman church did not approve of them) a basic story of a very un -Christ -like figure, diverging in very significant ways into the synoptic version and the gospel of John, and then again being overlaid with a number of other sources, introducing contradictions - the 'Q' material, unknown to mark and the material common to Mark and Matthew but unknown to Luke, who evidently used some earlier version of the synoptic gospel, and he added 'Q' but split it between the sermon in Galilee and a lot of sayings on the way to Jerusalem.
This is not even to consider the individual additions of each of the writers.
In the face of this, to talk of what the skeptic has to explain in terms of the faithful transmission of the gospels is not so much a strawman but an absurd claim.
Here's a link to an article on biblical translation or text criticism. This article goes in-depth into the history and accuracy of the ancient biblical text (the Hebrew and Greek copies):
Great observation Shiloh1. It almost appears that the poster is attempting prove something to himself.
From post#2 of your thread The Strawman Argument of Biblical Reliability
By AREQUIPA:
The nub of the argument seems to be this:
"‘The skeptic must explain how the NT text can appear in history via multiple lines of transmission and yet each line presents the same text, yet without any controlling authority’ and ‘The original readings are still in the mss tradition.’ (Emphasis is in the original slide presented)."
For one thing, I don't believe the skeptic has to do any such thing. For a start to explain how it happened that way is to accept the suggestion that that was the way it happened. That has yet to be demonstrated by the Bible -believer.
I would ask them to explain how, if the lines of transmission are reliable, we seem to have (quite apart from non -canonical gospels, simply left out because the Roman church did not approve of them) a basic story of a very un -Christ -like figure, diverging in very significant ways into the synoptic version and the gospel of John, and then again being overlaid with a number of other sources, introducing contradictions - the 'Q' material, unknown to mark and the material common to Mark and Matthew but unknown to Luke, who evidently used some earlier version of the synoptic gospel, and he added 'Q' but split it between the sermon in Galilee and a lot of sayings on the way to Jerusalem.
This is not even to consider the individual additions of each of the writers.
In the face of this, to talk of what the skeptic has to explain in terms of the faithful transmission of the gospels is not so much a strawman but an absurd claim.
The purpose of this thread is to provide information to those who don't know much about the subject of textual criticism and want to know more.
I think there are some recent doubters on these forums that need to hear this.
I think there is more to it than just being uninformed ... it has to do with the growing daily attacks on the Bible not being inerrant \ infallible \ inspired that necessitates the truth being re-posted to refute the attacks.
''I think Ehrman is absolutely right when he says there are as many as 400,000 textual variants in our manuscripts. But what he doesn't communicate very clearly is that these differences are for the most part absolutely irrelevant. Seventy five percent of them are spelling differences or nonsense errors.''
Dr. Wallace says at the end of the video,
''Ehrman tries to give the impression that these manuscript variants are supposed to change our historical view of Jesus or they are supposed to touch Christian doctrine in some way. But he doesn't produce the evidence that shows that. And so people read his book and they have this chicken little mentality that says, 'My gosh, the sky is falling. I don't know what to believe anymore'. But you start looking at the evidence, you say the deity of Christ is untouched by these viable variants, the virgin birth is untouched, the resurrection of Christ is untouched. Everything the Bible teaches that is a cardinal truth, an essential truth is found there in the manuscripts and is untouched by the variants.''
On the contrary. In (the misleadingly titled) Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman explains very clearly that the great majority of differences are of no consequence. Among other things, he mentions the changes in the shapes and usages of Greek letters over time. He does note various changes and interpolations that are apparently intentional. None of those are related to actual quotes of Jesus. And none of them impact the core beliefs, nor does Ehrman claim they do. But the main thrust of the book, how it gets decided which manuscripts to use as the basis of translation, is quite interesting and worth the price of admission.
I do not always agree with Ehrman but I do see that there is quite a bit of demonization going on and not always of the honest variety. Is it because they view him as a 'traitor'?
In this short 10 minute video from 2009 - 'Textual variants in the Bible,' in an interview with John Ankerberg, Dr. Daniel Wallace and Dr. Darrel Bock discuss why the estimated 400,000 textual variants in our 20,000 to 30,000 manuscripts simply are not a big deal.
''I think Ehrman is absolutely right when he says there are as many as 400,000 textual variants in our manuscripts. But what he doesn't communicate very clearly is that these differences are for the most part absolutely irrelevant. Seventy five percent of them are spelling differences or nonsense errors.''
He goes on to categorize the variants.
75% are spelling differences or nonsense errors.
About 25% (so a little less) are variants having to do with word order. Or with synonyms.
Next are variants that are meaningful but which cannot be traced back to the original text. They are found only in later manuscripts.
And then, less than 1% are the variants which are both meaningful and viable meaning that they have an impact. But the question is, what do they impact?
At 9:30 into the video Dr. Bock says,
''Virtually every textual critic in the last few centuries has been saying this. ''When all is said and done, no doctrine of the Christian faith is impacted by this remainder (referring to the category of variants that are both meaningful and viable).''
Dr. Wallace says at the end of the video,
''Ehrman tries to give the impression that these manuscript variants are supposed to change our historical view of Jesus or they are supposed to touch Christian doctrine in some way. But he doesn't produce the evidence that shows that. And so people read his book and they have this chicken little mentality that says, 'My gosh, the sky is falling. I don't know what to believe anymore'. But you start looking at the evidence, you say the deity of Christ is untouched by these viable variants, the virgin birth is untouched, the resurrection of Christ is untouched. Everything the Bible teaches that is a cardinal truth, an essential truth is found there in the manuscripts and is untouched by the variants.''
For the complete interview, listen to the video. It's only 10 minutes long.
Hogwash mike, I have shown you a few times now that the dead sea scrolls show a difference that changes ones doctrinal thinking. So these so called experts on textual criticism must have their head buried deep in the mud because everyone can easily see the difference by just getting a copy of the dead sea scrolls.
Hogwash mike, I have shown you a few times now that the dead sea scrolls show a difference that changes ones doctrinal thinking. So these so called experts on textual criticism must have their head buried deep in the mud because everyone can easily see the difference by just getting a copy of the dead sea scrolls.
Could you elaborate on that? Or link to prior posts? The DSS contain versions of Jewish scriptures that in general are quite close to the Masoretic Text. They contain nothing about the New Testament, which is the primary basis of Christian belief. So I am not sure how this relates to the present discussion.
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.
And none of them impact the core beliefs, nor does Ehrman claim they do. But the main thrust of the book, how it gets decided which manuscripts to use as the basis of translation, is quite interesting and worth the price of admission.
