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.
What I take exception to is your misuse of Jeremiah 8:8 which you simply do not understand and think that it is referring to the scribes altering the Biblical text when in fact that verse has to do with the fact that not only the scribes, but the false prophets and the people were denying the fact that divine judgment was about to come on them, and they were all saying 'Peace, peace' when there was no piece. And the Bible accurately records that judgment.
Again, both inspiration and inerrancy refer to the original autographs. Not to the copies. BUT to the extent that the copies are faithful to the originals they are the Word of God. This should not be a difficult concept to understand.
And no essential doctrine of the Christian faith is affected or jeopardized by the existence of the textual variants in the manuscript copies.
I am not going to keep going over this.
While you say I misuse Jer8:8 but I gave scripture showing exactly where some of these additions were made by the lying pen of the scribes. But that is neither here nor there we are talking about God breathed scripture, which you have admitted cannot be found whole in any bible today.
This part I colored makes no sense Mike. If no copy of the scriptures is God breathed how can anyone even state except to the extent that the copies are faithful to the original? It all becomes guess work Mike, because NO original exist today to compare with.
So how do we know which bible ( the septuagint or those based on the Mazorite text) is more faithful to the original autograph? Obviously both cannot be correct.
Since there are no original texts any thought that we are "close" to the original texts is pure conjecture. What if all the copies are wrong and the Mother of Jesus was not Mary, but Lila?
Since we already have enough manuscript differences between NT texts that conflict on key issues, why would you wish once again to introduce one-time statements that have NOTHING TO DO with inerrancy and try to make them look like the texts we have are "close to the Originals? It is again, a misleading tactic. Not one word of any of what these men wrote supports what you are trying to say. Why would you introduce information that has nothing to do with inerrancy in a sub-thread entitled "Fundamentals-1-Inerrancy?
So here are some KEY differences between the Majority Texts (the ones we have the most copies of) and the Minority Texts which in almost every case are OLDER than the Masotoric texts that where obviously vast amounts of "new" material was introduced that shaped many doctrines.
Chart wouldn't import but here is the link for interested parties:
Oh, and the site is a KJV all the way site which calls the older, minority texts---"corrupted."
funny how the older texts are considered the corrupt text, yet the older text would be closer to the original autograph therefore should be considered more trustworthy.
Up until the dead sea schrolls were found many so called experts believed the septuagint was a corrupt version of the scriptures, but the dead sea schrolls changed all that.
They say exactly what I have quoted them as saying. Though you disagree with what the professional Biblical textual critics I quoted say, they do indeed say that our copies are close, though not 100 percent, to the original texts. Anyone with even basic reading skills, and without bias can recognize that fact. If you don't believe that God is capable of preserving His word in the manner in which He has, and if you actually think there is a possibility that all the manuscripts are wrong and the mother of Jesus was not Mary, then there really isn't much more to say to you.
And here it is again, the same tired non sequitur. Show me somewhere that God promised to preserve any writings and I will show you in the writings you say you value so highly where Jesus promised a different guide....wait, I already have, many times, but the same tired excuse keeps coming out without any justification whatsoever.
And here it is again, the same tired non sequitur. Show me somewhere that God promised to preserve any writings and I will show you in the writings you say you value so highly where Jesus promised a different guide....wait, I already have, many times, but the same tired excuse keeps coming out without any justification whatsoever.
Some people cannot be reached until God softens their heart, nate.
While you say I misuse Jer8:8 but I gave scripture showing exactly where some of these additions were made by the lying pen of the scribes. But that is neither here nor there we are talking about God breathed scripture, which you have admitted cannot be found whole in any bible today.
This part I colored makes no sense Mike. If no copy of the scriptures is God breathed how can anyone even state except to the extent that the copies are faithful to the original? It all becomes guess work Mike, because NO original exist today to compare with.
So how do we know which bible ( the septuagint or those based on the Mazorite text) is more faithful to the original autograph? Obviously both cannot be correct.
Don't misunderstand what I said. God-breathed simply refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit superintended the writers of the original autographs so that they wrote without error. He did not so superintend the scribes who made the copies of the originals and the copies of other copies. However, as one example, according to Dr. Daniel Wallace, every manuscript we have which includes John 1:1 says the same thing. This means we can be sure that is what the original autograph said. Therefore John 1:1 is the Word of God even though the Holy Spirit did not superintend the scribes who copied John 1:1 from other copies.
And as Dr. Wallace has said, and I am reposting this from my earlier post;
Daniel B. Wallace (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament Studies. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, and has consulted on several Bible translations. He made these comments...
To sum up the evidence on the number of variants, there are a lot of variants because there are a lot of manuscripts. Even in the early centuries, the text of the NT is found in a sufficient number of MSS, versions, and writings of the church fathers to give us the essentials of the original text. [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace, pg. 40]
In an article by Dan Wallace, 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
If we had the original autographs then there would be no need for textual criticism to compare all extant copies in order to work back toward the originals because we would already have the originals. Whether you understand or agree with the textual critics, they state that we can work back toward the original text and that our texts are close to the originals, though not 100 percent. Their work concerns the New Testament documents rather than the Old Testament documents.
Since there are fewer copies of the Old Testament manuscripts then there are of the New Testament manuscripts textual criticism is not as effective regarding the Old Testament as it is for the New Testament. The more manuscript copies there are, the easier it is to recognize and discard the spurious.
This student assignment for an Old Testament textual criticism course tells which Old Testament versions are most helpful for reconstructing the Old Testament text. - L425 Biblical Textual Criticism: The Old Testament
However, the point is that inerrancy and inspiration pertains to the original autographs. Not to the copies.
Now I've taken all the time I wish to take with this. You don't agree with any of this. I understand that. You and the rest of those who disagree will just have to go on disagreeing.
As for me, quite apart from the evidence provided by textual criticism, I believe that God is capable of preserving His Word and that our better translations are faithful for the most part to the original text, and that no essential doctrines are affected by the fact that there are textual variants.
They say exactly what I have quoted them as saying. Though you disagree with what the professional Biblical textual critics I quoted say, they do indeed say that our copies are close, though not 100 percent, to the original texts. Anyone with even basic reading skills, and without bias can recognize that fact. If you don't believe that God is capable of preserving His word in the manner in which He has, and if you actually think there is a possibility that all the manuscripts are wrong and the mother of Jesus was not Mary, then there really isn't much more to say to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
And here it is again, the same tired non sequitur. Show me somewhere that God promised to preserve any writings and I will show you in the writings you say you value so highly where Jesus promised a different guide....wait, I already have, many times, but the same tired excuse keeps coming out without any justification whatsoever.
Of course Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as a guide. No one has ever said otherwise. That is simply a false accusation on the part of some. - John 16:7-15
He also promised to preserve His Word. They are not mutually exclusive things. But the Holy Spirit works with the Scriptures and never leads anyone to believe anything contrary to the Scriptures. And how do we know that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit as a guide? Because His promise to do so is preserved in His written Word.
Mark 13:31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19] and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Jesus said many things which have not been preserved in writing and so we don't know what those things were. But of the things He said that we do know, including those things He revealed to John in the Book of Revelation, we know because they were preserved in writing.
Don't misunderstand what I said. God-breathed simply refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit superintended the writers of the original autographs so that they wrote without error. He did not so superintend the scribes who made the copies of the originals and the copies of other copies. However, as one example, according to Dr. Daniel Wallace, every manuscript we have which includes John 1:1 says the same thing. This means we can be sure that is what the original autograph said. Therefore John 1:1 is the Word of God even though the Holy Spirit did not superintend the scribes who copied John 1:1 from other copies.
And as Dr. Wallace has said, and I am reposting this from my earlier post;
Daniel B. Wallace (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of New Testament Studies. He is a member of the Society of New Testament Studies, the Institute for Biblical Research, and has consulted on several Bible translations. He made these comments...
To sum up the evidence on the number of variants, there are a lot of variants because there are a lot of manuscripts. Even in the early centuries, the text of the NT is found in a sufficient number of MSS, versions, and writings of the church fathers to give us the essentials of the original text. [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, Daniel B. Wallace, pg. 40]
In an article by Dan Wallace, 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
If we had the original autographs then there would be no need for textual criticism to compare all extant copies in order to work back toward the originals because we would already have the originals. Whether you understand or agree with the textual critics, they state that we can work back toward the original text and that our texts are close to the originals, though not 100 percent. Their work concerns the New Testament documents rather than the Old Testament documents.
Since there are fewer copies of the Old Testament manuscripts then there are of the New Testament manuscripts textual criticism is not as effective regarding the Old Testament as it is for the New Testament. The more manuscript copies there are, the easier it is to recognize and discard the spurious.
This student assignment for an Old Testament textual criticism course tells which Old Testament versions are most helpful for reconstructing the Old Testament text. - L425 Biblical Textual Criticism: The Old Testament
However, the point is that inerrancy and inspiration pertains to the original autographs. Not to the copies.
Now I've taken all the time I wish to take with this. You don't agree with any of this. I understand that. You and the rest of those who disagree will just have to go on disagreeing.
As for me, quite apart from the evidence provided by textual criticism, I believe that God is capable of preserving His Word and that our better translations are faithful for the most part to the original text, and that no essential doctrines are affected by the fact that there are textual variants.
Misleading again, both about the nature of the topic--which is not how close the copies are to the originals that do not exist and which cannot be verified---and misleading in that you try to pull "inerrancy" from those gentlemen when I know three of them don't have your mind set. You used the names of others for the same purpose in post #35.
One, of them, Wallace, CLAIMS to be an inerrantist. But he insists that numerous NT scriptures have been mistranslated and some are additions to the earlier texts. WOULD ANY FUNDAMENTALIST LIKE TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED AS CLAIMING THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT CONTAINS ERRORS AND ADDITIONS? And how do you or him know that there wasn't some sort of error in the Original? We don't have one to verify anything with. It is a silly premise and unworthy of common sense. The part I bolded in Wallace's statement is evidence like we had from a WWII general who encouraged Congress to incarcerate Japanese Americans: "It is precisely because we have had no sabotage that we need to take action, because it is indicative it is being planned carefully!" That same thought process is what Wallace is bringing to the table.
The second one, Bart Ehrman, is an agnostic who states openly and in debates with nearly every conservative scholar out there, that the Bible is in no way inerrant. His books, Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities attest to his complete opposition to inerrancy. But you attempt to paint a picture of him supporting inerrancy because he once stated that NT books are about 98% the same (if you exclude the 400,000 minor omissions, deletions, misspellings, and obvious additions).
Finally, Bruce Metzger, as reported by Dr. Daniel Wallace, told students who came to his lecture at Dallas Theological Seminary a couple of years before his death that he was NOT an inerrantist because he didn't believe it a wise thing to claim for the bible something it does not claim for itself.
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT INERRANCY. Please refrain from introducing unrelated subject matter. And if you think it IS related, then count yourself officially refuted.
And lastly, the Qumran discoveries forever squashed the idea that we have close to the same documents that were original. They are older than the Septuagint version of scripture translated into English and our version of Jeremiah is one seventh longer than the older Minority Text document. A few things were cut out from the older version, such as failed prophecies, and quite a bit of new material was inserted. And the texts align very differently from one another. If the older text is closer to the "original," then why aren't fundamentalists crying to have it included in their Bibles. I think I have the answer----they are more comfortable with what they have been taught than they are interested in learning about the "originals." The whole "originals" concept is a specious attempt to look smarter than a cardboard box. WE DON"T HAVE THE ORIGINALS, so appealing to them is fruitless. YOU ARE THE ONE TELLING US WHAT THE ORIGINALS SAID--and your making it sound like the flawed English bible we have.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 03-22-2015 at 02:37 AM..
Anyone who works with Scripture in the original languages knows that there are errors of spelling, grammar, and syntax in the biblical text as we have it today. It is also an easily demonstrable fact that there are hundreds of variants among the different manuscripts of the biblical text (see Sacred Words or Words about the Sacred). We sometimes forget that the Bible was not written on a word processor in English, and it is difficult to keep in mind that there is no "master text" of the Bible. We only have it in hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts that all contain differences of greater or lesser degree. Our modern translations are based on an analysis and comparison of all these manuscripts.
On a different level, a careful examination of parallel biblical accounts, where the same story or account occurs in more than one place, reveals that in many places the accounts are different. For example, in the Gospels there are many places where the accounts of Jesus’ activity and sayings are recorded in multiple versions that vary from each other (see The Synoptic Problem).
There are places where the events are ordered differently (the cleansing of the temple or the day and time of the crucifixion in the Synoptic Gospels and John; see The Time of the Crucifixion: Chronological Issues in the Gospels), the same sayings are set in different contexts (the sermon on the mount and the sermon on the plain in Matthew and Luke), or the same event is accompanied by different sayings (the confession of Peter in Matthew and Mark). Even when all of these do correspond, there are often different Greek words attributed to Jesus, sometimes closely synonymous, sometimes giving a different nuance to the saying (for example, Matt 5:3, 6 and Luke 6:20-21). There are other places in Scripture where this occurs as well, such as the parallels between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles or between 2 Kings and Isaiah.
On a still different level, if one approaches the biblical text without the presuppositions of inerrancy, there are also historical difficulties. There are biblical accounts that do not correspond to what we know of the events, or the same events are recounted in different places within Scripture in considerably different scenarios (see History and Theology in Joshua and Judges). There are also discrepancies in the use of numbers, genealogies, Scriptural citations, etc. (see The Date of the Exodus).
To many students of Scripture these factors present no serious hindrances to accepting the Bible as the authoritative word of God, beyond needing to understand and interpret the message as it is presented with these factors. However to the inerrantist position these are potentially fatal observations. In an absolutist position, which many inerrantists take, none of these can be allowed to stand. While some of these such as the historical discrepancies can be explained by various means, the difficulties with the biblical text itself is a much more troublesome problem to inerrant views. While they are affirming the absolute inerrant nature of the biblical text, it is obvious that there are physical inaccuracies within the text.
The solution to this dilemma of wanting to maintain an inerrant text while faced with a text that is obviously not inerrant, is to affirm that it is only the original writings that were inerrant. While the inaccurate copies we have now were corrupted in the process of transmission, copying, and translation over the years, the original versions as they came from the hand of the original author were without any such inaccuracies. This position of "inerrant autographs" is a common way of maintaining inerrancy in the face of textual evidence to the contrary.
As those ideas were worked out and applied to Scripture, they led to the view that Scripture must be written by God himself, and that their primary function was to reveal absolute descriptors (propositions) about God and the world. God could never trust sinful, flawed, and imperfect humans to have much to do with Scripture since they would introduce errors and thus destroy its reliability. So, God Himself is the sole author of Scripture. From this conclusion came theories of inspiration (see below) that emphasized God’s near total control of the production and preservation of Scripture, with the attendant theories of inspiration that would support such a view (dictation and some forms of verbal inspiration).
And then another logical syllogism came into play. Since God wrote Scripture, and since God is perfect and without error, and since God knows exactly what happened, then the Bible must be absolutely accurate, inerrant, in everything it says, and even in a lot that it doesn’t say that we now know to be fact (the earth is round, the solar system is heliocentric, matter consists of atoms, etc.). In other words, Scripture, since it is associated directly with God, must be of the same quality as God Himself: absolute, perfect, "omni," inerrant, etc.
So, this view of the inerrancy of Scripture was developed both from the pressures of culture, as well as from some very specific theological agendas. The Bible is then read through the lens of a doctrine developed totally outside Scripture itself, and often without taking seriously the evidence within Scripture. As a result, the Bible is often made to serve the doctrine of inerrancy, a move which runs counter to one of the primary tenants of the Reformation, that Scripture should be the primary authority for the faith and practice of the Christian community, not doctrines.
The reality is that the whole issue of inerrancy, as well as how some now define infallibility, is alien to the Wesleyan tradition for several theological and historical reasons. The modern concept of inerrancy, and it is a modern concept, arises out of Calvinistic based fundamentalism as it blended a basic position in predeterminism (predestination) with a narrow rationalism to defend Scripture (the "Battle for the Bible") against the excesses of scientific positivism and naturalism.
While the motive may have been entirely valid, since there certainly were some excesses from the side of naturalism and rationalistic modes of thought, I think there developed a serious overreaction in the opposite direction. The defenders of Scripture began asserting things about Scripture that neither the Bible itself nor some of the theological positions outside of a narrowly interpreted Calvinism can possibly sustain.w
Don't misunderstand what I said. God-breathed simply refers to the fact that the Holy Spirit superintended the writers of the original autographs so that they wrote without error. He did not so superintend the scribes who made the copies of the originals and the copies of other copies. However, as one example, according to Dr. Daniel Wallace, every manuscript we have which includes John 1:1 says the same thing. This means we can be sure that is what the original autograph said. Therefore John 1:1 is the Word of God even though the Holy Spirit did not superintend the scribes who copied John 1:1 from other copies.
Mike where do you get this idea that the God breathed scriptures are only refering to the original autographs? This is just a man made idea to explain away all the discrepencies found in the bible.
When Paul said all scripture is God breathed he did not have the original autograph but was refering to the Septuagent, which is a copy, and yet he still said all scripture is God breathed.
But what about where the scriptures differ Mike? How can you or anyone else state the bible is inerrant when so many bibles differ from one scripture to the next.
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.
funny how the older texts are considered the corrupt text, yet the older text would be closer to the original autograph therefore should be considered more trustworthy.
From a retired OT Professor
