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 your choice. You can either trust the Scriptures to be accurate or not. I have faith that they are.
It is true that we do not have any of the original manuscripts.
When the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared with the newer manuscripts, the textual variations were almost non-existent. This is an important testament to the skill and devotion to accuracy of the scribes.
The New Testament manuscripts have proven to be remarkably accurate. All of the New Testament writings were completed in the first century A.D. The oldest known New Testament manuscript fragment dates to about 125 A.D. When comparing all the Greek manuscripts with each other, the accuracy rate is found to be 99.5%.
The 0.5% of textual variations are mostly composed of differences in spelling and word order (in the Greek language, the order of words in a sentence doesn’t necessarily change the meaning like it does in English). Amazingly, these textual variations are so insignificant that they do not alter the meaning of the text in any meaningful way!
The Bible Is the Best Preserved Work of Ancient Literature. There are over 10,000 manuscript copies of the Old Testament and more than 5,600 manuscripts of the New Testament with an accuracy that is unrivaled amongst other literature from the ancient world.
True. We do not have any of the original manuscripts.
When the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls were compared with the newer manuscripts, the textual variations were almost non-existent. This is an important testament to the skill and devotion to accuracy of the scribes.
The New Testament manuscripts have proven to be remarkably accurate. All of the New Testament writings were completed in the first century A.D. The oldest known New Testament manuscript fragment dates to about 125 A.D. When comparing all the Greek manuscripts with each other, the accuracy rate is found to be 99.5%.
The 0.5% of textual variations are mostly composed of differences in spelling and word order (in the Greek language, the order of words in a sentence doesn’t necessarily change the meaning like it does in English). Amazingly, these textual variations are so insignificant that they do not alter the meaning of the text in any meaningful way!
The Bible Is the Best Preserved Work of Ancient Literature. There are over 10,000 manuscript copies of the Old Testament and more than 5,600 manuscripts of the New Testament with an accuracy that is unrivaled amongst other literature from the ancient world.
Actually it is more accurate to say that the highest degree of accuracy claimed is 99.5%, as some put this number down around 98% . In addition, this claim of accuracy is a judgement call . Since we don’t have the actual originals , we can’t compare them to the originals to get an actual confirmed percentage . It’s all a judgement call based on the belief of the textual critics , not a scientific claim of being a provable conclusion based on actual observation.
But let’s get away from the opinion part and get to an actual example for you and Michael . Mark 16:9-20 . Was it in the original manuscripts or not ? Furthermore , some versions of the Bible offer a second alternative reading of the specific verses 9-10 ( I think, working from memory so may be off a little on the verse numbers) . So some Bibles actually have 2 different sets of verses for the ending of Mark that may or may not have been in the original manuscripts . So which is it. Do these verses belong in the Bible or not ?
Actually it is more accurate to say that the highest degree of accuracy claimed is 99.5%, as some put this number down around 98% . In addition, this claim of accuracy is a judgement call . Since we don’t have the actual originals , we can’t compare them to the originals to get an actual confirmed percentage . It’s all a judgement call based on the belief of the textual critics , not a scientific claim of being a provable conclusion based on actual observation.
But let’s get away from the opinion part and get to an actual example for you and Michael . Mark 16:9-20 . Was it in the original manuscripts or not ? Furthermore , some versions of the Bible offer a second alternative reading of the specific verses 9-10 ( I think, working from memory so may be off a little on the verse numbers) . So some Bibles actually have 2 sets of verses that may or may not have been in the original manuscripts . So which is it. Do these verses belong in the Bible or not ?
No, Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the Bible and scholars know that it doesn't belong in the Bible. And they know this because of textual criticism.
You think it's a big deal that we don't have the original NT manuscripts. It's not. We do have the the vast majority of the original text of the NT thanks to NT textual criticism the purpose of which is to recover the original text.
You don't understand textual criticism and its purpose very well, if at all. You speak of comparing the results of textual criticism against the original manuscripts and not being able to do so. If we had the original manuscripts we wouldn't need textual criticism which attempts to recover the original text and has done so remarkably well.
The following is from an older post of mine on the thread https://www.city-data.com/forum/chri...-literary.html Post #9. If you and other readers won't believe what top scholars have to say about the results of NT textual criticism, that's your choice, but it IS what the top scholars of NT textual criticism have to say about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
While New Testament textual criticism which deals with the issue of the degree of accuracy with which the original New Testament text has been transmitted down through the ages does not really concern the issue of whether what was originally written is true, before the issue of whether what was originally written is true can be addressed it must first be determined if we can know what was originally written. Though we don't have the original autographs, can we determine to what degree the original New Testament text has accurately been transmitted through the manuscript copies which are extant.
Regarding the issue of New Testament textual reliability (is what we have now what they wrote then), here is what the experts, the textual critics who have studied the matter say.
Gary Habermas comments;
The textual purity of the New Testament is rarely questioned in scholarship. It is well established and agreed among almost all who have ever seriously studied the ancient texts that the text is virtually the same as what was originally written. Even critical scholars question very few words in the New Testament, and those words do not affect doctrinal issues.
[Habermas, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, p.85]
Most New Testament textual critics (scholars who study and compare the New Testament documents) maintain that the New Testament text is extremely reliable. Though there are an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 textual variants, the vast majority are absolutely meaningless and affect nothing. Many of them are not even translatable from Greek into English. A textual variant is simply a lack of uniformity of wording among the manuscripts regarding a particular word, sentence, or paragraph. These variants fall into the following categories.
1.) Spelling differences and nonsense errors. This category is by far the majority of the variants.
For example, in Greek, the name John may be spelled Ἰωάννῃ (Ióannés) or Ἰωάνῃ (Ióanés). But in English, it is translated as John.
One of the most common textual variants involves the 'movable nu.' This is a nu - 'ν'. In English, it is the letter 'n.' In Greek the nu - 'ν' can occur at the end of certain words which precede a word that begins with a vowel. Whether a scribe used the nu or not is similar to saying 'a' or 'an'. 'An apple', or 'a apple.' Not using it when he should have just means the scribe was careless or couldn't spell. But it doesn't affect the meaning.
A nonsense error is a mistake on the part of a scribe which in context obviously makes no sense and when compared with other manuscripts can be easily seen to not be the original wording.
2.) Minor variations that have no affect on translations or that involve the use of synonyms. This category of variant does not involve spelling or nonsense readings, but which also don't affect translation. For example, The Greek may or may not use the definite article with a proper name, whereas the English does not. Luke 2:16 in Greek says 'the Mary' - τήν τε Μαριὰμ (both the Mary) καὶ τὸν Ἰωσὴφ (and the Joseph). So 'Mary' or 'the Mary' would be variants which affect nothing. And in English we simply translate it as 'Mary.'
Then there are variants among the Greek manuscripts resulting from the fact that Greek is an inflectional language which means that when writing something the same thing can be said using different word order since the subject is always in the nominative case and the direct object is always in the accusative case. In Greek, the subject and object are not determined by word order as in English, but by the case ending.
Variants are also the result of using synonyms. A scribe of a particular manuscript might use the noun 'Jesus' instead of the pronoun 'He.' For instance, in Matthew 4:18, 12:25; Mark 2:15, 10:52; and Luke 24:36 the Byzantine manuscript text type tends to use the name 'Jesus' while the Alexandrian manuscripts say 'He.' While this affects translation, whether 'Jesus' or 'He' is used, the referent is still Jesus.
Another variant might involve an addition such as a passage saying 'Christ Jesus' instead of 'Jesus'. In Acts 19:4, the Alexandrian manuscripts have 'Jesus' while the Byzantine manuscripts have 'Christ Jesus.' Obviously Jesus is the Christ, and so whether or not a particular passage says 'Christ Jesus' or simply 'Jesus' doesn't affect the meaning.
3.) Differences that affect the meaning, but are not viable (that is, there is no chance of them going back to the original autographs.) As an example, I quote Dan Wallace in an interview.
For example, in Luke 6:22, the ESV reads, “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!” But one manuscript from the 10th/11th century (codex 2882) lacks the words “on account of the Son of Man.” That’s a very meaningful variant since it seems to say that a person is blessed when he is persecuted, regardless of his allegiance to Christ. Yet it is only in one manuscript, and a relatively late one at that. It has no chance of reflecting the wording of the original text, since all the other manuscripts are against it, including quite a few that are much, much earlier.
4.) Differences that affect the meaning, and are viable. This last category involves only about 1 percent or less of the varients. These variants affect the meaning of the text to some degree, but not in any major way.
For instance, in Romans 5:1, did Paul write, ''We have peace'' (ἔχομεν - echomen), or did he write, ''let us have peace'' (ἔχωμεν - echōmen)? The difference in the two words is one letter. Regardless of which of the two reading is correct, they don't contradict what the Bible teaches. If Paul was saying that we have peace with God he was referring to the believer's positional status with God in Christ Jesus. If he was saying ''let us have peace with God'' then he was simply urging believers to realize that peace.
The largest textual variant in the New Testament involves Mark 16:9-20. Did Mark intend to end his gospel account at verse 8 or did the last part of that chapter get lost somehow? Scholars debate that question. But verses 9-20 are generally believed not to have been the original reading. Even so, that reading doesn't really affect any cardinal doctrine. The apostles did cast out demons, and did speak in tongues [v. 17]. As well, they did lay hands on the sick and heal them [v.18].
As for picking up snakes and drinking poison, while nowhere in the New Testament are these practices reported as happening, Eusebius tells of a tradition in which a man drank poison but was unharmed.
Church History Book 3.39.9
8. But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.
9. That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm. CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)
As well, this could be referring to being compelled to pick up snakes and drink poison rather than to the voluntary practice of them. And it could be restricted to the apostolic period of the Church-age. Regardless, no cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected by this variant.
So what do the textual critics say about the reliability of the New Testament?
F. F. Bruce (1910-1990) was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England. He stated...
Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice. [The New Testament Documents; Are They Reliable?, F.F. Bruce, pgs. 14-15.]
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the most highly regarded scholars of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament Textual Criticism. He served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies and was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He commented...
But the amount of evidence for the text of the New Testament , whether derived from manuscripts, early versions, or patristic quotations is so much greater than that available for any ancient classical author that the necessity of resorting to emendation is reduced to the smallest dimensions. [The Text of the New Testament, Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Fourth Edition, Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, pg. 230]
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]
Even Bart D. Ehrman who puts a skeptical spin on things when writing for the general public made the following statement in a college textbook as quoted by Dan Wallace in 'Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament' on pg. 24...
"In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Ehrman wrote that in a college textbook called 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction To the Early Christian Writings', 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pg. 481.
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
The following quotes are from the book 'Reinventing Jesus', 2006, by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace.
''Since the earliest texts that we have agree substantially with the later ones, if we were to project backward to the original, the changes from the original text to the earliest copies would be miniscule.'' [p. 55]
''The reality is that, although most of the text of the New Testament is not in dispute, some passages are.'' [p. 61]
''As we look at the materials and methods of textual criticism in the succeeding chapters, we will see that there are solid reasons for regarding the manuscripts of the New Testament as substantially correct in representing the original text.'' [p.70]
''As we saw in the last chapter, only a very small percentage of the New Testament is in doubt.'' [p. 73]
''For the vast majority of the textual variants, there is simply no difficulty determining the original wording.'' [p. 83]
New Testament textual criticism then is a very important endeavor as it demonstrates the reliability of our New Testament text.
Actually it is more accurate to say that the highest degree of accuracy claimed is 99.5%, as some put this number down around 98% . In addition, this claim of accuracy is a judgement call . Since we don’t have the actual originals , we can’t compare them to the originals to get an actual confirmed percentage . It’s all a judgement call based on the belief of the textual critics , not a scientific claim of being a provable conclusion based on actual observation.
But let’s get away from the opinion part and get to an actual example for you and Michael . Mark 16:9-20 . Was it in the original manuscripts or not ? Furthermore , some versions of the Bible offer a second alternative reading of the specific verses 9-10 ( I think, working from memory so may be off a little on the verse numbers) . So some Bibles actually have 2 different sets of verses for the ending of Mark that may or may not have been in the original manuscripts . So which is it. Do these verses belong in the Bible or not ?
Honestly, this topic deserves its own thread. Why not start one? I’d be interested in what others have to say about the Mark 16 passage.
Did you know that many early church Fathers quoted from Mark 16:9-20 long before the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts were written.
Personally, I lean towards the Majority Text. There are thousands of manuscripts which include the Mark 16 passage, and only a handful that don’t. Those include Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Last edited by MissKate12; 10-30-2021 at 03:32 PM..
No, Mark 16:9-20 does not belong in the Bible and scholars know that it doesn't belong in the Bible. And they know this because of textual criticism.
You think it's a big deal that we don't have the original NT manuscripts. It's not. We do have the the vast majority of the original text of the NT thanks to NT textual criticism the purpose of which is to recover the original text.
You don't understand textual criticism and its purpose very well, if at all. You speak of comparing the results of textual criticism against the original manuscripts and not being able to do so. If we had the original manuscripts we wouldn't need textual criticism which attempts to recover the original text and has done so remarkably well.
The following is from an older post of mine on the thread https://www.city-data.com/forum/chri...-literary.html Post #9. If you and other readers won't believe what top scholars have to say about the results of NT textual criticism, that's your choice, but it IS what the top scholars of NT textual criticism have to say about it.
I am not concerned with your opinion of my knowledge of textual criticism . I’m just talking about whether the Bible we have is 100% exact as the original manuscripts. You now admit that it is not , that things have been added that were not in the original writings . That was my point . The fact that we don’t have the originals was merely my evidence in saying the Bible is not 100% exact to the original writings of the authors . And yes, the fact that we don’t have the originals IS a fairly big deal . It means we must leave the task of trying to determine what the originals said up to fallible humans looking at thousands of scraps of copies of the originals, and in many cases copies of copies of the originals. Furthermore, no biblical scholar except perhaps a few Anwers in Genesis kind claims they have reproduced it 100% exact to the original manuscripts .
I find your point that we wouldn’t need textual criticism if we had the originals as support for your argument humorous . I agree with it completely . But while you admire their accomplishments in claiming to approach 99% , I see textual criticism as a necessary step taken because we don’t possess the originals, and so must make educated guesses at them . If we HAD the originals, we wouldn’t need scholars to try and rebuild the Bible from scraps using textual criticism . That’s been my point . Since you admit things are in the Bible that don’t belong there , this is pretty well settled , except for extraneous comments from you .
Last edited by NatesDude; 10-30-2021 at 04:01 PM..
Honestly, this topic deserves its own thread. Why not start one? I’d be interested in what others have to say about the Mark 16 passage.
Did you know that many early church Fathers quoted from Mark 16:9-20 long before the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts were written.
Personally, I lean towards the Majority Text. There are thousands of manuscripts which include the Mark 16 passage, and only a handful that don’t. Those include Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
Good point . Maybe I will . This has moved far enough from the OP as it is .
I agree with you that nowhere in God’s word does it say the words “only Scripture.”
But can you tell me why Peter, through the Holy Spirit, would say that God has given us ALL things that pertain to life and godliness?
(2 Peter 1:2-3)
“Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, …”
And why would Paul, through divine inspiration tell Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make the man of God complete?
2 Timothy 3:16-17)
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Your thoughts?
Peter doesn't say that God gave us all things that pertain to life and godliness through scripture only though.
And the passage in 2 Timothy doesn't say anything about Sola Scriptura. Nothing at all.
Please provide the Scriptures where Peter and Jude refer to the book of Enoch.
Jude 14 "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 not execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
2 Peter 2:4 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;"
I am not concerned with your opinion of my knowledge of textual criticism . I’m just talking about whether the Bible we have is 100% exact as the original manuscripts. You now admit that it is not , that things have been added that were not in the original writings . That was my point . The fact that we don’t have the originals was merely my evidence in saying the Bible is not 100% exact to the original writings of the authors . And yes, the fact that we don’t have the originals IS a fairly big deal . It means we must leave the task of trying to determine what the originals said up to fallible humans looking at thousands of scraps of copies of the originals, and in many cases copies of copies of the originals. Furthermore, no biblical scholar except perhaps a few Anwers in Genesis kind claims they have reproduced it 100% exact to the original manuscripts .
I find your point that we wouldn’t need textual criticism if we had the originals as support for your argument humorous . I agree with it completely . If we HAD the originals, we wouldn’t need scholars to try and rebuild the Bible from scraps using textual criticism . That’s been my point . Since you admit things are in the Bible that don’t belong there , this is pretty well settled , except for frustrated comments from you .
No, I do not NOW admit. I've always stated and have quoted scholars who say that it's not 100 percent. And I don't think you know much about textual criticism at all whether you care about my opinion or not. Once again you made the claim in post 170 that ''Educated biblical scholars admit there is no way of knowing what the original manuscripts of each book of the NT was like to recognize which texts we have today are correct or in error.'' And that is either a lie on your part or a statement made in ignorance. I've quoted top textual critics (readers see post #223) who attest to the reliability of our present NT.
Your original claim was not that the New Testament is not 100 percent accurate. Your original claim was that educated biblical scholars admit there is no way of knowing what the original manuscripts were like in order to determine whether the NT we have is correct or in error. And this shows a complete lack of understanding of even the purpose of NT textual criticism.
All you are doing now is changing your argument and misrepresenting me trying to defend your position.
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.
