What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Describing Evangelicals

Ehrman argues that changes to the various New Testament manuscripts were made in order to rebut the doctrinal controversies of the second and third centuries; in what he has named the: ‘Early Christian struggles for orthodoxy.’

These were struggles against Adoptionism – the belief that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was the son of God by adoption only; against Separationism – the notion that Yeshua was two entities; a human who was temporarily inhabited by a divine being; against Docetism – the belief that Yeshua only ‘seemed’ or ‘appeared’ to be human and to experience suffering; and against Patripassianism’ – the notion that Yeshua was God the Father Himself, come down to earth in human flesh.

According to Ehrman, these centuries witnessed a:

‘Period of intense rivalry among various groups of Christians who advocated divergent ways of understanding their religion. By the fourth century, one of these groups had routed the opposition, co-opting for itself the designation “orthodoxy” and effectively marginalizing the rival parties as “heresies.” Proponents of fourth-century orthodoxy insisted on the antiquity of their views and embraced certain authors of the preceding generations as their own theological forebears.’

He writes:

‘My study focuses on these earlier Christians – the representatives of an “incipient orthodoxy” – because most scribal alterations of the New Testament text originated during the time of their disputes, that is, in the ante-Nicene age.’

And explores:

‘The ways proto-orthodox Christians used literature in their early struggles for dominance, as they produced polemical treatises, forged supporting documents under the names of earlier authorities, collected apostolic works into an authoritative canon, and insisted on certain hermeneutical principles for the interpretation of these works.’

And goes on:

‘The documents of this new canon could be circulated, of course, only to the extent that they were copied. And they were copied by warm-blooded scribes who were intimately familiar with the debates over doctrine that made their scribal labors a desideratum.

‘It was within this milieu of controversy that scribes sometimes changed their scriptural texts to make them say what they were already known to mean. In the technical parlance of textual criticism—which I retain for its significant ironies—these scribes “corrupted” their texts for theological reasons.’

And concludes:

‘Textual scholars and exegetes who are interested in examining the evidence and evaluating the arguments I have adduced will want to read the detailed exposition of each chapter. It is here that I address a number of textual and exegetical issues that have intrigued scholars throughout the modern era, and demonstrate on a case by case basis how proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries modified their texts of Scripture to make them conform more closely with their own Christological beliefs, effecting thereby the “orthodox corruption of Scripture.” (‘The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament’; my emphasis).

Such is the New Testament we have today; and, perhaps, what we have had from the very dawn of the autographs.

Is the New Testament inerrant? No.

Is it authoritative? Indeed, if one happens to be a Christian!

Does it suffice for a blessed and holy life; one that is pleasing to the Beloved? Absolutely.

Oz, you write:

‘I do not believe in the inerrancy or authority of any translation.’

My advice to you, is to embrace the New Testament; regardless of how it has been translated. Find a translation that touches your heart, and live by it.

Your current conversation with Wondering looks like a very good start.

If I may contribute, just a little:
 
Wondering is correct about Mark 16: 9-20.

Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.

Concerning Baptism:

The Church teaches that when the Beloved created Adam and Eve they received, as part of their human nature, sanctifying grace; being that which: ‘Gives us acceptance into the kinship of God.’ (Council of Trent: Enchiridion; article 796).

As both of you know, the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve disobeyed the Beloved, and in so doing committed a personal sin. This sin, according to the Church, affected human nature itself, depriving it of its original and natural sanctifying grace. This deprivation of sanctifying grace is called ‘original sin’.

It is important to realise that original sin is called ‘sin’ in an analogical, rather than literal sense. We are not born with sin in the normal sense of the word; rather, we are born without our original holiness; without sanctifying grace. In other words, we are born with a ‘fallen human nature’. The remedy, according to the Church, is baptism, which sanctifies our soul and, in so doing, ‘washes away original sin’ by restoring our souls to their original state.

The Church teaches that a formal prophecy of baptism is to be found in Ezekiel 36:25:

‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.’

Yeshua permitted his disciples to administer baptism:

‘Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.’ (John 4: 1-2).

He also explained, to Nicodemus, the nature and necessity of baptism:

‘Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.’ (John 3: 1-5).

It is said that before his ascension, Yeshua gave to his disciples a universal mandate to baptise:

‘Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ (Matthew 28:19).

This mandate is supported by the Didache – an early Christian manual dated, by most scholars, at around 100 CE:

‘But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.’ (‘Anonymous. The Didache: The Original Greek Text with Four English Translations’; Chapter 7).

There can be no doubt that baptism was a Christian practice both during, and after, Yeshua’s ministry.

May the Beloved bless both of you – and all you love – and keep you ever closer to Himself.
 
OzSpen said:
wondering,

I consider there is false teaching in these additions to Mk 16:9-10 (NIV): "16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. . . . 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all;"

Oz
Click to expand...

The "long ending" of Mark is widely considered to have been added to the Gospel by an overzealous scribe.
 
Niblo said:
Wondering is correct about Mark 16: 9-20.

Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.

Concerning Baptism:

The Church teaches that when the Beloved created Adam and Eve they received, as part of their human nature, sanctifying grace; being that which: ‘Gives us acceptance into the kinship of God.’ (Council of Trent: Enchiridion; article 796).

As both of you know, the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve disobeyed the Beloved, and in so doing committed a personal sin. This sin, according to the Church, affected human nature itself, depriving it of its original and natural sanctifying grace. This deprivation of sanctifying grace is called ‘original sin’.

It is important to realise that original sin is called ‘sin’ in an analogical, rather than literal sense. We are not born with sin in the normal sense of the word; rather, we are born without our original holiness; without sanctifying grace. In other words, we are born with a ‘fallen human nature’. The remedy, according to the Church, is baptism, which sanctifies our soul and, in so doing, ‘washes away original sin’ by restoring our souls to their original state.

The Church teaches that a formal prophecy of baptism is to be found in Ezekiel 36:25:

‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.’

Yeshua permitted his disciples to administer baptism:

‘Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.’ (John 4: 1-2).

He also explained, to Nicodemus, the nature and necessity of baptism:

‘Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.’ (John 3: 1-5).

It is said that before his ascension, Yeshua gave to his disciples a universal mandate to baptise:

‘Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ (Matthew 28:19).

This mandate is supported by the Didache – an early Christian manual dated, by most scholars, at around 100 CE:

‘But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.’ (‘Anonymous. The Didache: The Original Greek Text with Four English Translations’; Chapter 7).

There can be no doubt that baptism was a Christian practice both during, and after, Yeshua’s ministry.

May the Beloved bless both of you – and all you love – and keep you ever closer to Himself.
Click to expand...
When you say "The Church teaches..." what church are you referring to? There is one Body of Christ. There are many denominations.
 
OzSpen said:
wondering,

I consider there is false teaching in these additions to Mk 16:9-10 (NIV): "16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. . . . 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all;"

Oz
Click to expand...
Clarify for me if you please . False teachings " in the additions " mentioned or false teaching using the scripture in the wrong ? These are the verses you are referring to , correct ?

Mark 16-20
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
 
wondering said:
Agreed about the snakes.
This was added by a cult type faction and I can't remember too much about it. There is such a cult even today.

Re the baptism instead...
The Early Fathers believed baptism was necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
Have you read them at all?
Click to expand...

wondering,

Yes, I've read a fair amount of the Church Fathers. However, when considering doctrine I remember they are not Scripture and that brings me back to the foundations.

See my article Baptism and Salvation: I Peter 3:21

Oz
 
wondering said:
You're very well informed Niblo.
No senior moments for you!
:)
Click to expand...
All credit to the scholars who wrote the books that free me from the need to consult Pastor Google or Bishop YouTube!

As for the 'no senior moments' for me....try telling that to my wife, when I 'forget' my list of household jobs.
 
Niblo said:
All credit to the scholars who wrote the books that free me from the need to consult Pastor Google or Bishop YouTube!

As for the 'no senior moments' for me....try telling that to my wife, when I 'forget' my list of household jobs.
Click to expand...
I remember the good ole' days when all we had was books.
Books we trusted.
Maybe, as you were looking something up, you found another interesting point upon which to read and learn.

These days, I do use Prof. Google (he's much more than a pastor!) and I also use YouTube (he's much more than a Bishop!).

Alas, this is where most new Christians learn their information.
Thus, we hear some pretty strange things on these forums...

I must say though, IF you already have some solid theology, it is easier.
One could get some pretty nice images too for preparing lessons, etc.
It has its good points.
 
OzSpen said:
wondering,

Yes, I've read a fair amount of the Church Fathers. However, when considering doctrine I remember they are not Scripture and that brings me back to the foundations.

See my article Baptism and Salvation: I Peter 3:21

Oz
Click to expand...
I read the article.
This is something we go through on a regular basis even on this site.

I like to believe what Jesus said...and not play around with it too much.
This seems, to me, to be something the writers of the NT would have remembered well since it seems to be so important.

Regarding the Early Fathers...they may not be scripture, and some say they were not illuminated or inspired, but I do think that we can trust what those that were taught by the Apostles were taught correctly.

When there's a real problem with some verses and anything could be proven, I find it very helpful to go back to after Jesus died and ascended and the Apostles were still alive and see what those they taught believe about a matter.

For instance, OSAS.
There are some verses that clearly show that one could fall away from the faith.
I hear that these never had faith to begin with.

Then there are some verses that seem to state that once one is saved they could never forfeit this salvation.

Who's right? A case could be made for both which is why this particular debate goes on forever.

I'd ask myself, What did Ignatius of Antioch believe?
He knew John and Peter. I would tend to trust in his statements.
 
Niblo said:
Wondering is correct about Mark 16: 9-20.

Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.

Concerning Baptism:

The Church teaches that when the Beloved created Adam and Eve they received, as part of their human nature, sanctifying grace; being that which: ‘Gives us acceptance into the kinship of God.’ (Council of Trent: Enchiridion; article 796).

As both of you know, the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve disobeyed the Beloved, and in so doing committed a personal sin. This sin, according to the Church, affected human nature itself, depriving it of its original and natural sanctifying grace. This deprivation of sanctifying grace is called ‘original sin’.

It is important to realise that original sin is called ‘sin’ in an analogical, rather than literal sense. We are not born with sin in the normal sense of the word; rather, we are born without our original holiness; without sanctifying grace. In other words, we are born with a ‘fallen human nature’. The remedy, according to the Church, is baptism, which sanctifies our soul and, in so doing, ‘washes away original sin’ by restoring our souls to their original state.

The Church teaches that a formal prophecy of baptism is to be found in Ezekiel 36:25:

‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols.’

Yeshua permitted his disciples to administer baptism:

‘Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.’ (John 4: 1-2).

He also explained, to Nicodemus, the nature and necessity of baptism:

‘Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.” Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!” Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.’ (John 3: 1-5).

It is said that before his ascension, Yeshua gave to his disciples a universal mandate to baptise:

‘Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ (Matthew 28:19).

This mandate is supported by the Didache – an early Christian manual dated, by most scholars, at around 100 CE:

‘But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him who is baptized to fast one or two days before.’ (‘Anonymous. The Didache: The Original Greek Text with Four English Translations’; Chapter 7).

There can be no doubt that baptism was a Christian practice both during, and after, Yeshua’s ministry.

May the Beloved bless both of you – and all you love – and keep you ever closer to Himself.
Click to expand...
Hi Niblo,
You've posted a lot of information and it's a very good post that took time and effort.

I'm familiar with everything you've written about...many times I've consulted the Didache for instance.
As to original sin...I agree with you and the church now agrees with you - I think you mean the Catholic church.
I do believe Augustine messed with original sin in the 400's, but I'm happy to say that the CC has gone back to its original belief on the subject.

Baptism was an important part of Christianity from the very beginning. You must know that some waited till an old age to be baptized - that's how strongly it was believed that baptism forgave all former sins.

I must say that I know the CC believes the water in John 3:5 is referring to baptism, but I just can't bring myself to accepting this...I believe it means the water of natural birth - Jesus compares it to the spiritual birth. Thus BORN AGAIN. Nicodemus even asks how a person could return to the mother's womb a second time. Ezekiel 36:25 is one of the many times the bible mentions baptism by water in both the OT and NT and this is the reason the CC believes John is referring to water baptism in John 3:5

Thanks for bringing up such interesting points.
 
Niblo said:
Good morning, wondering and OzSpen.

In post 9, Oz, you write:

‘I would add that evangelicals have a high view of the authority of the Bible. I, an evangelical, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in the original manuscripts. I do not believe in the inerrancy or authority of any translation.’

And in post 14, you direct our attention to an article written in ‘Got Questions’; the question in this case being: ‘Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?’

The answer is given:

‘To be inerrant is to be free from error. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.’ (My emphasis).

To claim that only the autographs are free from error is a well-known strategy.

Robert M. Price writes:

‘Benjamin B. Warfield was the most famous exponent of this strategy: with one’s back against the wall, having no other escape at hand, the inerrantist should deduce that, with or without manuscript evidence, the original autograph copy, which does not survive, had a different reading, a factually correct one that would not embarrass inerrantism.’ (‘Holy Fable Volume 2: The Gospels and Acts Undistorted by Faith’; citing Archibald A. Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield’s ‘Inspiration’).

Price goes on:

‘As brilliant as Warfield was, he seems somehow not to have noticed what an abyss he was opening up beneath the feet of his theological heirs: Warfield drove a wedge between the Bible we have, which might be erroneous at any and every point for all we can know, and the theoretical “original autographs” to which alone the doctrine of inerrancy may rightly apply. It is too bad we do not have that Bible!’

Oz, you echo Warfield:

‘I would add that evangelicals have a high view of the authority of the Bible. I, an evangelical, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in the original manuscripts. I do not believe in the inerrancy or authority of any translation.’ (My emphasis).

As you say, Wondering, none of the autographs of the New Testament books (nor of the Old) survive.

Bart Ehrman writes:

‘I should emphasize that it is not simply a matter of scholarly speculation to say that the words of the New Testament were changed in the process of copying. We know that they were changed, because we can compare these 5,400 copies with one another. What is striking is that when we do so, we find that no two copies (except the smallest fragments) agree in all of their wording. There can be only one reason for this. The scribes who copied the texts changed them. Nobody knows for certain how often they changed them, because no one has been able yet to count all of the differences among the manuscripts. Some estimates put the number at around 200,000, others at around 300,000 or more. Perhaps it is simplest to express the figure in comparative terms: There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.’ (Lost Christianities – The Battle for Scripture and the Faith We Never Knew’; my emphasis).

He goes on:

‘Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves “orthography,” significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today.

‘In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with reasonable (though not 100 percent) accuracy.’ (My emphasis).

Norman L Geisler and William E. Nix agree. They write:

‘The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book – a form that is 99.5 percent pure.’ (‘A General Introduction to the Bible’; my emphasis).

In his ‘The Case Against The Case For Christ – A New Testament Scholar Refutes Lee Strobel’, Robert M. Price quotes the late Dr. John Beversluis:

‘Since there are thousands of surviving copies, we can study them and thus arrive at a “close approximation” to the originals. However, this seemingly authoritative explanation leaves the most important question unanswered. Since the autographa have not survived and nobody has laid eyes on them for 2,000 years, how could anybody possibly know what was in them — much less, which copies approximate most closely to them? Since there is nothing to which existing manuscripts can be compared, the very ideas of the original manuscripts and which manuscripts approximate most closely to them are useless ideas and should be abandoned. I can judge that a photo is a good likeness of you if and only if I have seen you and know what you look like. If I have not, then I am the last person on earth to ask. The situation is not improved by assuring me that there are thousands of photos of you. The fact is that I have never seen you, so ten million photos would not help.’ (Price is quoting Dr. Beversluis’ unpublished work: 'The Gospel According to Whom: A Non Believer Looks at the New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders'; my emphasis).

I’ve not been able to verify this quote; nevertheless, it makes a very good point.

Continued:
Click to expand...
Geisler and Ehrman are top scholars, I believe Ehrman is one of the top NT scholar in the world.
I find the answer to how to know what the originals stated since we have not seen them in 2,000 years to be very simple.

Jesus did not only TEACH as most illuminated persons did, He LIVED what He taught.
We need only to know His life to know about Him.
We need only to follow HIS words, which represent what HE believed to be true - no matter how imperfectly they might have been written...they are imperfect only in exact wording but not in expressing His teachings.
I find that if we listen, God speaks to us somehow...we need only listen carefully.
 
Good posts Niblo !
Niblo said:
Is the New Testament inerrant? No.

Is it authoritative? Indeed, if one happens to be a Christian!

Does it suffice for a blessed and holy life; one that is pleasing to the Beloved? Absolutely.

Oz, you write:

‘I do not believe in the inerrancy or authority of any translation.’

My advice to you, is to embrace the New Testament; regardless of how it has been translated. Find a translation that touches your heart, and live by it.
Click to expand...
Well said . :goodpost
 
wondering said:
Geisler and Ehrman are top scholars, I believe Ehrman is one of the top NT scholar in the world.
I find the answer to how to know what the originals stated since we have not seen them in 2,000 years to be very simple.

Jesus did not only TEACH as most illuminated persons did, He LIVED what He taught.
We need only to know His life to know about Him.
We need only to follow HIS words, which represent what HE believed to be true - no matter how imperfectly they might have been written...they are imperfect only in exact wording but not in expressing His teachings.
I find that if we listen, God speaks to us somehow...we need only listen carefully.
Click to expand...

wondering,

There are poles of differences between Norm Geisler and Bart Ehrman. Geisler was a thorough evangelical while Ehrman was a convert from evangelicalism to agnosticism.

Oz
 
Niblo said:
Good morning, wondering and OzSpen.

In post 9, Oz, you write:

‘I would add that evangelicals have a high view of the authority of the Bible. I, an evangelical, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in the original manuscripts. I do not believe in the inerrancy or authority of any translation.’

And in post 14, you direct our attention to an article written in ‘Got Questions’; the question in this case being: ‘Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?’

The answer is given:

‘To be inerrant is to be free from error. Only the original autographs (the original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were 100 percent inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would be equally inerrant or free from errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.’ (My emphasis).

To claim that only the autographs are free from error is a well-known strategy.

Robert M. Price writes:

‘Benjamin B. Warfield was the most famous exponent of this strategy: with one’s back against the wall, having no other escape at hand, the inerrantist should deduce that, with or without manuscript evidence, the original autograph copy, which does not survive, had a different reading, a factually correct one that would not embarrass inerrantism.’ (‘Holy Fable Volume 2: The Gospels and Acts Undistorted by Faith’; citing Archibald A. Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield’s ‘Inspiration’).

Price goes on:

‘As brilliant as Warfield was, he seems somehow not to have noticed what an abyss he was opening up beneath the feet of his theological heirs: Warfield drove a wedge between the Bible we have, which might be erroneous at any and every point for all we can know, and the theoretical “original autographs” to which alone the doctrine of inerrancy may rightly apply. It is too bad we do not have that Bible!’

Oz, you echo Warfield:

‘I would add that evangelicals have a high view of the authority of the Bible. I, an evangelical, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in the original manuscripts. I do not believe in the inerrancy or authority of any translation.’ (My emphasis).

As you say, Wondering, none of the autographs of the New Testament books (nor of the Old) survive.

Bart Ehrman writes:

‘I should emphasize that it is not simply a matter of scholarly speculation to say that the words of the New Testament were changed in the process of copying. We know that they were changed, because we can compare these 5,400 copies with one another. What is striking is that when we do so, we find that no two copies (except the smallest fragments) agree in all of their wording. There can be only one reason for this. The scribes who copied the texts changed them. Nobody knows for certain how often they changed them, because no one has been able yet to count all of the differences among the manuscripts. Some estimates put the number at around 200,000, others at around 300,000 or more. Perhaps it is simplest to express the figure in comparative terms: There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.’ (Lost Christianities – The Battle for Scripture and the Faith We Never Knew’; my emphasis).

He goes on:

‘Most changes are careless errors that are easily recognized and corrected. Christian scribes often made mistakes simply because they were tired or inattentive or, sometimes, inept. Indeed, the single most common mistake in our manuscripts involves “orthography,” significant for little more than showing that scribes in antiquity could spell no better than most of us can today.

‘In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with reasonable (though not 100 percent) accuracy.’ (My emphasis).

Norman L Geisler and William E. Nix agree. They write:

‘The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts than any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book – a form that is 99.5 percent pure.’ (‘A General Introduction to the Bible’; my emphasis).

In his ‘The Case Against The Case For Christ – A New Testament Scholar Refutes Lee Strobel’, Robert M. Price quotes the late Dr. John Beversluis:

‘Since there are thousands of surviving copies, we can study them and thus arrive at a “close approximation” to the originals. However, this seemingly authoritative explanation leaves the most important question unanswered. Since the autographa have not survived and nobody has laid eyes on them for 2,000 years, how could anybody possibly know what was in them — much less, which copies approximate most closely to them? Since there is nothing to which existing manuscripts can be compared, the very ideas of the original manuscripts and which manuscripts approximate most closely to them are useless ideas and should be abandoned. I can judge that a photo is a good likeness of you if and only if I have seen you and know what you look like. If I have not, then I am the last person on earth to ask. The situation is not improved by assuring me that there are thousands of photos of you. The fact is that I have never seen you, so ten million photos would not help.’ (Price is quoting Dr. Beversluis’ unpublished work: 'The Gospel According to Whom: A Non Believer Looks at the New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders'; my emphasis).

I’ve not been able to verify this quote; nevertheless, it makes a very good point.

Continued:
Click to expand...
 
I sort of wonder how this group deals with this idea.

Romans 1:20 kjv
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Colossians 1:26 kjv
26. Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

1 Peter 1:20 kjv
20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Jesus spoke in parables. The parable of the sower opened the truth hidden in seeds ( finally opened when the disciples asked what the parable meant).

Hidden in creation is truth. That means there are no manuscripts explaining the seed truth till Jesus.

The two women being two covenants is suddenly explained.

Isaiah 6 tells of the coming use of parables by Jesus.

So here I sit. A Mississippi redneck, having no scripture clearly describing what I refer to. When I see the snake head in our kidneys and read of the brazen serpent on a pole in the wilderness, does that not help evangelism to gentiles? Gentiles do not have Jewish scriptures; they do have human biology. The creation biology and kidneys both speak of removing waste / sin from the body. One is body waste the other is spiritual sin. Jesus was placed on a cross for our sin. The snake was placed on a pole for healing of death caused by sin. Hidden from creation: made in his image:

eddif
 
Evangelism 101 LOL
Acts 28:3 kjv
3. And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4. And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5. And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
6. Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

Sounds like a good introduction to preaching the gospel to me.

Oh but brother some Christians handle snakes in church.. Well some people ignore the above passage because surviving snakebites was ruined by the snake handlers. Just because a tradition exists means just that ( a tradition exists).

The full moon.
Vampires and such.
No
The fullness of Jesus is come.
John 14:28 kjv
28. Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Each month the lunar cycle tells of his leaving and coming again.
The blood moon tells of hi death on the cross ( the fullness of his purpose of His coming ).
Oh but brother the werewolves undid that meaning. LOL

Mississippi redneck
eddif
 
Evangelism 102 LOL
And if you drink any deadly thing.

Oh but brother I don’t drink any artificial sweeteners. I just insult my host and tell him off.

1 Corinthians 10:27 kjv
27. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

I can not joke about this too much. This goes into the individuals belief.

Our Christian commentaries are dangerous at times.

eddif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top