ELECTROGOD

Ya, I don't see ANY Christians reading the Torah (this would be the Dead Sea Scrolls). What's up with that? :huh: Funny how Christians never mentioned that the Torah was the real "holy" book that they should be studying and observing.
I have seen them in person in Israel and don't remember seeing the Christian bible, which contains only a tiny bit of the Torah, displayed or even mentioned there at the museum.
I think (and history shows) that "someone" has been changing things to suit their own wants and needs. Hmmmm, if I were "god" then I just might be pissed off enough to do some smiting.

darstec

How then do you explain all the various different versions of each book found at Qumran? How do you explain the differences (literally thousands) in the Great Isaiah Scroll alone from the Masoretic Text which was used as a source for the KJV?

You actually have no idea what the DDS contain, do you? Can you read the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls? How about the Aramaic fragments? Or the Greek texts? If not, how do you know they "validate the accurate transmission of many books of the Bible?" Besides, in order to be the inerrrant word of god, they would have to validate the accurate transmission of EVERY book of the bible.

pharoah

Let me get this straight. I don't think that the Bible is "inspired" in any shape or form. I'm just simply basing the argument from the claim of the inerrantists that the entire word of God is inspired and free from error. If you are conceding that the Bible is not inspired by God, then I have no argument with you. If it's just another piece of ancient literature then it deserves to be treated with no more moral and spiritual relevance than any other piece of literature.

As I stated above, if you're conceding that the Bible is not inspired by God then I completely agree with you. The comparison with other ancient lit would then be apt. But if you accept the inerrantists claim that the entire Bible was inspired by God then it becomes exceedingly puzzling as to why he wouldn't protect the original contents.

Overcomer did supply one possible argument as to why God would allow the originals to be lost. He stated that it was possibly to prevent idol worship of the documents themselves. It may very well be true that some people would do something like that, but I think that the benefits to billions of having the undisputed texts available to them would substantially outweigh the silliness of a few misguided souls.

I vote for the "machinations of ancient man poured out on paper" option.

Let's look at the OT. Currently all scholars and translators use three different sources - the Masoretic text, the Septauganit, and the Dead Sea Scrolls to create a translation. There are substantial differences between all three sources. They are basically taking a best guess as to which source is the "most" correct for any given verse or chapter. Are you prepared to argue that one of the three sources is the authoritative source and that the other two should not be used by scholars? If not, then you must concede that the original text of the OT has not been 100% preserved.

Where did I ever say that the original text does not contain inconsistencies? You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this thread. I'm not attacking the contents of the Bible itself, although it is laden with inconsistencies and many other problems. The only reason that I rebutted your passage was to provide a counter-argument to your contention that the inserted text was at worst harmless.

My purpose is much more fundamental. I'm trying to point out that the whole basis for considering the Bible the divine word of a god is flawed.

Let me restate what I said in my OP. Of the thousands of Greek NT manuscripts that we have available to us from antiquity, not a single one of them is in complete agreement with another one. Some of the differences are very minor, some are very major. The situation that NT scholars are faced with is the same as OT scholars, except that it's probably even worse because of the sheer number of documents they have available to them. They're faced with judging all of the evidence and making a best guess about certain verses and passages. Different scholars make different best guesses. Again, unless you're prepared to argue that one of these manuscripts is the authoritative manuscript, or that one of the NT translations is the authoritative translation, then you have no choice but to concede that all the translations we have are a compilation of best guesses, not an exact copy of the original texts.

Here's a copy of text concerning John 7:53-8:11 from the New International Version, which is surely the translation of choice for conservative Christians.

Here's what the NIV has to say concerning Mark 16:9-20:

Note that the NIV does NOT even include I John 5:7 in their translation! They do have a footnote about it, however. Here's what it says:

Here's another quote from Bible.org concerning I John 5:7.

These are all quotes from conservative scholars and translators. Perhaps you can find other scholars that disagree with these assertions. If so, fine, they can duke it out among themselves, although those that disagree have a very heavy burden of proof to meet as to why later manuscripts should be favored over earlier ones.

James Madison

Which you can't demonstrate absent the original texts, at least according the reasoning of your own argument.

My point is such an inquiry is irrelevant! Whether or not the bible was actually the inspired word of God or not has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

Well first of all your meaning of "substantial difference" is rather vast and broad.

Second of all what "substantial differences" are you talking about? You considered the verses at the end of John chapter seven and the first 11 verses of John 8 to be "substantial differences" when in fact this is not a substantial difference, assuming of course this was not in the "original manuscript".

You assume it.

Here is what you said:I am supposing you are looking at this inconsistency as evidence the current bible is perhaps a departure from the original manuscripts. Your argument has been thus far to look at the various discrepancies between older manuscripts, although not original, and assert these discrepancies are "evidence" there has been a departure from the original manuscripts. So this account of Jesus' reaction to the adulterous woman is presumably a fabrication, according to your argument, because it contradicts the OT law. Well this necessarily assumes the original manuscripts first of all did not have this account in them much less, assumes the OT law in these areas were in effect, Jesus was in fact contradicting them, and there weren't contradictions of this kind already in the original manuscripts.

Essentially you can't really use this contradiction as evidence there is a departure from the original manuscripts unless you assume this contradiction was absent from the original manuscripts, again something you can't prove.

Well you presented a hypothetical proposing Satan would subvert the word of God by hiding the original manuscripts and then making alterations to the transmissions of the original manuscripts in the form of copies.

I countered by asserting this hypothetical really does not help prove the point you are trying to make. Why? Because the "alterations" are harmless at best and conducive to the spreading of the word of God, something Satan was seeking to abate in your hypothetical. I used the John passage as an example where "assuming" it is an alteration, it did not have the desirous effect Satan was desiring.

In fact it is "harmless" for another reason. The assumed "alteration" does not in any way affect the central theme.

Now before you reply with, "But wait how can you know the central theme without having the original manuscripts," the same way I can know the central theme of all the following: Plato's Republic, Aristotles writings, Federalist Papers, St. Augustine writings, John Locke's writings, Montesqeiu's writings, Rousseau's writings, Marcus Aurrelius' writings, and so forth without having ever read the original manuscripts.

I don't need the original manuscripts to know the central theme of them. We do not need the original manuscripts to feel fairly confident the central theme has been preserved regarding other ancient texts and so I do not see why it is important to possess the original manuscripts before feeling fairly confident the central theme has been preserved.

Furthermore under your own reasoning and methodology has been to look at the early archaic texts, although not original, and illuminate the differences in them and then take these differences as evidence for a departure in regards to one or both archaic texts from the original manuscript.

Well employing your own methodology the existing archaic texts repeat the same central theme as the current day texts. Ergo, this is evidence the central theme has been preserved and is what we have understood it to be today.

Well before I remark on this lacking "complete agreement" remark can you tell me where the discrepancies between these archaic texts exist and the substance of the discrepancy?

Well you can't even make the claim one of them is not an "exact copy" of the original because you yourself also lack access to the original. That is the fundamental flaw of your own argument. Your own reasoning defeats many of the points your raise. You can't even legitimately assert what the NT scholars have compiled is a departure from the original text UNLESS you have read the original text. Since you have not read the original text then all you have is a "best guess" as to what is a departure from the original text and what is not. So you have no choice but to concede you are clueless as to which translation is a departure from the original text and therefore, you can't even demonstrate or prove which translation is not an exact copy of the original text.

But your "best guess" is not even a "best guess" by virtue of the fact you are not even a scholar in this field. So you have nothing more than a "guess" as to which translations and archaic texts are not exact copies of the original text.

So essentially your argument is nothing more than a "guess".

Furthermore, I don't need to assert all or any of those old texts are "authoritative" to assert a current translation is identical to the original text. Why? Because a lot of those old texts have millions of similarities, say the same thing, repeat the same story, and this is evidence these similarities were in the original text. Hence, looking at the various texts, extrapolating from them the similar accounts and ignoring the differences to a distilled translation would result in a very strong likelihood this distilled translation is similar if not identical to the original text without having to declare any one of them as "authoritative".

So I reject your grand false dilemma of, "I have to declare one of the ancient texts as authoritative for me to assert a current translation is an exact copy or else we have nothing more than best guesses," as absolutely erroneous. NT Scholars look at all of these old texts, extract from them the similarities, and take these similarities and distill it into a translation.

Furthermore, the discrepancies among the various old texts could be the result of nothing more than different interpretive tools. Indeed there are differences today between the NASB and NLT based on the fact they freely admit they have used "different" interpretive tools.

pharoah

If you refuse to accept all the quotes that I gave you from conservative scholars as evidence, and if you furthermore believe that a book that is a patchwork quilt of different sources that all disagree with each other could possibly be a perfect copy with the original texts, then no, there's no way that I could demonstrate this to you.

Why are you talking about John from the NT when my original quote was about the OT? :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Let me go bang my head again on the wall. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Whew, that feels better. Let me shout it from the rooftops, so that you can quit misunderstanding me. I am an atheist. The Christian God does not exist. The Bible is not the inspired word of a god. It's entirely a human product filled with contradictions, superstitions, and absolutely awful behavior by Yahweh. Are we clear on all of this now?

Why do you persist in beating this strawman to death? Didn't I make it abundantly clear in my last post that my response had absolutely nothing to do with my main argument, that it was only a rebuttal to your statement about God's mercy? Let me repeat once again - my above quote concerning Jesus and God's Law has nothing, zero, zilch, nada to do with my main argument! It's a side issue having nothing to do with the purpose of this thread. If I had known that you would seize an irrelevant side issue to use as a diversionary tactic I would have never posted the rebuttal in the first place. Sheesh!

I'm not a NT scholar, so I can't tell you the substance of the discrepancies. My source for my assertion is "Lost Christianities" by Bart D. Ehrman, a professor and the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC - Chapel Hill.

First of all, I should apologize for an error of mine. In my OP I mistakenly asserted that 54,000 NT manuscripts have been found. Actually the book states that there are 5400 manuscripts. It was certainly not my intention to mislead anyone. :banghead:

Here's a quotation taken from pages 219-220 of the book:


No, it's not. As I mentioned earlier, there's at least a 100-year gap between the authorship of the NT books and the earliest manuscripts that we have, which leaves plenty of time for substantial editorial revisons. Now you may wonder why this should apply to the NT and not other books of antiquity? It's because scribes back then would have much more motive to alter the NT to push their theological viewpoints than they would to alter Homer or Plato. The first two centuries of Christianity was an entrenched theological battle between many different sects with radically different points of view.

You're not actually serious, are you? How can you "ignore the differences" when you're preparing a translation? That's absolute nonsense. If scholars actually did that you'd have a Bible substantially lighter than the one you now have. Let me repeat once again - they have to compare the differences and make an informed best guess as to which version to go with.

So far I've made assertions and backed up my assertions with plenty of evidence from outside sources. Your argument so far has consisted mostly of red herrings, strawmen and hand waving. It's time for you to either put up or shut up. Either refute the evidence that I've given to you with your own evidence or let's just drop the subject.

James Madison

Pray do tell how the experts could possibly be right in their assessment without the original texts? Isn't that the point of your entire argument? NOBODY can be sure the current translations are identical with the original text absent the original texts? But now you wan't to appeal to scholars to prove your point but why? Under your own reasoning the scholars could be wrong.

Additionally, you focus on one part of the old texts, namely the differences, while all the while ignoring the other half of the equation, where they agree.

My goodness Pharoah it was an "example" to illuminate your understanding of "substantial difference" is vast and broad and I was using those verses, which you brought up yourself, as examples where the verses do not constitute as "substantial differences". Consequently, I want to know the "substance" of the disparities because I do not take your word for it there are "substantial differences".

You are not the one which should be banging their head against the wall but I need to. You apparently can't discern how an "example" is used. For future reference I will do my best to argue by some other means other than an example or analogy as this seems to confuse you.

You are the one who freely brought up the verses of John and now you want to claim it was irrelevant? Bull!

You said the following to Roger on 10-29-05. You brought up the verses! You brought them up to assert they are fabrications. You brought them up to demonstrate the verses are a departure from the original text. You brought them up to demonstrate current texts which include these verses are wrong to do so.

I then decided to use these John verses in your ridiculous Satan hypothetical. Your words out of your own mouth typed onto this page. I commented Satan would want to include not significant alterations but alterations which undermined the central theme. I then used the John verses as an instance which certainly "qualify" as a 'significant alteration' under your own argument since you considered them These aren't just small textual variations that we're talking about. For example, we know for a fact by looking at ancient manuscripts that John 7:53-8:11. So these John verses are not small textual variations but significant alterations. However, Satan has goofed because the significant alteration does not have the effect you attribute to him, i.e. stop the word of God.

Then you decided to bring up the irrelevant discussion as to whether or not these verses really do reflect God's mercy, a discussion which has absolutely nothing to do with my argument as I presented it in light of your Satan hypothetical.

Now after all of this you want to argue these John verses were irrelevant to your argument? Complete baloney! You used them as instances of significant variations in the text and as a means of what Satan would do, if he exists, to stop the spread of the word God.

You mentioned them to demonstrate they are a fabrication, a fake, a phony, all designed to demonstrate we cannot be "sure" what was in the original text.

This line of reasoning is inherently flawed. Just because this leaves plenty of time (plenty of time in your opinion only) for substantial editorial revisions does not lead to the conclusion editorial revisions occurred. You can't even prove substantial editorial revisions occurred. That is the problem inherent in the reasoning of your own argument.

Your own logic requires you to have in front of you the original texts to assert there were editorial revisions. This certainly was not intended by you but your own argument unwittingly defeats itself based on the fact the logic you espouse is applicable to the points you make about there being "editorial" revisions or deviations from the original text.

So once again pray do tell how you "know" there were editorial revisions? Then tell me how you go about doing this without looking at the original texts?

Yeah so what! You can't even prove which discrepancies are "alterations" and therefore, can't prove where the NT scribes did alter the NT.

Touche! How can you ignore the similarities?

It is absolute nonsense you can ignore the similarities. There we are even. I feel better now.

Now this quote tag demonstrates what we all have known about your argument. You "assume" more than you can prove. You can't prove which alterations are departures from the original text because you need the original tex to do so and so any claim some alteration or addition is a fabrication is just a "guess" an "assumption" on your behalf because you do not have the original texts in front of you.

Additionally, you are assuming more than you can prove in stating we'd have a bible substantially lighter than the one we have now. To make this statement requires you to assume there are a lot of differences and how do you know there are a lot of differences? You don't! So not only can you not tell me the substance of the discrepancies but you can't even know how "many" discrepancies exist. You just assume there are enough to result in a smaller bible than exists today without even knowing the substance of them or the number of them. That is fantastic reasoning!

You have? No way! Only in your dreams, very sweet dreams. If the outside sources which have resulted in a current translation you dispute as being faithful to the original text is a "guess," then likewise any outside sources you provide asserting fabrication and departure from the original text is likewise a "guess". Why? Because absent the original text NEITHER side KNOWS, according to your own argument.

So your "plenty of evidence" phrase is a joke. All of your evidence rests upon the assumption they have gotten it "right" but to "know" if they are "right" requires some knowledge of the original text, something they do not "know" to have or not since the original texts are lost, and consequently, your argument is no better or superior.

So you may have "plenty" of evidence but it is too bad that the amount of evidence does not win an argument. It is the quality of the evidence and at this time you have "plenty" of crappy evidence.

What a load of crap, much like your own argument. My argument has not consisted of this at all. In fact most of my own posts have been focusing upon the fact your own reasoning defeats your own argument, refutes your own evidence, and rebukes your cited authority. Only a fool would assert I have made red herrings, strawmen and hand waving arguments. You must be running out of substantive things to say, typical for someone with a bad argument.

Teapot calling the kettle black. Since your evidence is lacking can I expect you to shut up, please?

Let's review your ponderous, just ponderous evidence.

Ohhh an NT scholar!!! WOW I guess I am supposed to be amazed! Pray do tell how exactly this NT scholar is somehow "right" as opposed to the other NT scholars who disagree with him?

Is he right because you say so? Is he right because you think so? Is he right just "because"?

Now his assertions about these "discrepancies" as they relate to your argument is most important. Pray do tell how this NT scholar or yourself can discern, absent the original manuscripts, which discrepancies are departures from the original text?

You can't nor can he and ERGO, you CAN'T assert a particular interpretation is wrong.

Okay one piece of crappy evidence down.

More crappy evidence. Just because there is an opportunity to depart from the original manuscript does not mean it happened.

Now you have very "small" evidence there is a departure from the original text by looking at the discrepancies and assuming if a correct copy had occurred then discrepancies would not exist (assuming of course the original texts themselves did not already have these discrepancies, if they did then your agument falls apart) but you can't prove which discrepancies are departures from the original text. Hence, it is crappy evidence since you can't prove "which" translation is a departure from the original texts without having the original texts in front of us.

So another piece of deplorable evidence down.

More deplorable evidence. How can you ignore the similarities? If the differences can be looked at and relied upon to assume one of them, if not all of them, have deviated from the text otherwise we would not have any discrepancies if all of them "correctly" copied the originals, then looking at the similarities between them can be used to draw the conclusion in the area of similarities they correctly copied from the "original texts".

Additionally, the presence of "differences" in the various old texts does not mean "all" of the text is inaccurate or all of the texts are inaccurate or did not correclty copy the original text.

Furthermore, as I have already said you assume there are a lot of differences without even knowing for sure.

So another piece of weak and ponderous evidence down the drain.

Now you actually have the audacity to tell me to put up or shut up when you rely upon this weak evidence linked together by your weak assumptions? I don't know what is worse. Making an argument which is so weak a first grader could poke holes in it or operating under the delusion it is a strong and grand enough of an argument to grant someone the liberty to tell other people to shut up. In my opinion anyone making as weak and deplorable of an argument as you has no business, absolutely no business telling other people to shut up.

Your evidence has been sufficiently refuted. Your reasoning sufficiently rejected. Your claims have been sufficiently exposed. It is not the "amount" of evidence but the quality of the evidence. All you have provided is plenty of crappy evidence.

So essentially, you have yet to prove what parts of the current translations are a departure from the original texts primarily because to do so requires us to "know" what the original texts say. According to your own argument we cannot "know" what the original texts say because they are not available to us. Ergo, any claim on your behalf or by any cited NT scholar used to support your claims some verse is a fabrication or a particular translation is wrong is a "guess" and pure "speculatoin" because after all how can they "know" or be for "sure" it is a fabrication without first knowing what the original text says, according to your own argument? So not only can you not be sure or confident, according to your own argument, which parts are a fabrication you can't even be sure or confident which interpretations are wrong without the original text.

So essentially your argument is a weak one, your evidence is weak, and your own reasoning defeats the points you make. Poor argument and in my opinion people espousing such poor arguments have no business telling others to shut up.

James Madison

Okay so they had a "motive" but so what. Having the "motive" to do something does not mean the act was done. We still have to "assume" a lot to get to the conclusion you want to draw. We have to assume the different sects first of all had knowledge or a "copy" of the original texts. Next we have to assume they intentionally altered the substance of the original texts when making these earlier manuscripts.

This, however, strengthens a point I made earlier. How can you ignore the similarities? The different sects did not disagree about everything and assuming they did change the original manuscripts in these early copies to reinforce their view, they did not alter "all" of the original manuscripts, particularly those areas of "agreement" between the sects as there would be no need to since they "agreed". Hence, those areas where there are "similarities" or "agreement" in these early manuscripts increases the credibility these concurrences existed in the original texts. The only deviations from the original text existing only in those areas where the sects disagreed.

Now as Roger emphasized earlier and I concur with him. We do not need the "original manuscript" to be fairly confident we are looking at a "copy" which is very identical if not identical to the original text. We make this assumption in regards to other forms of ancient literature and I see no good, compelling, or convincing reason why it can't be done with the bible, particularly in regards to those areas where there is overwhelming "agreement".

Julian

The question is, what constitutes "very identical?" Every copy we have is different from every other copy. Now, I agree that what we have is probably very close in many sections, possibly most. However, it is quite clear that even small alterations can cause significant theological or christological changes. We know for a fact that there were tendentious alterations made almost for the very beginning. We know that many of the most important textual critics are quite biased.

The fact is that our NT is probably quite close to the originals. But, I suspect, there are significant, but subtle, alterations that cloud what was probably a far more divergent gospel tradition in the early days.

I do believe that Kurt Aland is severely misguided when he talks about the original texts as if he has a copy sitting on desk. One of the reasons why evangelicals should not be taken as seriously as they are, even when they are as knowledgable as he is. The fact is that we don't know how close we are but it is reasonable to assume that we are fairly close. Fairly close in terms of the text but pretty far from understanding the historical underpinnings, which in turn will prevent us from finding those last subtle changes.

By the way, I didn't read many of the posts above. Too much yelling and bullshit and not enough substance. I did read part of one of them and would like to point out that Dr. Ehrman is one of the best scholars in this field and he is well worth paying close attention to. He generally never makes a point without basing it on large quantities of solid evidence.

Julian

Julian

BTW, forgot to comment on this. We know that the act was done. The western non-interpolations are clear and unmistakable examples of this, for example.

Also, only one sect would have had access to the original. After that it was all copies. Note that many sects were geographical in nature. As the copies spread, like concentric circles in water, changes would have been introduced to conform to the local ideology.

You cannot compare classical literature to the evolution of the NT texts because the classical texts carry little or no political impact. We know for a fact that the NT texts were changed, we sometimes know how. To say that we know of all those changes would be erroneous.

Julian