Muad'Dib

Do you really suppose that a dictionary even claims to have, let alone has, the metaphysical authority to decisively define what a god is? Certainly its definition is useful in that it describes (not prescribes) what most (not all) people who use that particular dictionary mean when they refer to God, but not everyone uses the term in this sense.

No Greek claimed that Zeus was perfect, but they still called him a god. No Greek claimed that Artemis created the universe, but they still called her a goddess. And no one in their right mind would look at the Greek pantheon and call them a monotheistic people.

The definition above works for much of Protestant America, but not the world at large.

2xhelix

CowboyX

I am amazed in your background in the study of manuscripts. I will be the first that I lack the depth to properly debate this topic with you. However, I believe I do have some valid points to share.
If you received a letter that says
“OU HAVE WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS”
It would be safe to assume that you indeed have won 10 million.
If the next day, you receive another letter which says
“YU HAVE WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS”
It would only serve to support the original message.

My point is, even with manuscript errors, as long as the intended message is still intact, we can still trust the content of the Bible.

The point I was trying to make by using this quote was exactly what you stated. Biblical authors have the authority and knowledge from God.

The reason why I approach it this way, is because I believe that since the Bible is the Word of God. Often, many people say that the Bible uses the “The Bible is true, because the Bible says so”. I personally think people neglect that the Bible is actually a collection of authors, and not just one. And through out all the authors, the same message is proclaimed. So we do not just have 1 account of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus but 4, and also texts which were not apart of the cannon.


I believe that if an individual is ‘inspired’ then their actions cannot be erroneous. For example, if a painter was inspired by a beautiful view he saw, and came home and decided to paint it, the painting would be a representation of what he saw earlier. In the same way, God inspired Biblical authors, and they wrote down what they saw, or felt.

I am also very open minded, although I believe in the Christian God. I do not claim to know everything, and I maybe be proved wrong when debating aspects of theology. Many times, I have felt that God does not exist, and questioned His sovereignty but in the end I feel that I do indeed see the truth.

Quatermass

Regardless of how you get there, the notion that the Bible is inerrant can easily be tested, especially if you think that it is fairly represented in its current form to the original autographs.

How familiar are you with the problems in the Bible that argue against inerrancy?

It's a risky position as a single error seems to demolish not just your view of the Bible, but by your original argument, the existence of God!

CX

>>I am amazed in your background
>>in the study of manuscripts.

You shouldn't be. My study of Xian manuscripts is that of a dilletante at best. Only a minimal amount of study is required to get a feel for it. I ended up studying it after learning to read the Greek NT (which I also have only the most rudimentary understanding of and still rely to a significant degree on a Lexicon) because of the differences in the various manuscript families.


>>If you received a letter that says
>>“OU HAVE WON 10 MILLION
>>DOLLARS” It would be safe
>>to assume that you indeed have
>>won 10 million.

Not until I see the 10 million. Talk is cheap plus there could be any number of other factors, I could have misread. Most of those sweepstakes outfits rely on that to get people to read their mailings.

>>If the next day, you receive another
>>letter which says “YU HAVE WON
>>10 MILLION DOLLARS” It would only
>>serve to support the original message.

However if the original message is false or inaccurate repeating it does not validate it or make it true. Plus your own analogy offers a perfect example of scribal error since the two hypothetical letters do not say the same thing.

>>My point is, even with manuscript
>>errors, as long as the intended message
>>is still intact, we can still trust the
>>content of the Bible.

But errors aren't the only thing in question here. We also have to consider redaction, glosses and, in the case of English translations, translational bias. A perfect example of this this the difference of GMk 1:1 in different manuscript families. In the later Byzantine manuscripts AMk says only "as it says in the prophets" before citing the prophecy in Malachi. In the Alexandrian family, on which is based the Westcott-Hort GNT as well as the NIV English translation, it reads "as it is written in the prophet Isaiah" which is an obvious mistake. The Alexandrian manuscripts are generally considered closer to the original autographs and generally more reliable. If this is true then AMk made a mistake by wrongly attributing the quoted old testament passage to Isaiah which therefore disconfirms inerrancy. Consequently differences in the manuscripts are significant to your claim. Plus scholars have identified various glosses and additions to the NT texts. A notable one is GMk 16:9-20. The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have these verses at all and GMk ends at 16:8. I'd say this addition is very important.

>>I personally think people neglect
>>that the Bible is actually a collection
>>of authors, and not just one.

I agree. However there is disagreement among them which argues against inerrancy and there is sufficient evidence to support literary interdependence in which errors from one can propagate to the others (not to mention I have a hard time understanding why inspired and inerrant authors would need to use other gospels as sources; in the OT god just dictates his message to moses).

>>And through out all the authors,
>>the same message is proclaimed.

This ignores the fact that the canonical texts, by definition, agree in terms of theology and for the most part, christology (there is obvious development from the time of GMk to the time of GJn). The texts that didn't agree with the orthodox view weren't picked for the canon by the early church fathers. Furthermore all are influence to a varying degree by Pauline theology (we can see the importance the early orthodox church placed on Paul by the sheer number of texts included in that canon which were authored by him or his disciples). Your argument is akin to saying that 4 people who agreed wrote about something they all agreed on and all 4 accounts agree therefore they are true and accurate. Do you see the circularity there? Furthermore there are all kinds of non-canonical texts that divurge significantly from the orthodox view. That we do not have more and earlier extra-canonical documents is a testament to the efficiency with which the early church eradicated heresy and the popularity of the canonical texts (unpopular texts don't get copied as much and as such are unlikely to survive to the present).

[snip painter analogy]

Your analogy about the paint is not valid because though the painter was inspired by the view and painted what he saw and felt there is no reason to suppose, given the utter fallibility of the human senses and interpretative mechanisms, that his painting is a perfectly accurate reproduction of the real scene. If anything this analogy supports my position rather than yours.

>>I am also very open minded, although
>>I believe in the Christian God. I do
>>not claim to know everything, and I
>>maybe be proved wrong when debating
>>aspects of theology. Many times, I
>>have felt that God does not exist,
>>and questioned His sovereignty but
>>in the end I feel that I do indeed
>>see the truth.

And I have no quarrel with that. You are perfectly entitled to your faith. I respect people of faith insofar as I do not distinguish between them and anyone else on that basis alone. My entire family are believers in Christ. Some of them are evangelical and my father is studying at seminary to become an ordained deacon of the Episcopal church. I debate these issues not to convince someone to abandon their faith, but because I find the Xian text legacy interesting and because an awful lot of believers have a poor understanding of their own texts. If you want to say, "I believe in God, Jesus and the bible because of faith" I wish you well and hold you in no contempt. On the other hand if you make verifiable and falsifiable claims about the Xian text legacy, I am apt to debate the issue.

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by CowboyX:
Practically everything we know about the gnostics comes from the scrolls at Qumran. The early Xian church did an exceptional job of erasing all traces of what it considered heresy, especially once Contantine converted in the 4th century and Xianity was adopted as the religion of the empire. That being said, most of the Qumran manuscript evidence is still quite late; late 2nd/early 3rd century and beyond. [/QUOTE]


Just a couple of little niggles:

1) The Qumran manuscripts are Essene not Gnostic.

2) None of the Qumran material postdates 137 CE.

You may have confused Qumran with Nag Hamadi(sp?)?

Amen-Moses

[ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Amen-Moses ]</p>

CX

&gt;&gt;Just a couple of little niggles:
&gt;&gt;1) The Qumran manuscripts are
&gt;&gt;Essene not Gnostic.
&gt;&gt;2) None of the Qumran material
&gt;&gt;postdates 137 CE.
&gt;&gt;You may have confused Qumran with
&gt;&gt;Nag Hamadi(sp?)?

You are precisely right. I conflated Nag Hammadi with Qumran. As far as I know the Qumran find has only fragments of the OT and descriptions of daily life of the monastics that resided there. I have seen controversy over whether they were actually essenes or not. All the gnostic texts I am referring to were discovered in the Nag Hammadi library.

As far as the main two gospel manuscripts I mentioned:

P52 was discovered in Egypt and was acquired by Grenfell in 1920. Now it resides in the John Rylands Library in Manchester.

The famed uncial B/03 has been in the Vatican library for all of its recorded history (which is why it is called Codex Vaticanus). Scholars generally date it to about the 4th century. This is THE definitive text for the Alexandrian family.

cloudyphiz

dnftt

CX

Who is the troll? Me or Amen-Moses? If the latter sorry, I'm pretty new here and don't know who's a troll and who isn't. I'll make a mental note.

CX

BTW at what point did I become a "regular" here?

Pantera

You become a regular with your 31st post. I hope you'll stay around and give us many more.