Steven Avery

Hi spam,

What we have today is far more important than the originals since the Bible is our hand is tangible and the words are right in front of us. And we are not discussing something that is not extant.

We have a 100% perfect Bible today.
(In English, the King James Bible).

Shalom,
Steven

Malachi151

The "originals", by definition, were 100% accurate. We are only talking about textual accuracy here, not the accuracy of the content. We are talking about discrepancies between copies. When there is only the first copy, there are no discrepancies.

Roger Pearse

Just so. Let's keep it clear in our minds what we are discussing -- the transmission of literary texts by copying. Let's also keep it clear what we are NOT discussing -- whether the text of the bible is inspired by God. The two are not related in any important way.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

It seems to me that you want your cake and eat it, too. On one hand you want to treat the text as we would any other ancient text. But it clearly isn't just any old text. We can talk about the contents being inspired or not but the fact remains that we only know the contents through the text and we cannot establish the text with 100% accuracy. Maybe we really were supposed to commit adultery?

Now, I agree with your various statements here on IIDB that relate to textual and manuscript issues. And I think precisely because of those textual issues one cannot treat the text as inpsired since we don't have the 'accurate' text. We certainly don't have a text that can be justified as at least part impetus to the significant amount of wrong that has been done in its name. Again, I would not hold the people here responsible for any such actions so don't take that as a personal remark, it is an observation upon history.
We agree here. My point was that it doesn't matter too much with Vegetius since we probably have what in his case could be classified as 'close enough.' My larger point was that 'close enough' can hardly be considered to be good enough when it comes to the NT. Unless one treats it just like any old manuscript, however, I am pretty sure that they don't read too much Vegetius in church on Sundays.
Except the threat came later. And we have the copies to show that changes happened all the time. And we know that many probably happened before we have extant copies.
I suspect that those people ride Ehrman to a place that he wasn't intending to go. He seems most reasonable to my mind. It is possible that Misquoting Jesus, which I havent read, andlacking the scholarly material found in Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, may come across as more accusatory.
I agree. I think that we have something quite close to the originals in the case of the NT. I don't think we are as close as would seem, but quite close, nonetheless. The same holds true for the other ancient works with which I am familiar.

Julian

Sauron

Well, actually you changed positions on this:

original: such a large number indicates a text which has a strong likelihood of existing in substantial numbers throughout its life.
revised: the existence of a large number of copies at one point in time suggests a large number of copies from which they could be taken.

So it's unclear what your current position is.

No. It doesn't. That's at least one point that you are missing. This is not a binary scenario.

It's been pointed out to you - twice, actually, by two different posters - that there is a wide spectrum of possibility between:

(a) 100% faithful transmission of ancient texts; and
(b) every text from the ancient world is corrupted and cannot be trusted at all

The fact that you persist in trying to foist this false dilemma on the discussion goes directly to the question of motive.


However, no one is starting denominations based upon a 100% literal reading of Vegetius, or subjecting them to inquisition. You try to compare Text A and Text B, while deliberately ignoring the vast difference of purpose that these texts are used for.

Uh, no. You were not doing anything of the sort.

The original poster that got your knickers in a twist was anevilpettingzoo, who posted the following to make sure his/her point was clear:

The point of the book is to understand how Biblical scholars look for clues in texts and try to deduce the original writings. When you take this view seriously, you learn that there are many ways that texts can get and do get changed. The effect of that on the rediscovery of antiquity is left to the reader. Do I think the Iliad and Odyssey are perfect and flawless copies of the original story? No way. Do I base my life on its words? No way. I can enjoy it for what it is... Fiction.
[...]
I am not sure what your point is. No one says it is bunk, I'm simply saying that if you think it is a many times transmitted perfect copy of the original well, I would say you are probably wrong. Is the intent and meaning in tact, probably.

I am not sure what "effect" you think Bart Ehrman's book has had on this poster, but the only effect I see is that he's gotten smarter and wiser for reading Ehrman.

Speaking of weasely actions, how about your deliberate mischaracterization of anevilpettingzoo's position? I mean, even after:

1. he posted a clarification for your benefit;
2. I brought that clarification to your attention;
3. I now bring it to your attention a second time

Yet you persist in the strawman of his point. Weasely like that, you mean?

Sadly incorrect. We *can* rubbish the text, and many parts of it - but not based upon your strawman reason. We can rubbish the text based upon known errors of transmission. And far from taking us down the road to subjectivity, that leads us straight to reality -- the same reality that we force onto any other ancient text.

What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander - the bible mss. should not be exempted from the same process of review and criticism that other ancient texts must endure. The fact that you want to carve a special exception for them is a double standard, and strongly hints at the existence of private theological reasons behind the attempt.

Sauron

Uh, no.
We do not.

Johnny Skeptic

If by a perfect Bible you mean that God originally dictated the entire Bible to the writers verbatim, and that the King James Bible is the same as the originals, will you please tell us upon what evidence you base your claims? I am sure that a lot of readers besides me want to know what your answer is.

The Bible is not sufficient to meet the needs of mankind. A good example is the issue of slavery. The Bible does not even come close to providing all of the information that we need about slavery, as history clearly shows.

spamandham

Thanks for directly answering the question. I don't agree with your conclusion of course.

Roger Pearse

I don't think I have anything to add here, except that IMHO some such confusion of theology and text crit seems to me always and invariably to lie at the bottom of this sort of thing.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon

Traduttore, traditore !

There is also an excellent Bible in Basque.