Steven Carr

Conversations tend to go :-

Apologist 1) Look at the evidence for Christianity. We have so many early reliable manuscripts , more than for any other texts.

(Sceptic open-mindedly researches this claim , in a quest to find out what is true and what is false)

Sceptic :- 'But the early manuscripts are corrupted and unreliable.'

Apologist 2) Of course they are! You need to look at the later , more reliable manuscripts, rather than the early , unreliable texts.

Sceptic :- How do you know they haven't also been corrupted?

Apologist 2) They haven't been corrupted because God would not allow corruptions.

Sceptic. :- Oh, there is no evidence, just claims that magic has happened....

Steven Avery

Erasmus was the most learned textual scholar of his day. He travelled throughout Europe to libraries and monasteries and had correspondence thoroughout the lands. The result of his work was actually quite similar to the other Greek NT done at the same time, the Complutensian Polyglot. His scholarship was augmented over the next 50-100 years by the scholarship of other giants, Stephanus, Bezae and the Elzivirs.

And you see, there is a basic simple mathematic truism involved. When a text is homogeneous, as is the Byzantine Text, a relatively small number of texts can be an excellent representative sampling. And the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, the Byzantine manuscripts, are in fact homogeneous, the differences are minute compared to the few ultra-corrupt texts embraced for the modern versions. Ergo, an onhand 'statistical sampling size" of a half-dozen to a dozen manuscripts, augmented with years of travel and obervation and notes, is capable to produce an excellent text. Relatively small changes were made as warranted by Stephanus and Bezae, and their underlying texts, (and they also went through the refinement of multiple editions) were the primary sources for the King James Bible.

Ironically the modern version technique of Westcott and Hort siimply used two texts in a proof-text fashion. This is supposed to be acceptable? And since they had no outside support and were radically different from each other, this of course was mathematically ludicrous. In addition the texts are rife with scribal obvious errors. That is the state of modern Bible version theory.

When one understands, even in a limited and general sense, the New Testament manuscript world, if one has any sense of respect and integrity for the New Testament, they will see that the modern version world is built on untenable and unsound principles, ones that were designed to fight the beauty and majesty and power and authority of the Word of God.

However, the Word of God stands eternal. It is tangible and beautiful, majestic and powerful, and with authority. God has truly inspired and preserved His Word, as he promised.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Julian

praxeus, Erasmus was missing a piece of Revelation in greek and he had to translate from the latin. Did god guide his pen at that time?

Julian

Steven Avery

Hi Julian, If Erasmus was lacking the last six verses in Greek at the time of the first edition (tis unclear on a scholarship level) don't worry, Julien, God had it all in control. Perhaps such verses in the TR even passed through the various editions to Stepanus and Bezae. So if you have a real concern about a specific verse in Revelation in the King James Bible, my friends at WhichVersion would probably be happy to discuss the textual evidence, the Greek and Latin support, the grammar, the doctrinal significance, or any other aspect :-) Even here I may be able to do similar.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

Message to praxeus: Do or do not Revelation 22:18-19 indicate that tampering with the original texts is possible? From a Protestant perspective, have Roman Catholics not added to the original texts? From a Roman Catholic perspective, have Protestants not taken away from the original texts? Has is not always been a simple matter for skeptics to revise parts of the Bible and take it to remote jungle regions and pass it off as the original texts? Since hundreds of millions of people have died with ever having heard the Gospel message, what difference did it make to those people whether or not the original texts had been revised?

Steven Carr

This rather reminds me of a famous cartoon, which has 'A miracle happens' in the middle of a blackboard diagram of a theory.

Praxeus very claim that texts were corrupted argues against his claim that God controlled the tranmission of the text - a theory that carries no weight outside a pulpit.

Steven Avery

Some folks use tampered texts, like the two corrupt alexandrian versions. It's quite easy to avoid, however.

The clearest and strongest evangelism to reach the folks who need to hear the Gospel is done with the true Bible. The Reformation was built on the results of having the majestic Word of God in the hands of the ploughman.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Men like Tyndale sacrificed to bring the true Word of God to the ploughman. Their efforts have been anointed by God, and have been used in His providence to bring us His uncorrupted Word.

Ps 119:105
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

RUmike

If God allowed for only one translation throughout history to be right (without actually saying so in the scripture or having the translaters make such a claim), and thus allows only well-educated people fluent in English to be able to read his actual words, and did this in such a process that deceived virtually every educated and knowledgeable person in the field, then this God does not deserve to be worshipped.

Johnny Skeptic

No it isn't. The Roman Catholic New American Bible contains more books than Protestant versions do, so either Roman Catholics have added to the original texts, or Protestants have taken away from the original texts. Since hundreds of millions of people have died without ever having heard about the Gospels, whatever the New Testament canon contained was of no consequence whatsoever to those people. Obviously, God was not in the least bit concerned with that. He was quite content for generations of people to die without ever having heard the Gospel message. He could easily have let everybody know about it, but that didn't matter enough for him to tell everybody about it. The Bible, including the New Testament canon, depends lock, stock, and barrel upon claims of miracles, so authentication of miracles is necessary to authenticate the New Testament canon. Here is the proof: John 10:37-38 say "If I do not the works of my Father [perform miracles], believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony [the NIV says "confirmed"] unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then. Regarding the supposed miracle of the Resurrection, there is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and claimed that he died for the sins of mankind, his sayso would most certainly not be reasonable proof that that was true. The point is, what "else" did Jesus do in tangible ways that proved that he had supernatural powers and that he was good? There is not sufficient evidence that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind. Those are four out of five most important claims in the New Testament, and they are completely non-verifiable. The Resurrection, if true, is proof of one and only one tangible thing, that Jesus had the power to rise from the dead, nothing more.

It may seem to some readers that I have gotten off-topic, but what good is a New Testament canon without reasonable confirmation from miracles, and what good was a New Testament canon to hundreds of millions of people who died without ever having heard the Gospel message?