Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mdd344 · 12-28-2006, 01:20 PM

Greetings,

There is no question that people need objective standards in life. Even atheists need objective standards, patterns to follow, etc. Consider the Humanist Manifesto. Even among those who reject any supernatural being the fact is they set for themselves standards/guidelines to follow. Effective parents are those who set guidelines for their children. Governments are most effective when they are consistent, and consistency comes from objective standards. Consider the example of the Federal Bureau of Standards of the USA, which guarantees uniformity of weights and measures. They follow an objective standard, an authority, a guide. Imagine the mass confusion in that realm alone if the weights and measures changed value daily, without warning or reason.

I suggest that the evidence will show that the Bible should be man’s objective standard for life because of its consistent transmission and preservation, because of verifiable prophecy fulfilled, because of its uncanny unity, because of its scientific accuracy, and because of its agreement with archaeology, all of which together show that the Bible does not have its source from man, but from the One God of which it speaks.

I. THE BIBLE: ITS PRESERVATION (TRUSTWORTHINESS) IS UNQUESTIONABLE (Consistent transmission)

Wegner gives this definition of the Bible:

“The Bible is a collection of books that have been considered authoritative by the Christian church and have been used to determine its beliefs and doctrines. The Bible, comprised of sixty-six books from more than forty authors, was called “the divine library” by Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate in the late fourth century. The authors of Scripture came from a variety of backgrounds, including a farmer (Amos), priests (Jeremiah and Ezekiel), a statesman (Daniel), fishermen (Peter and John), prophets (Isaiah, Micah), a physician (Luke), and a former tax collector (Matthew). The books were written in various countries (e.g., Israel, Babylon, Greece, Italy) and follow a variety of literary styles and genres (e.g., narrative, law codes, poetry, parables, Gospel, letters). The Bible, however, is not merely an anthology (i.e. a collection of diverse writings from various places); it has a unique unity and purpose. In addition, its authors claim to have been directed by God in their writings (e.g. 2 Pet. 1:20-21).” (Journey from Texts to Translations (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 21)

The Bible is an old book, but it is by no means the oldest writing. Writing was a well-established art in many countries long before he beginnings of the Hebrew nation in the land of Palestine. Writing was widespread in Mesopotamia at least 3000 B.C. and Egyptian texts reach back even further, surviving as hieroglyphs on monuments, temples, and tombs. The first alphabet was probably developed around 1750 B.C. and from this all other alphabets were derived. Alphabetic writing has been found within 50 miles of Mt. Sinai, dating back to 1500 B.C. By the time of Moses at least five different systems of writing are known to have existed in the basic area in which he lived. (Lightfoot, p.p. 12-13).

A. The Old Testament:

There are no copies of any original Bible writing in existence. There are also no copies of any Bible writings prior to the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.). However, despite this, textual critics have at their disposal a great number of Bible writings (called manuscripts, abbreviated as MSS) by which they can determine authenticity. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (Biblical Manuscripts in the United States) estimates that the total number of Hebrew MSS/fragments throughout the world range in the tens of thousands. The most significant MSS find so far are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. They include one complete Old Testament Book (Isaiah) and thousands of fragments, which together represent every Old Testament book except Esther. The information is still being provided to this day from the finds of these scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls provided textual critics (those who meticulously study the Bible text) with copies of books at least 1000 years older than previously available. Prior to the find at Qumran, destructive textual critics (intent on discrediting the Bible text) had surmised that the book of Isaiah was spurious. However, among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found two complete copies of the book of Isaiah. Textual critics were anxious to study the books, to see if they matched the current Bible’s book of Isaiah. The findings?

“Even though the MSS were 1000 years earlier than the oldest dated MSS previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” (Archer (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 19).

F.F. Bruce stated regarding this age old question, does “‘this Hebrew text which we call Masoretic faithfully represents the Hebrew text as originally written by the authors of the Old Testament’ and it may now be more confidently asserted than ever before that the Dead Sea discoveries have enabled us to answer this question in the affirmative with much greater assurance than was possible before 1948” (Bruce (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.p. 61f).

Why does the Old Testament Text have such an amazing consistency? A large part of the reason is the method in which it was transmitted. Scribes spent lifetimes working on their trade. Graphs were drawn on writing surfaces and one letter was put in each graph square. At the end of a copy the letters were counted—if it were off it was tossed and the process started over. MSS that reached a certain age, or wear pattern, were gathered and buried reverently. The Scribes were valued among the Hebrew cultures, and many cultures that followed (i.e. Romans, Greek). Whether one believes the Bible is from God or not, he must admit in the face of overwhelming evidence (clearly not all presented in the above) that the Old Testament we have in our modern Bibles can be trusted to be what it was originally.

B. What about the New Testament?

As stated above, there are over 25 thousand sources of New Testament material, from MSS to fragments, to confirmation in non-Christian literature. Geisler noted:

“A few of the New Testament MSS fragments are very early, dating from the second century. By contrast, the manuscripts for most other ancient books date from about a thousand years after their original composition. Some 362 New Testament uncial MSS and 245 uncial lectionaries date from the second through the tenth centuries, constituting nearly 11 percent of all New Testament and lectionary MSS” (Geisler, Nix (or via: amazon.co.uk); GBI, p. 385).

Consider how scholars view old books and determine whether or not they are legitimate. Homer’s Iliad is one of the more famous older books. Those who search for MSS have found about 643 pieces of his work, some of which date back to the 3rd century A.D. No one today doubts the Iliad, or its contents. Geisler notes regarding ancient books and their MSS:

“[There are] 9 or 10 good ones for Caesar’s Gallic Wars, 20 MSS of note for Titus Livy’s ‘History of Rome,’ and only 2 by which Tacitus is known to the modern world, yet there are 5,366 Greek MSS witnesses that attest to part or all of the New Testament text” (Geisler, Nix: GBI, p. 404).

Now compare that to the tens of thousands of fragments found of the Old Testament, and the 25,000 sources (MSS, fragments, etc.) found of the New Testament. Homer’s work is confirmed based on 643 fragments. It stands to reason that the Bible would be much less questioned than it is based on that evidence.

Another important witness to the trustworthy text of the New Testament is the writings of men known by the title, “Apostolic Fathers.” These men lived and wrote during the end of the first century to about 150 A.D. Some of them even knew first hand some of the Apostles. Their writings are not inspired, but within their writings we find quotations from every verse of the New Testament. This plainly demonstrates that by the end of the first century the twenty-seven books that now make up the New Testament were written, copied, and began to be spread among all the churches.

Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.288f).

Geisler and Nix conclude based on the evidence for the trustworthiness of the New Testament text, “ it can be readily understood why no book from the ancient world comes to us with more abundant evidence for its integrity than does the New Testament” (GBI. p. 405).

Conclusion:
The Bible’s consistent transmission and preservation far, far exceed any other writing and/or book of which man has possession. The text of both the Old Testament and the New Testament is unquestionably reliable and intact. While the preservation and consistent transmission of the text does not in and of itself prove the existence of God, it is a strong part of the evidence that hopefully will lead one to do so when considered as part of all of the evidence available. Whether one believes in the One God or not, he must admit that the scholarship done in the realm of the transmission and preservation of the Bible text is above all reproach.

555 · 12-28-2006, 01:27 PM

That is a copypaste from: http://www.theapologiaproject.org/HOWBIBLE.PDF

mdd344 · 12-28-2006, 01:41 PM

555
I beg your pardon. It is no copy and paste. I wrote that myself yesterday and today. I even noted my sources.

hatsoff · 12-28-2006, 01:49 PM

I hope the mods delete the above two posts as well as this note so that the thread is not derailed. Moving on...

Mdd344, if we compare the New Testament to other ancient writings we find that it is indeed very well preserved, comparatively speaking. However, that doesn't mean that what we have today is an accurate representation of the autographs, nor does it mean that the autographs were historically accurate.

diana · 12-28-2006, 01:55 PM

I'm not sure what argument you're making, mdd: that the text of the bible has been preserved for a bit less than two millenia and the church finds it authoritative, so...we should? Please clarify your point. Thanks.

I predict a backlash on this claim:

Quote:

Whether one believes in the One God or not, he must admit that the scholarship done in the realm of the transmission and preservation of the Bible text is above all reproach.

Also, do you have a source for this?

Quote:

Graphs were drawn on writing surfaces and one letter was put in each graph square. At the end of a copy the letters were counted—if it were off it was tossed and the process started over.

Maybe it's just me, but I haven't heard that one before. (Plus passive voice constructions set off my skeptic alarm.)

d

mdd344 · 12-28-2006, 02:04 PM

Diana,
I merely want to establish the trustworthiness of the text itself. Imagine if someone believed that the entire thing was made up in the 9th century A.D. Or they believed it was full of intentional corruption as some claim. My point is the evidence for the trustworthiness of the text, that it represents evidentially a consistency that is unquestionable, is beyond reproach. It is a book that has been preserved far better than any other book in existence today, and backed by more evidence than any book in existence today. That is it. Which is why I think most would agree at least with that part.

Regarding the graph, I do have sources. Paul Wegner, "The Journey from Text to Translation" p. 165f. Neil Lightfoot, "How We Got the Bible" p.p. 30-31). There are many others. That point is really as far as I can tell unquestioned by any authority I have seen.

hatsoff · 12-28-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

I suggest that the evidence will show that the Bible should be man’s objective standard for life because of its consistent transmission and preservation, because of verifiable prophecy fulfilled, because of its uncanny unity, because of its scientific accuracy, and because of its agreement with archaeology, all of which together show that the Bible does not have its source from man, but from the One God of which it speaks.

This has been suggested before, but the arguments fall flat when examined closely. Every point, from "consistent transmission" to "agreement with archaeology," is either mistaken or irrelevant.

[B]Wegner gives this definition of the Bible:
“...its authors claim to have been directed by God in their writings (e.g. 2 Pet. 1:20-21).” (Journey from Text to Translation, p. 21)[/QUOTE]

This is an error. Most books of the New Testament lack claims to divine authority.

Quote:

There are no copies of any original Bible writing in existence. There are also no copies of any Bible writings prior to the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.). However, despite this, textual critics have at their disposal a great number of Bible writings (called manuscripts, abbreviated as MSS) by which they can determine authenticity.

The tone of this whole post is that of a beginner's primer. If someone needs to be told that an old Biblical text is called a manuscript, he is not ready to dive into textual criticism.

Quote:

Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (Biblical Manuscripts in the United States) estimates that the total number of Hebrew MSS/fragments throughout the world range in the tens of thousands. The most significant MSS find so far are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. They include one complete Old Testament Book (Isaiah) and thousands of fragments, which together represent every Old Testament book except Esther. The information is still being provided to this day from the finds of these scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a remarkable find, but they have no bearing on the transmission of OT texts up to the first century. Nor can they testify much to the accuracy of most OT texts before the ninth century, except where fragments have been recovered.

Quote:

The Dead Sea Scrolls provided textual critics (those who meticulously study the Bible text) with copies of books at least 1000 years older than previously available.

I'm pretty sure the only near-complete OT book from the caves was Isaiah. The rest were fragmentary. I'd be surprised if 25% of the OT was among the scrolls.

Quote:

Prior to the find at Qumran, destructive textual critics (intent on discrediting the Bible text) had surmised that the book of Isaiah was spurious. However, among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found two complete copies of the book of Isaiah. Textual critics were anxious to study the books, to see if they matched the current Bible’s book of Isaiah. The findings?

“Even though the MSS were 1000 years earlier than the oldest dated MSS previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” (Archer, p. 19).

F.F. Bruce stated regarding this age old question, does “‘this Hebrew text which we call Masoretic faithfully represents the Hebrew text as originally written by the authors of the Old Testament’ and it may now be more confidently asserted than ever before that the Dead Sea discoveries have enabled us to answer this question in the affirmative with much greater assurance than was possible before 1948” (Bruce, p.p. 61f).

And none of that has any bearing on the authenticity or unity of Isaiah.

I'm tired of responding to this nonsense. Someone else can pick up where I left off.

hatsoff · 12-28-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Diana,
I merely want to establish the trustworthiness of the text itself. Imagine if someone believed that the entire thing was made up in the 9th century A.D. Or they believed it was full of intentional corruption as some claim. My point is the evidence for the trustworthiness of the text, that it represents evidentially a consistency that is unquestionable, is beyond reproach. It is a book that has been preserved far better than any other book in existence today, and backed by more evidence than any book in existence today. That is it. Which is why I think most would agree at least with that part.

Mdd, your argument doesn't follow, logically. Just because one book has been better preserved than another doesn't make it more accurate. For example, Josephus' Antiquities exists only in a few mss., but we nevertheless have more reason to trust it than the Bible, which makes all sorts of nonsensical and magical claims. Moreover, there are many instances of Biblical corruption during transmission. Just look at the multiple endings of Mark, Codex Bezae, or the Pericope Adulterae. What other corruptions have we yet to uncover, or which will never be repaired?

The Old Testament is alleged to be written from 1500 BC to 400 BC, yet our earliest copies of some portions don't date until the 10th century AD! It's great that Isaiah changed only 5% in a thousand years, but I would consider that a significant variance for a book that claims to be divinely inspired.

mdd344 · 12-28-2006, 02:19 PM

hatsoff,
It isn't about textual criticism, or destructive criticism. You must have missed the part about how the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments represented every single book in the OT with the lone exception of Esther. That is very commonly known btw. Nor is it about the authenticity or unity of Isaiah. This merely demonstrates that the text has been faithfully reproduced and the evidence for such is unquestionable. Note the examples of how the world treats old books with only a few fragments, or copies. It would stand to reason then that the Bible would receive even better treatment with the volumes of evidence available for it.

Mageth · 12-28-2006, 02:21 PM

The Bible as "man’s objective standard for life"? Such as this selection of "objective standards"?

Lev 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Lev 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [shall be] upon him.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.
Lev 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

The list goes on and on...

So, where in the Bible do you find "man’s objective standard for life"?

Are we to kill witches, wizards, adulterers, and those that curse their mother and father, or not? How about garments made of two mingled fabrics? Can we wear them? Are cattle breeding programs that have produced such useful breeds as Charolais against God's direct command?

You can argue that the above somehow don't apply to us today. However, in so doing, you would be arguing against the very objectivity you tout.

And I haven't even addressed the various exhortations in the NT, such as that slaves are to obey their masters, women's roles in the church and in marriage, and various restrictions on how one shall or shall not wear your hair.

And note that Leviticus also includes this exhortation:

Lev 20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I [am] the LORD which sanctify you.

So, if the Bible provides an "objective standard for life", where is it?

12-28-2006, 01:20 PM	#1
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	The source of the Bible (OT, NT) is the One God of whom it speaks Greetings, There is no question that people need objective standards in life. Even atheists need objective standards, patterns to follow, etc. Consider the Humanist Manifesto. Even among those who reject any supernatural being the fact is they set for themselves standards/guidelines to follow. Effective parents are those who set guidelines for their children. Governments are most effective when they are consistent, and consistency comes from objective standards. Consider the example of the Federal Bureau of Standards of the USA, which guarantees uniformity of weights and measures. They follow an objective standard, an authority, a guide. Imagine the mass confusion in that realm alone if the weights and measures changed value daily, without warning or reason. I suggest that the evidence will show that the Bible should be man’s objective standard for life because of its consistent transmission and preservation, because of verifiable prophecy fulfilled, because of its uncanny unity, because of its scientific accuracy, and because of its agreement with archaeology, all of which together show that the Bible does not have its source from man, but from the One God of which it speaks. I. THE BIBLE: ITS PRESERVATION (TRUSTWORTHINESS) IS UNQUESTIONABLE (Consistent transmission) Wegner gives this definition of the Bible: “The Bible is a collection of books that have been considered authoritative by the Christian church and have been used to determine its beliefs and doctrines. The Bible, comprised of sixty-six books from more than forty authors, was called “the divine library” by Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate in the late fourth century. The authors of Scripture came from a variety of backgrounds, including a farmer (Amos), priests (Jeremiah and Ezekiel), a statesman (Daniel), fishermen (Peter and John), prophets (Isaiah, Micah), a physician (Luke), and a former tax collector (Matthew). The books were written in various countries (e.g., Israel, Babylon, Greece, Italy) and follow a variety of literary styles and genres (e.g., narrative, law codes, poetry, parables, Gospel, letters). The Bible, however, is not merely an anthology (i.e. a collection of diverse writings from various places); it has a unique unity and purpose. In addition, its authors claim to have been directed by God in their writings (e.g. 2 Pet. 1:20-21).” (Journey from Texts to Translations (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 21) The Bible is an old book, but it is by no means the oldest writing. Writing was a well-established art in many countries long before he beginnings of the Hebrew nation in the land of Palestine. Writing was widespread in Mesopotamia at least 3000 B.C. and Egyptian texts reach back even further, surviving as hieroglyphs on monuments, temples, and tombs. The first alphabet was probably developed around 1750 B.C. and from this all other alphabets were derived. Alphabetic writing has been found within 50 miles of Mt. Sinai, dating back to 1500 B.C. By the time of Moses at least five different systems of writing are known to have existed in the basic area in which he lived. (Lightfoot, p.p. 12-13). A. The Old Testament: There are no copies of any original Bible writing in existence. There are also no copies of any Bible writings prior to the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.). However, despite this, textual critics have at their disposal a great number of Bible writings (called manuscripts, abbreviated as MSS) by which they can determine authenticity. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (Biblical Manuscripts in the United States) estimates that the total number of Hebrew MSS/fragments throughout the world range in the tens of thousands. The most significant MSS find so far are the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. They include one complete Old Testament Book (Isaiah) and thousands of fragments, which together represent every Old Testament book except Esther. The information is still being provided to this day from the finds of these scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls provided textual critics (those who meticulously study the Bible text) with copies of books at least 1000 years older than previously available. Prior to the find at Qumran, destructive textual critics (intent on discrediting the Bible text) had surmised that the book of Isaiah was spurious. However, among the Dead Sea Scrolls were found two complete copies of the book of Isaiah. Textual critics were anxious to study the books, to see if they matched the current Bible’s book of Isaiah. The findings? “Even though the MSS were 1000 years earlier than the oldest dated MSS previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 per cent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” (Archer (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 19). F.F. Bruce stated regarding this age old question, does “‘this Hebrew text which we call Masoretic faithfully represents the Hebrew text as originally written by the authors of the Old Testament’ and it may now be more confidently asserted than ever before that the Dead Sea discoveries have enabled us to answer this question in the affirmative with much greater assurance than was possible before 1948” (Bruce (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.p. 61f). Why does the Old Testament Text have such an amazing consistency? A large part of the reason is the method in which it was transmitted. Scribes spent lifetimes working on their trade. Graphs were drawn on writing surfaces and one letter was put in each graph square. At the end of a copy the letters were counted—if it were off it was tossed and the process started over. MSS that reached a certain age, or wear pattern, were gathered and buried reverently. The Scribes were valued among the Hebrew cultures, and many cultures that followed (i.e. Romans, Greek). Whether one believes the Bible is from God or not, he must admit in the face of overwhelming evidence (clearly not all presented in the above) that the Old Testament we have in our modern Bibles can be trusted to be what it was originally. B. What about the New Testament? As stated above, there are over 25 thousand sources of New Testament material, from MSS to fragments, to confirmation in non-Christian literature. Geisler noted: “A few of the New Testament MSS fragments are very early, dating from the second century. By contrast, the manuscripts for most other ancient books date from about a thousand years after their original composition. Some 362 New Testament uncial MSS and 245 uncial lectionaries date from the second through the tenth centuries, constituting nearly 11 percent of all New Testament and lectionary MSS” (Geisler, Nix (or via: amazon.co.uk); GBI, p. 385). Consider how scholars view old books and determine whether or not they are legitimate. Homer’s Iliad is one of the more famous older books. Those who search for MSS have found about 643 pieces of his work, some of which date back to the 3rd century A.D. No one today doubts the Iliad, or its contents. Geisler notes regarding ancient books and their MSS: “[There are] 9 or 10 good ones for Caesar’s Gallic Wars, 20 MSS of note for Titus Livy’s ‘History of Rome,’ and only 2 by which Tacitus is known to the modern world, yet there are 5,366 Greek MSS witnesses that attest to part or all of the New Testament text” (Geisler, Nix: GBI, p. 404). Now compare that to the tens of thousands of fragments found of the Old Testament, and the 25,000 sources (MSS, fragments, etc.) found of the New Testament. Homer’s work is confirmed based on 643 fragments. It stands to reason that the Bible would be much less questioned than it is based on that evidence. Another important witness to the trustworthy text of the New Testament is the writings of men known by the title, “Apostolic Fathers.” These men lived and wrote during the end of the first century to about 150 A.D. Some of them even knew first hand some of the Apostles. Their writings are not inspired, but within their writings we find quotations from every verse of the New Testament. This plainly demonstrates that by the end of the first century the twenty-seven books that now make up the New Testament were written, copied, and began to be spread among all the churches. Sir Frederic Kenyon wrote: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (or via: amazon.co.uk), p.288f). Geisler and Nix conclude based on the evidence for the trustworthiness of the New Testament text, “ it can be readily understood why no book from the ancient world comes to us with more abundant evidence for its integrity than does the New Testament” (GBI. p. 405). Conclusion: The Bible’s consistent transmission and preservation far, far exceed any other writing and/or book of which man has possession. The text of both the Old Testament and the New Testament is unquestionably reliable and intact. While the preservation and consistent transmission of the text does not in and of itself prove the existence of God, it is a strong part of the evidence that hopefully will lead one to do so when considered as part of all of the evidence available. Whether one believes in the One God or not, he must admit that the scholarship done in the realm of the transmission and preservation of the Bible text is above all reproach.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-28-2006, 01:27 PM	#2
555 Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Japan Posts: 1,148	That is a copypaste from: http://www.theapologiaproject.org/HOWBIBLE.PDF

12-28-2006, 01:41 PM	#3
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	555 I beg your pardon. It is no copy and paste. I wrote that myself yesterday and today. I even noted my sources.

12-28-2006, 01:49 PM	#4
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	I hope the mods delete the above two posts as well as this note so that the thread is not derailed. Moving on... Mdd344, if we compare the New Testament to other ancient writings we find that it is indeed very well preserved, comparatively speaking. However, that doesn't mean that what we have today is an accurate representation of the autographs, nor does it mean that the autographs were historically accurate.

12-28-2006, 02:04 PM	#6
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Diana, I merely want to establish the trustworthiness of the text itself. Imagine if someone believed that the entire thing was made up in the 9th century A.D. Or they believed it was full of intentional corruption as some claim. My point is the evidence for the trustworthiness of the text, that it represents evidentially a consistency that is unquestionable, is beyond reproach. It is a book that has been preserved far better than any other book in existence today, and backed by more evidence than any book in existence today. That is it. Which is why I think most would agree at least with that part. Regarding the graph, I do have sources. Paul Wegner, "The Journey from Text to Translation" p. 165f. Neil Lightfoot, "How We Got the Bible" p.p. 30-31). There are many others. That point is really as far as I can tell unquestioned by any authority I have seen.

12-28-2006, 02:19 PM	#9
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	hatsoff, It isn't about textual criticism, or destructive criticism. You must have missed the part about how the Dead Sea Scrolls fragments represented every single book in the OT with the lone exception of Esther. That is very commonly known btw. Nor is it about the authenticity or unity of Isaiah. This merely demonstrates that the text has been faithfully reproduced and the evidence for such is unquestionable. Note the examples of how the world treats old books with only a few fragments, or copies. It would stand to reason then that the Bible would receive even better treatment with the volumes of evidence available for it.

12-28-2006, 02:21 PM	#10
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The Bible as "man’s objective standard for life"? Such as this selection of "objective standards"? Lev 19:19 Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Lev 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood [shall be] upon him. Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Lev 20:15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. Lev 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them. Lev 21:17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever [he be] of thy seed in their generations that hath [any] blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For whatsoever man [he be] that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; The list goes on and on... So, where in the Bible do you find "man’s objective standard for life"? Are we to kill witches, wizards, adulterers, and those that curse their mother and father, or not? How about garments made of two mingled fabrics? Can we wear them? Are cattle breeding programs that have produced such useful breeds as Charolais against God's direct command? You can argue that the above somehow don't apply to us today. However, in so doing, you would be arguing against the very objectivity you tout. And I haven't even addressed the various exhortations in the NT, such as that slaves are to obey their masters, women's roles in the church and in marriage, and various restrictions on how one shall or shall not wear your hair. And note that Leviticus also includes this exhortation: Lev 20:8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I [am] the LORD which sanctify you. So, if the Bible provides an "objective standard for life", where is it?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.