Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DavidfromTexas · 04-23-2006, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

So, please, share with us your level of expertise in the field of textual criticism. Present some evidence to show that you are right.

Julian

Expertise in textual criticism is not required to understand the significance of textual variants.

Christians take great comfort in knowing that textual variation is a by-product of the means by which Providence insured that the original text would be preserved for all generations.

The following is excerpted from this website...http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...bleorigin.html

Quote:

Many scholars have spent a lifetime of study of the textual variants. The following is the conclusion of the importance of these variants as they relate to the integrity of the New Testament text.

A. There are over 200,000 variants in the New Testament alone. How do these variants effect our confidence that the New Testament has been faithfully handed down to us?

B. These 200,000 variants are not as large as they seem. Remember that every misspelled word or an omission of a single word in any of the 5,600 manuscript would count as a variant.

C. Johann Bengel 1687-1752 was very disturbed by the 30,000 variants that had recently been noted in Mill's edition of the Greek Testament. After extended study he came to the conclusion that the variant readings were fewer in number than might have been expected and that they did not shake any article of Christian doctrine.

D. Westcott and Hort, in the 1870's, state that the New Testament text remains over 98.3 percent pure no matter whether one uses the Textus Receptus or their own Greek text which was largely based on Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

E. James White, on p. 40 of his book The King James Only Controversy states: "The reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally altar the message of the Scriptures! I make this statement (1) fully aware of the wide range of textual variants in the New Testament, and (2) painfully aware of the strong attacks upon those who have made similar statements in the past."

F. Scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix conclude, "The New Testament, then, has not only survived in more manuscripts that any other book from antiquity, but it has survived in a purer form than any other great book-a form that is 99.5 percent pure."

2. When textual critics look at all 5,600 Greek New Testament manuscripts they find that they can group these manuscripts into text-types or families with other similar manuscripts. There are four text-types.

A. The Alexandrian text-type, found in most papyri and in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus all of which date prior to 350 A.D.

B. The Western text-type, found both in Greek manuscripts and in translations into other languages, especially Latin.

C. The Byzantine text-type, found in the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts. Over 90 percent of all 5,600 Greek New Testament manuscripts are of the Byzantine text-type. The Byzantine text-type is "fuller" or "longer" than other text-types, and this is taken as evidence of a later origin. The reason that we have so many manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type is because the Byzantine Empire remained Greek speaking and Orthodox Christian until Islamic Turks overran its capital, Constantinople, in 1453. Constantinople is now called Istanbul and is Turkey's largest city, although no longer its capital.

D. The Caesaarean text-type, disputed by some, found in p 45 and a few other manuscripts.

Phlox Pyros · 04-23-2006, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

So, please, share with us your level of expertise in the field of textual criticism. Present some evidence to show that you are right.

Here, again, is a moderator picking on someone reacting to rhetorical drivel spouted by someone else. I'm sorry, Julian, but didn't I say somewhere that the use of such language as what Joe originally uses would produce undesired reactions? You've really got to see this, or it will continue to happen... I'm not condoning David's reactions (though he is at least partially right after removing the sarcasm and such), but his is a reaction to the initial over-the-top, unnecessary rhetoric of Joe.

DavidfromTexas · 04-23-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Here, again, is a moderator picking on someone reacting to rhetorical drivel spouted by someone else. I'm sorry, Julian, but didn't I say somewhere that the use of such language as what Joe originally uses would produce undesired reactions? You've really got to see this, or it will continue to happen... I'm not condoning David's reactions (though he is at least partially right after removing the sarcasm and such), but his is a reaction to the initial over-the-top, unnecessary rhetoric of Joe.

Actually, I relish these situations because it demonstrates where the biases are.

The rhetoric from Joe is certainly over the top, yet the only people who usually call Joe and his similar ilk on such things are believers. I don't mind the moderators weighing in on the topic, it reveals what people really think. The problem I have, and you seem to be alluding to this, is that there is often a double standard.

The non-believers are allowed to make such outrageous statements unchecked, yet when believers call them on it, believers seem to be held to a different standard... as if rhetoric and sarcasm from believers is not allowed. If people like Joe are left to their own devices and not regularly called on what they are doing, then they will continue unabated and get the wrong impression that their delusions must really be true.

In any case, Julian's remarks don't bother me at all because it presents an opportunity to reveal the truth about textual variants. The Bart Ehrmans of this world must be placed on notice that many people see right through the facade of delusions being perpetrated in the name of "scholarship".

Ehrman will be held accountable for his misrepresentations.

Phlox Pyros · 04-23-2006, 02:25 PM

Alright...maybe I'm just oversensitive. I just find it very hard to have rational discussions with so much rhetoric flying around. It seems very disruptive and disingenuous to me. For a forum where people seem to want to be seriously delving into history and the languages, it just doesn't seem very fitting or mature somehow. I guess I'll just shut up on the issue (I'm sure that would be pleasing to many at this point anyway, LOL).

Phlox Pyros · 04-23-2006, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

The Bart Ehrmans of this world must be placed on notice that many people see right through the facade of delusions being perpetrated in the name of "scholarship".

Ehrman will be held accountable for his misrepresentations.

One thing I will say on this issue is that I believe that Bart Ehrman, though he is most definitely not "the greatest Textual Critic of the Christian Bible that the world has ever known", has made some significant and good contributions to textual criticism, and there are good conservative scholars who have worked with him for this reason. I think he is being honest in his views, he just seems to be missing the forrest for the trees (at least from some other textual critics' points of view).

DavidfromTexas · 04-23-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

One thing I will say on this issue is that I believe that Bart Ehrman, though he is most definitely not "the greatest Textual Critic of the Christian Bible that the world has ever known", has made some significant and good contributions to textual criticism, and there are good conservative scholars who have worked with him for this reason. I think he is being honest in his views, he just seems to be missing the forrest for the trees (at least from some other textual critics' points of view).

Ehrman is an apostate... plain and simple.

Although he may think that he is being "honest" in his views, his views are not sincere, rather they are rhetorical, lack credibility, and are handily refuted. Hiding behind scholarship will not afford any protection when his words and works are judged by God. In fact, Ehrman will likely be held to a much higher standard, because he should know better.

The title of his latest book is a joke. "Misquoting Jesus". How many so-called "misquotes" of Jesus are in his book? Answer: very few (if any).

A more appropriate title of the book would have been... "Mountains out of molehills. The Story Behind What Encouraged Me To Write About What I Really Believe".

RED DAVE · 04-23-2006, 06:52 PM

From DavidfromTexas:

Quote:

DavidfromTexas
The Bart Ehrmans of this world must be placed on notice that many people see right through the facade of delusions being perpetrated in the name of "scholarship".

Ehrman will be held accountable for his misrepresentations.

By who?

You?

God?

Some right-wing xtian goon squad?

RED DAVE

Toto · 04-23-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Here, again, is a moderator picking on someone reacting to rhetorical drivel spouted by someone else. I'm sorry, Julian, but didn't I say somewhere that the use of such language as what Joe originally uses would produce undesired reactions? You've really got to see this, or it will continue to happen... I'm not condoning David's reactions (though he is at least partially right after removing the sarcasm and such), but his is a reaction to the initial over-the-top, unnecessary rhetoric of Joe.

The moderator was not acting as a moderator in that comment, nor was he "picking" on anyone. That was just part of the discussion. You seem to have completely misunderstood what was going on there.

Comment on moderation are off topic in this thread in any case.

JoeWallack · 04-24-2006, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Christians take great comfort in knowing that textual variation is a by-product of the means by which Providence insured that the original text would be preserved for all generations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

If the title was added later, as Metzger suggests that it could have been, then "Mark's Jesus" never had the title in the first place.

Joseph -Hee, heee!

"I love it when all you have to do is just quote what they said." - JoeWallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

DavidfromTexas · 04-24-2006, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas
Christians take great comfort in knowing that textual variation is a by-product of the means by which Providence insured that the original text would be preserved for all generations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas
If the title was added later, as Metzger suggests that it could have been, then "Mark's Jesus" never had the title in the first place.

Joseph -Hee, heee!

"I love it when all you have to do is just quote what they said." - JoeWallack

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

???

And your point?

You have not answered the questions posed to you... Once again they are posted below (with context)...

What "conflict" are you talking about? If the title was added later, as Metzger suggests that it could have been, then "Mark's Jesus" never had the title in the first place. That is all that you can say. If you are implying that Matthew and Luke were somehow compelled to deal with the issue of "son of God" simply because the later manuscripts of "Marks Jesus" had the phrase "son of God" within it, then you need to prove that Matthew and Luke had access ONLY to the later manuscripts with the added the title. Are you prepared to do that?

The above was from my first post. Are you going to answer the questions or not?

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

04-23-2006, 02:25 PM	#14
Phlox Pyros Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: 7th Heaven Posts: 406	Alright...maybe I'm just oversensitive. I just find it very hard to have rational discussions with so much rhetoric flying around. It seems very disruptive and disingenuous to me. For a forum where people seem to want to be seriously delving into history and the languages, it just doesn't seem very fitting or mature somehow. I guess I'll just shut up on the issue (I'm sure that would be pleasing to many at this point anyway, LOL).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.