mdd344

hatsoff,
Not when you consider that the 5% change was entirely misspellings, (i.e. 'honor' to 'honour' type) and slips of the pen.

Mageth

God is powerless to prevent such?

hatsoff

Fragments from the first century do not prove the accuracy of the transmission of the whole, nor any at all four to eleven centuries prior.

It is better treated. However, it is far, far beyond perfect.

I'm not up to snuff on OT textual criticism, but I can assure you that there were substantive variants, not just misspellings.

mdd344

Mageth,
The objective standard within is not for this discussion. But after this discussion, were it ever to be completed, we could discuss it.

Mageth

Do you have one in mind? How about a hint? I can't find an "objective standard" in the "Book", that's for sure. Which is odd, if it's supposed to be an objective standard.

mdd344

Hatsoff,
One scholar has stated regarding the Isaiah scroll variants:

"For example, we may study the copy b of Isaiah. The text is extremely close to the M.T. A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only seventeen letters differ from the M.T. (Massoretic Text). Ten of these are mere differences of spelling, like our 'honor' or 'honour,' and make no change at all in meaning. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of the conjunction which is often a matter of style. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for 'light' which is added after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter only this one word is really in question and it does not at all change the sense of the passage. This is typical of the WHOLE MSS. Even the use of vowel letters and the preservation of archaic grammatical forms are exceedingly close to the M.T."

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is hugely significant in that their testimony shows that the accuracy of transmission of the Old Testament was unquestionable. Over 1000 years, at least, the variants were nearly non existant.

Mageth

BTW:

Instead of arguing against your points in the OP (which, in any case, would be explainable by the simple fact that there were scribes througout the centuries who dedicated themselves to faithfully copying the texts; no recourse to divine intervention is needed to explain it), I'm directly addressing your claim that "the Bible should be man’s objective standard for life." Arguing that claim by arguing that it's been accurately reproduced is certainly not going to get you anywhere near there. You're spinning your wheels. So what if it's been accurately reproduced? That establishes nothing in regards to your claim that it should be man’s objective standard for life.

The first thing you need to establish, IMO, is that the Bible provides such an objective standard. I can see no such objective standard in the Bible.

Splarnst

Is this the first of a series? I see a lot about transmission, but I don't see anything else from the underlined portion.

mdd344

Revolutionary,
yes.



Mageth,
Without establishing the Bible as what it claims to be it doesn't matter whether it reveals an objective standard or not. The standard is the life of Christ. But if one rejects the Bible to begin with His life, to them, doesn't exist. My next section will be about fulfilled prophecy.

Mageth

"Agreement with archaeology" falls under the same case as the "transmission" argument - and I respond to it in the same way - SO WHAT? Neither assertion provides anything that would support the claim that "the Bible should be man’s objective standard for life."

The other three underlined assertions that supposedly support the claim that "the Bible should be man’s objective standard for life" are, well, quite questionable, to say the least.