Let me first state that the purpose for this thread is not to set off another heated debate. Lets try and not go there. I just want to provoke some good discussion. Also, anything that I state in this post, know that I am not so firmly attatched to it that I will refuse to change positions on things. Actually that is kind of the purpose of doing this to begin with.

So here goes:


As Christians, most of you here proclaim to believe in "The Word of God" which usually means the words of the various writers of the Bible, divinely inspired by God. For the purposes of this thread, I'm going to say that this particular item of faith is not debatable, meaning that there is no way for me to prove that this is not so. What I will say however, is that it is irrelevant because of a few things I will now address...


We do not have originals of *any* of the books of the New Testament. Even if for the sake of argument I grant that these books were indeed inspired by God, it is another issue entirely whether the people copying these books were also inspired by God to not make mistakes, additions or changes that alter the text of the original, and frankly that is really all that matters, because these copies of copies of copies are all that we have remaining to judge what God might have wanted these authors to write down. It seems to me that the evidence is not particularly in favor of the scribes either, for scholars estimate that there are between 200,000 and 300,000 differences in the manuscripts that have been discovered, which is more than there are words in the New Testament. One extreme example would be in the Gospel of John when we are told the famous story of the adulterous woman between chapter 7 and 8. Only the later versions of this book contain this story, while none of the earliest versions do. Scholars at large acknowledge that it was probably added to the manuscripts years after it was first circulated.


My point is this: what good is it believing in the Word of God, if we don't even know what exactly it said in the first place, and probably never will?


I may take longer than normal in my responses to this thread, as in topics like this it will be important for me to take time in developing my thoughts.

I think innerrancy is a huge issue. There are some who believe that every word whether in english or whatever language it has been translated to is exactly what God intended it to say. That it is unnecessary to do any word gymnastics whatsoever. That the Bible is timeless, and speaks to every generation.

I don't know what I believe as far as innerrancy goes completly. I think that the Bible is innerrant in it's orginial text. I also, think that in order to understand what is being said that that we should at least view the text in light of the culture, and traditions of the time. Just because the Bible says someone should be stoned to death does not mean that stoning is appropriate today. But, I wouldn't be too sure that what ever law was broken back then, the same prohibition or lesson is probably just as valuable for today when read in proper context.

Another example, I recognize that the Bible is not a scientific document, but I am certain that whatever it says would be scientifically accurate, because after all we are indeed talking about God's Word. I see no reason to go through word gymnastics to make the Bible fit science. If anything I think we should suspect the science if it is not in accordance with the Bible.

How is it we can use the Bible in ways that He never intended? Perhaps we are entering an age where men are not able to handle sound doctrine. Perhaps, what we have is a case of itching ears.

If innerrancy is not what this topic is about, then someone please start another one. I am pretty anxious to at least make up my mind on the subject a little firmer than where I stand now.

Chuck Missler has an interesting perspective on this subject, and I happen to think that his analogy here is spot on:

Quote:

An engineer who is designing a communication system in anticipation of hostile jamming, or other countermeasures, needs to employ several critical techniques to be effective. In addition to taking advantage of available error detection and correction techniques, he will also attempt to spread his message throughout the available bandwidth. He will avoid clustering his message into areas which would increase his vulnerability to jamming or interference. It is provocative to notice that the Biblical text evidences these same techniques. Where is the chapter on baptism? Or salvation? Or any specific critical doctrine? Every major theme is spread throughout the 66 books making up the total message. There is no concentration of any critical element in any single location. One can tear out a surprising number of pages and still not lose visibility of the essential message. (Some resolution or clarity would be lost, however.) This design intent of distributing the vital elements throughout the entire message system is even highlighted by Isaiah: Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: -- Isaiah 28:9,10

Here's the rest of the article:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2006/658/

--

When my grandmother passed away some years ago, I had the opportunity to sift through some of her old belongings, and I discovered some neat photo albums that she had apparently put together in her youth. We found pictures that dated back to the 1930's, and although age had obviously affected the resolution to some degree, the images were still fully visible, and these albums were in remarkable condition.

So it often is with mementos: We put them away for safe keeping, and do our best to keep them preserved and in tact.

And so it has been with the Bible: This book contains the sacred Scriptures... holy records that were preserved for us by the ancient Hebrew Scribes. These faithful attendants, with their careful hands, drew out conformed copies of the Bible on an annual basis... and among orthodox Jews, this still remains the annual custom. This was a task that required the utmost precision, together with the utmost reverence. In fact, it is even understood that these Scribes had made it their tradition to wipe clean their sacred quills before transcribing the four letters of the tetragrammaton, that holy and ineffable name of God.

And when you consider the clarity of what we have today, as evidenced through the majority of the surviving manuscripts, its really quite remarkable.

Perhaps there were some bits of the Bible that have been lost along the way, but we find that the essential message of the Bible is recapitulated and reflected throughout the entire book.

I believe that if you were to fix your focus on the harmony of the manuscripts, rather than their distinctions, this could potentially lead to a restoration of your faith.

Don't let yourself become discouraged, but rather be encouraged and assured that we possess an extremely reliable conformation of God's word.

Joe

Who is this guy Chuck Missler? A quick glance at the site indicates that he believes in Bible codes and other stuff. Actually, I am not sure what he believes.

Honestly, I was intrigued about the whole Bible code stuff when it first became popular with Drosdin or whatever his name was, although I never read his book. But I do know that nature in and of itself has all kinds of stuff going on. Mathematics etc as well.

Points:

1. Short and sweet. Just the way I like 'em. (And have only so much time to do) I'll address the stuff that has come up and not raise any new points.

2. GP......please go back and read and dwell on 3 things. First, read the whole post by Shred. He makes some good points. Second, the post by Bgast has some good thoughts too. Third, the post by Valediction has some good thoughts in it......as well as the thoughts by Missler, good ones too. Check them out. And.......please, please go back and look at how Shred answers your questions. He has done well IMO. He raises some good points and makes some good answers IMO. What you proceed to do with the answers and data........remember Demosthenes' quote??

3. Now to get onto some points you've raised and give my own quick answers to. Shred and Bgast and Valediction have, so now it is my turn.

The first thing I want to say is that I don't worship the Bible. I worship GOD. HE is talked of and about in that text......but worshipping the text is on a higher level than it demands IMO.

Second, the originals of the text are inerrant IMO. We don't have those do we?? No biggie IMO. So that does away with the whole issue of inerrance does it not?? See how easy that was?? Anybody over your previous years who has told you that your Biblical text in your hands is *inerrant*, is bluntly, in error.

Third, I agree with Shred. He lists the date of about 1400 A.D. Before that date we have the original texts of very little. Oh......there is some stuff documented here and there......but, it is really not much, few and far between are the documents.

So what is my point?? To disbelieve freaking everything in the record of humanity because we don't have many texts and/or records and accounts of events and people before 1400 A.D.?? Well......one can do that, I suppose. But that is not my point. Here are my points. There are two of them. First off is the point of transcription or recording that Valediction mentions. GP.......considering the fact that we have so many manuscripts of this text (both the OT and the NT documents), it has not really been copied that badly. It has been done by hand and it has been done rather well. This copying has been done over hundreds and even thousands of years and--in whole--the copying has not been done that badly, and manuscript errors are not egregious. Remember that word *egregious* as i'll use it in my second point below. Bluntly, Ancient and Medieval documents of a secular, or specifically non--Christian nature, have not been transcribed as well, or as accurately overall. As proof of the pudding, so to speak, regarding the validity of my comments above about textual and transcription accuracy, look at the texts we use today for the OT and compare them to both Qumran texts from roughly 2,000 years ago and the Biblical documents that we've used over the last 2,000 years as our transcription *originals* to produce our modern texts. The Qumran OT documents prove the basic textual accuracy of the OT texts as copied and preserved, that we use today.

Second point. Egregious. Remember that word?? Here is what I mean. First off, as Shred mentioned, your hundreds of thousands of errors is in totality of all the extant texts and not a statement of an individual text. The errors and numbers of errors in each individual manuscript simply don't fall into the *egregious* category. Hold on, hold on, an explanation of the use of that word is forthcoming. In his analogy of the scientific textbook with typos in it.......Shred touches on what I mean by *egregious* errors. Just as those typos don't disqualify or make irrelevant or un--useful that scientific textbook.......neither do the *typos* (for that is what they basically are) in our Ancient and Medieval Biblical manuscripts make them un--useful or irrelevant and disqualify them. This has not really been said in such blunt language by any of the previous posters.......but Doug.......the Christian *core doctrines* and *core teachings* and *core thoughts* that comprise the Christian teachings and dogmas on Theology as it relates to GOD the FATHER, JESUS the SON, and the HOLY SPIRIT, and mankind and all the *core teachings* of the faith......are not in question Doug. They simply and bluntly.......are not. Most emphatically these teachings and doctrines are neither in question nor are the errors you mention......egregious or errors that invalidate the texts or the *core teachings* inscribed within those manuscripts.

Errors in the multiple thousands of extant Ancient and Medieval Biblical texts......yes. Egregious or bad or invalidative errors......no.

So Doug, you say that the Bilical texts and Ancient and Medieval manuscripts they come from should be put on a *higher level* and such. Why?? You've been shown that the Ancient and Medieval manuscripts are not copied or transcribed that badly given both the time factor (there is a lot of it......time) of the older manuscripts and the number factor (there are multiple thousands of entire texts and textual fragments) of the manuscripts extant. Also, you've been told that there are really, really no egregious errors about faith or practice or doctrine or Theology. Doug.......the errors you've mentioned are grammatical. They are errors of spelling and grammar, not errors of content. So Doug.......when was the last time a human touched anything perfectly.......and did it 100% correct?? Stretch that out. Thousands of manuscripts over thousands of years, and they are all supposed to be 100% correct?? Um.......I don't think so man. This is reality we are dealing with and not some *fairy--happy--perfect--smarmy--Disney--Bibleland*.

You use the words, "....general ideas...." Doug. The *general ideas* of the Biblical manuscripts passed onto us and used as transcription and translated documents for us in our Biblical texts are........quite O.K. IMO.

I'll say it again for emphasis. Errors, yes. Egregious errors, no.

Doug.......GOD has done a good job of preserving us from the errors that would invalidate and make inoperative and unbelieveable, Christianity and Biblical teachings.

Greg out for now.

I want to be clear on what you are saying before I comment. Are you saying that there is no change in content from one manuscript to the next, and that any error found is merely grammatical? Or to use your word, that there are absolutely no egregious errors? Is that what you are suggesting?

Quote:

The first thing I want to say is that I don't worship the Bible. I worship GOD. HE is talked of and about in that text......but worshipping the text is on a higher level than it demands IMO

Yes, I understand this but it becomes problematic when *everything* Christians claim to know about God in a theological sense finds its source in the Bible, and as sourge39 has proven time and time again in his very detailed posts, sometimes even specific single words create a world of difference in what we take as true vs. false.

Also keep in mind that I never claimed Christianity could be proven false by this topic. I just thought it was interesting, and as I said I was going to take some of Shawn's examples of common arguments and try to come at them from less of an assertion-based ground. This one would be one that I've commonly heard "well, they added stuff to the Bible so (insert teaching) doesn't really have to be followed."

Quote:

Second, the originals of the text are inerrant IMO. We don't have those do we?? No biggie IMO. So that does away with the whole issue of inerrance does it not?? See how easy that was??

Um, not really. I'm not looking for any sort of spiritual advice or anything. If you are going to make a claim like this, please back it up, or is that what you meant to be doing by the rest of your post, backng this up? Anyways... why do you believe the original text was innerant? Because the errant text tells you so?

_________________
Love Bomb Baby!

GlassPrison,

I'm short on time right now, and I will reply to your post sometime today. In the meantime...

I think what might be helpful to clarify one of the focal points of the issue is if you could give, say, two examples of a place in the New Testament where a doubtful area of the text would influence a significant aspect of Christian theology.

I assume that you recognize that the overwhelming majority of those 200,000-300,000 variants are things like spelling and stuff like that.

There are many places in the New Testament where I'm not sure what the original text said, but I'm not aware of an instance where that puts some central theological claim into question.

Ok, you will have examples forthcoming today or tomorrow, as I may be at work all day without resources and such, but I will say that I don't believe it to be the best strategy for my case to claim that Text B has some central theological claim that Text A, an earlier version, does not. I think my overall case will be better understood once I present historical and scriptural examples of what concerns me most about the topic.

Thanks!

GP

good post!

Shred- let me explain where I am coming from logically. We know that certain texts have been altered with a specific agenda in mind. One example would be to combat beliefs alternative to the "proto-orthodox" of say, the nature of Jesus' humanity. For instance while in Lukes narrative of Jesus' birth Joseph is called Jesus' father twice (2:33), most Greek manuscripts as well as some Old Lating, Syriac and Coptic witnesses change it to read "Joseph and his mother began to marvel." There's a huge difference in that, moreso than the simple reordering of words that you gave an example of. Thankfully we have this earlier text as well as other documents that suggest a dispute over whether Jesus was indeed born of Joseph and Mary or conceieved in the virgin. Now neither this example or any others alone is going to be enough to discount the writings as a whole or even a major theological item, but here is what concerns me: the fact that this particular changing of the scripture could happen and end up so widespread displays the vulnerability of these scriptures that I can only imagine were even greater the further back we go as we would then have less to compare them to. Are we supposed to just accept on faith then, that any of the first copies were not also used to reaffirm the interpretation of the scribe or his affiliation which others might have disagreed with? When things were less circulated it would have been relatively easy to adjust the text to more clearly represent one's interpretation of it. Once the original is lost, the new is as original as it gets. Not only that, but I would tend to think that at the beginning of a religion there would be some serious disputes over the most fundamental aspects of what to believe and what not to.

Ugh.........

I want to read.......

I want to write........

But I have to go to work.

Later dudes.

Cool response. After further thought throughout the day and attempts to respond to what you just said, I'm finding that down every line of thought I go I cannot avoid running into the hypothetical barriers that I set up for myself at the beginning, that being that I would accept that the New Testament is indeed divinely inspired.

My current thoughts are that in order for this particular argument to work, one would necessarily have to be arguing against a very fundamentalist verbal plenary inspiration belief.

I have in front of my an essay by James Still called "Reliability and Belief" (1999), in which the author is arguing against some claims of a fundamentalist and in the section on "pre-canonical synoptic transmission" uses many of the points I have here, albeit in a more scholarly rhetoric than I have yet achieved, and using better examples. What is suprising though, is that he ends the paper by turning all of his arguments in upon themselves and says that they wouldn't matter if McDowell, who he is writing against, would let go of such strict and stubborn demands he expects of Christianity. He goes on further in a Kierkegaardian tone explaining the difference between "confessional belief" and "ordinary belief." There is a whole bunch here that I want to address and it's given me ideas for a new thread... especially this stuff on what he calls "transrationalism." I do see potential for some very big holes in these ideas though, and I'd be curious as to your thoughts on them too. I'll post the parts of interest in another thread sometime this weekend.



Thanks again for everyone that participated here. Threads like this are a big reason why I came back here, because it's difficult for me to find people that are on an equal or greater debating level than I am. It's funny I oftentimes find myself debating in defence of Christianity when some of my more staunch atheist friends make unfounded radical claims. It got boring when I wasn't here because I could easily argue anything against anyone I know and appear to "win" or whatnot, but it's pointless because I don't learn anything by doing that. In debates here I always learn something either about other people's beliefs and why they have them or about my own in the research it forces. It's also a good way to improve debate skills as I really admire the skills that certain people here clearly demonstrate in defending their claims at a level I hope to attain.

Cool thread.