New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

The following recently came up in the third "inventing a religion" thread:

[ QUOTE ]
You can learn a lot about the history of the Bible and how its been changed and edited.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the bible is a giant storybook collection that has been exaggerated over time due to the chinese whisper effect of many translations and much editing

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bible was made into a film it would need the caption in the opening credits "based on a true story"

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
somewhat akin to an old wives tale it contains some kernels of truth - but also a healthy dose of fiction and exaggeration to make it a better read.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, there is plenty of evidence [that Biblical stories have been edited]. The existence of all the books of the Bible that were rejected is plenty. The works of numerous Biblical scholars tracing the changes made in various versions is further evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a strong belief among many on these boards that the Bible we have today nowhere near resembles the orginal texts from long ago. The implication seems to be that these texts were edited for political reasons or in an effort to exaggerate or embellish its claims.

Here is an article from tektonics that does a great job explaining what we know about textual criticism and how many of the beliefs regarding how the Bible has been edited simply are not true.

Someone asked me for proof of how I know today's Bible is accurate, so I thought I would provide some quotes and general points from the article as an introduction to it:

24000+ copies of New Testament documents are still in existence today. The copies match the "current" Bible to 99% accuracy.

"Among the textual variants in the Gospels, there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text -- the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John (with other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value.)"

"No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on any textual variant."

"Textual conspiracies such as often suggested would be quite impossible -- there is no way that the Church could have eliminated all known readings of a given text."

"95% of the errors found in the New Testament text are recognized as unintentional. These include confusion of similar letters, repitition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying."

"The remaining 5% of errors includes revised spelling and grammar, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties, and, indeed, theological or doctrinal changes."

"There is evidence textual criticism was already in process as early as the 2nd and 3rd century."

"Even Ehrman, though he has found only a few dozen corruptions -- which he was able to find because original readings are still preserved! -- cannot resist speculating that there are actually 'hundreds' of uncovered corruptions...The evidence is far better that we do have the 'original text' -- it is simply mixed up with 'unoriginal variants' and it is speculative to believe we have lost any real parts."

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world. -Bart Ehrman

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
24000+ copies of New Testament documents are still in existence today. The copies match the "current" Bible to 99% accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not preclude redaction if the oldest of these documents is well outside the date of composition.

[ QUOTE ]
"No doctrine of Christianity is in the least dependent on any textual variant."

[/ QUOTE ]

You will not find universal agreement on this point. The doctrine of the trinity, for instance, has much firmer support if one accepts 1 Jn. 5:7 as original.

[ QUOTE ]

"95% of the errors found in the New Testament text are recognized as unintentional. These include confusion of similar letters, repitition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying."

[/ QUOTE ]

Recognized by whom? Some will see Matt. 27:9-10 as a copying error. Others will say that the biblical author goofed up and quoted the wrong prophet. A third party will come up with a rationalization for why "it only appears" as if he makes a mistake.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

This is all well and good txag but all it needs is for the written documents of the NT to be vetted for consistency prior to release as gospel. We know at least some vetting went on because some books made it in and others didn't.

So when inventing a religion don't forget to review your holy books for consistency. It's very important.

Also, look how subjective the error explanations are. Here we have the perfect word of god. <font color="red"> </font> Hey, there's errors in the text. <font color="black"> </font> Oh? Well, don't worry, it's, ummm, unintentional human errors. The rest of it is still the perfect word of god. So if they could make errors, is the supernatural part of the resurrection story an error? No, I told you it's the perfect word of god. How do you know the difference? Ummmmmmmmm.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]


Here is an article from tektonics

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here - thats at least twice you've pimped tektonics.

I googled Tektonics - hit's #1 and #2 were links to the site itself.

hit #3 was interesting...

“Why an entire site devoted just to articles debunking Turkel’s apologetics? Is he that important?” The answer is, no, Robert Turkel is not that important. However, his articles are referenced by a number of gullible inerrantists and Turkel writes with such an acerbic tongue that sometimes this kind of idol worship and self-aggrandizement requires a check. This site is that check. - link (emphasis added)

I have now spent approximately the same amount of time reading that site as I spent reading and responding to some of your previous posts - IMO it was time much better spent.

You have NO idea how tempting it is to change your undertitle to "gullible inerrantist" as I believe it describes you rather well.

as far as this thread goes this page neatly describes my position better than I could and saves me a crap load of typing to which you'll just ignore and reply "I Disagree" so forgive me if I cut this reply a little shorter than some of my previous ones.

and just in case you can't find the time to read the page I linked to above - here are a couple of juicy quotes. (my emphasis)

some biblicists, [...] have just admitted that there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Bible

The problem is a simple one. If the Bible errs in matters where there is available information, [...] to establish that errors were made, then how can anyone be sure that the Bible is right in what it says about matters that cannot be corroborated by extrabiblical records?

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

Someone with 1,300 posts needs some sort of special title. It's only right.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have NO idea how tempting it is to change your undertitle to "gullible inerrantist" as I believe it describes you rather well.


[/ QUOTE ]
Go ahead. What do I care? I'm reading your links now.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

Your links were not topical to the OP. They did not address any of the facts in the tektonics article regarding the comparison between the Bible and original texts. They spoke instead of errancy/inerrancy of the original texts, which is another issue entirely. Why post a reply that does nothing more than change the subject?

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your links were not topical to the OP. They did not address blah blah blah blah... etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

D U C Y ?

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

Paul is the name most frequently adopted by the popes.
Why is that?
That is because of what is called:"The secrets of the Vatican."
If there was one person who knew what was needed to make Christianity more acceptable to the Romans, it was Paul.
He gave the religion a complete make-over.
In the period after, for hundreds of years, original writings about the time of Jesus and many times also about Jesus himself were destroyed by the church of Rome.
This was because they were not consistent with the make-over by Paul.
However in the Vatican a lot of these inconsistent writings are preserved.
I'm quite sure that I will not live to see the day that these secrets are revealed; but one day they will, it might take a couple of hundreds of years, but the people have a right to know the truth...

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your links were not topical to the OP. They did not address any of the facts in the tektonics article regarding the comparison between the Bible and original texts. They spoke instead of errancy/inerrancy of the original texts, which is another issue entirely. Why post a reply that does nothing more than change the subject?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're attempting to justify beliefs based on the bible by saying it compares well to the original texts? Of course it does, it's bloomin' based on them. You are following an apologetic technique mentioned in that link Matix provided. Basically, you're taking each little criticism and addressing it individually without considering the wider problem. You're assuming that one non-failure in argument allows you to decide that, overall, the christanity is proved. Not a correct assumption. It's a bit like this:

Luke 9:41 - And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither

It can't be proved Jesus didn't say the above.
Sure.
Therefore, christianity is proved.
eh?

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the period after, for hundreds of years, original writings about the time of Jesus and many times also about Jesus himself were destroyed by the church of Rome.


[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Accusation made. Now, do you have anything to support it?

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're assuming that one non-failure in argument allows you to decide that, overall, the christanity is proved.

[/ QUOTE ]
The original post in this thread gives an extremely detailed response to the charge that the books in today's Bible hardly resemble their original writings. Would you like to explain with the same level of detail how what you just said applies to this thread's OP?

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the period after, for hundreds of years, original writings about the time of Jesus and many times also about Jesus himself were destroyed by the church of Rome.


[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. Accusation made. Now, do you have anything to support it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, I did not intent to make an accusation; I didn't even realize that I posted in a religious thread; a thought it was an historical thread; otherwise I would not have responded. My mistake.
Sorry about that; you have my respect, as I respect all believers of all religions; especially the peaceful ones!

Double cheers!

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]

The original post in this thread gives an extremely detailed response to the charge that the books in today's Bible hardly resemble their original writings.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you delete it and replace it with the one thats there now???

I'm [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

OP reads (bunch of quotes form previous several incarnations of this same thread) - "here are some quotes from an article by tektonics"

to which I replied - "here is what I found about tektonics - this debunk site makes lots of sense to me - therefore I am going to ignore everything tektonics says"

you replied - "the links you gave were "not topical""

I find this interesting as the debunk site I linked to absolutely trashes tektonics comprehensively and imho is pretty dam topical. It wasn't even hard to find - search google for "tektonics" and it's hit #3...

care to take a look at that site again and let me know what you think? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'd appreciate your thoughts on it's content.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find this interesting as the debunk site I linked to absolutely trashes tektonics comprehensively

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I noticed that. I also noticed that you attacked the source instead of replying with your thoughts on the content of the original post.

[ QUOTE ]
care to take a look at that site again and let me know what you think? I'd appreciate your thoughts on it's content.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was about to ask you the same thing.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

txag007 -

Let's say I was willing to spot you an assumption of Biblical inerrancy.

What interpretative authority would you then say is necessary to extract Scripture's inerrant doctrines and facts? Just literacy and an open mind? Something more than that?

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find this interesting as the debunk site I linked to absolutely trashes tektonics comprehensively

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I noticed that. I also noticed that you attacked the source instead of replying with your thoughts on the content of the original post.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well you see I don't accept things at face value - I go check up on sources before I give what they say any credit.

the tektonics source doesn't check out well - hence I place no value at all in anything they say.

What would be the point of commenting on quoted bits from a tektonics article if my opinion of tektonics is shall we say "rather low"?

you're very good at evading questions...

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well you see I don't accept things at face value - I go check up on sources before I give what they say any credit.


[/ QUOTE ]
Did you check the background of the person who wrote the article to which you linked, or did you take that at face value? Just curious.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I was willing to spot you an assumption of Biblical inerrancy.

What interpretative authority would you then say is necessary to extract Scripture's inerrant doctrines and facts? Just literacy and an open mind? Something more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Reason.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I was willing to spot you an assumption of Biblical inerrancy.

What interpretative authority would you then say is necessary to extract Scripture's inerrant doctrines and facts? Just literacy and an open mind? Something more than that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid I don't follow you entirely. Are you saying that all Scriptural doctrines and facts follow logically from the pure text?

Please expand as much as possible, I would really like to understand this point.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I don't follow you entirely. Are you saying that all Scriptural doctrines and facts follow logically from the pure text?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but let me back up. The interpretative authority which allows us to understand Scripture is the Holy Spirit. The Bible says when we become a Christian, God implants the Law in our hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know how familiar you are with Christian theology, but you become a Christian by admitting you are a sinner, believing and confessing that you believe Jesus died for your sins, and asking Jesus "into your heart". When you do this, the Holy Spirit actually does enter your heart and live inside you. This same Holy Spirit is the interpretative authority which guides us in understanding Scripture.

My answer earlier was 'reason'. What I meant was that God designed our minds with the ability to reason. One of the characteristics that separates Christianity from other religions is that what we know about God is constantly growing. As we learn more about our world, under the Biblical belief that God designed it, we learn more about God. We are therefore able to tweak our interpretations of Scripture to fit this new knowledge.

This doesn't mean that the texts are purposefully edited from their originals. It just means that man's interpretations of these texts is sometimes flawed and needs updating, and there's a lot we still don't know about God.

One more thing: one of the criticisms that often appear on these boards concerning Christians is that if ever we are confronted with something that contradicts or conflicts with something the Bible says, we just reinterpret, and just like that the problem is fixed. There are two things about this on which I’d like to comment. First, I don’t believe this occurs on the same level to which it is accused to happen. Most doctrines of Christianity haven’t changed in hundreds and hundreds of years. And secondly, to know whether this criticism is valid (and obviously I believe it’s not) requires the application of reason, as well. One must look at the passage of scripture in question and reconcile the dispute in his own mind as to whether or not the criticism is or is not reasonable.

I hope this helps.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

By reading what you posted, I have to ask... did you mean to say magic when you typed the word reason before?

[ QUOTE ]
The interpretative authority which allows us to understand Scripture is the Holy Spirit. The Bible says when we become a Christian, God implants the Law in our hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know how familiar you are with Christian theology, but you become a Christian by admitting you are a sinner, believing and confessing that you believe Jesus died for your sins, and asking Jesus "into your heart". When you do this, the Holy Spirit actually does enter your heart and live inside you.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing reasonable about what you wrote here. Just some superstitious magic as told by primitive man and believed by people who actually drop reason over their desire to believe.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

Yes, kurto, I meant to say magic.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, kurto, I meant to say magic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad we settled that. Because now I can see where you're coming from.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, kurto, I meant to say magic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Txag, even though we disagree on many things, and my posts in re: to you are often sarcastic, this made me laugh, and for that I am thankful.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, kurto, I meant to say magic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Txag, even though we disagree on many things, and my posts in re: to you are often sarcastic, this made me laugh, and for that I am thankful.

[/ QUOTE ]

And though I'm teasing him, I hope he can see where my comments would come from. Within the same thread he went from talking about how you can interpret the scriptures rationally... blink... because you're possessed by a Holy Ghost. Sounds rational.

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well you see I don't accept things at face value - I go check up on sources before I give what they say any credit.


[/ QUOTE ]
Did you check the background of the person who wrote the article to which you linked, or did you take that at face value? Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

the answer to your question is included in the part of my post you quoted.

Here it is again incase you missed it.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't accept things at face value - I go check up on sources before I give what they say any credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

some other thoughts....

"24000+ copies of New Testament documents are still in existence today. The copies match the "current" Bible to 99% accuracy."

in whose opinion? and how did the people who think that this is true go about their comparison??

"95% of the errors found in the New Testament text are recognized as unintentional. These include confusion of similar letters, repitition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying."

how the errors came about is of no consequence - they are still errors and they are still there. Slight typographical errors can totally change the meaning conveyed by the original author.

"most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world"

most books of the ancient world aren't sold as "the direct word of God" and don't have millions of fundamentalists ready to go to war over what they understand the word means ...

You do seem very very good at evading questions...

here are some simple direct questions I hope you will be able to answer.

i) What is the point of this thread?

ii) Why has it been reincarnated three times?

iii) Is it possible do you think for us to have some actual discussion or debate in these threads which you have started or do you plan to continue to post very short answers that evade the questions?

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I don't follow you entirely. Are you saying that all Scriptural doctrines and facts follow logically from the pure text?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but let me back up. The interpretative authority which allows us to understand Scripture is the Holy Spirit. The Bible says when we become a Christian, God implants the Law in our hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit. I don't know how familiar you are with Christian theology, but you become a Christian by admitting you are a sinner, believing and confessing that you believe Jesus died for your sins, and asking Jesus "into your heart". When you do this, the Holy Spirit actually does enter your heart and live inside you. This same Holy Spirit is the interpretative authority which guides us in understanding Scripture.

My answer earlier was 'reason'. What I meant was that God designed our minds with the ability to reason. One of the characteristics that separates Christianity from other religions is that what we know about God is constantly growing. As we learn more about our world, under the Biblical belief that God designed it, we learn more about God. We are therefore able to tweak our interpretations of Scripture to fit this new knowledge.

This doesn't mean that the texts are purposefully edited from their originals. It just means that man's interpretations of these texts is sometimes flawed and needs updating, and there's a lot we still don't know about God.

One more thing: one of the criticisms that often appear on these boards concerning Christians is that if ever we are confronted with something that contradicts or conflicts with something the Bible says, we just reinterpret, and just like that the problem is fixed. There are two things about this on which I’d like to comment. First, I don’t believe this occurs on the same level to which it is accused to happen. Most doctrines of Christianity haven’t changed in hundreds and hundreds of years. And secondly, to know whether this criticism is valid (and obviously I believe it’s not) requires the application of reason, as well. One must look at the passage of scripture in question and reconcile the dispute in his own mind as to whether or not the criticism is or is not reasonable.

I hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thx for the reply, I don't have any further questions ATM...

Re: New Testament Textual Criticisms
 

[ QUOTE ]
"24000+ copies of New Testament documents are still in existence today. The copies match the "current" Bible to 99% accuracy."

in whose opinion? and how did the people who think that this is true go about their comparison??


[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the article? It's in there.

[ QUOTE ]
"95% of the errors found in the New Testament text are recognized as unintentional. These include confusion of similar letters, repitition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying."

how the errors came about is of no consequence - they are still errors and they are still there. Slight typographical errors can totally change the meaning conveyed by the original author.


[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the article? It addresses this.

[ QUOTE ]
"most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world"

most books of the ancient world aren't sold as "the direct word of God" and don't have millions of fundamentalists ready to go to war over what they understand the word means ...

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not the issue. The accusation against the Bible by you guys is that it doesn't resemble the original texts because of prolific editing. I find it interesting that you didn't fight this point, but rather seemed to agree with it. You do realize who that quote was by, right?

[ QUOTE ]
You do seem very very good at evading questions...


[/ QUOTE ]
The questions you are asking, at least in this post, have already been answered.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the point of this thread?


[/ QUOTE ]
To defend the Bible against the charge that it "is a giant storybook collection that has been exaggerated over time due to the chinese whisper effect of many translations and much editing" just as it is stated in the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
Why has it been reincarnated three times?

[/ QUOTE ]
It hasn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible do you think for us to have some actual discussion or debate in these threads which you have started or do you plan to continue to post very short answers that evade the questions?

[/ QUOTE ]
As I said, you are asking questions that have already been answered. Can you blame me?