Is the Bible man-made, or Godly scripture?

[techboy]

So do you honestly think that Constatine had no say (even if he was dead when it was finally put together) in what the contents of the bible were?

According to your own links the Gnostic Gospels were nearly universally rejected before Constantine.

According to your own links the Nicean creed just formalized the nearly universal consensus as to the doctrine of the Trinity.

And, nowhere in any of the links does it say that Nicea had anything to do with the formation of the Canon.

So, to summarize, Nicea didn't change any doctrine, and it didn't address the Canon.

So, yeah, I'd say that Constantine didn't have anything to do with the composition of the Canon, and that you are just engaging in wild, baseless speculation and passing it off as fact.

[techboy]

Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth, and failing miserably in doing so. . . I have never said Constantine "wrote" the bible. . .

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said you asserted that Constantine "wrote" the Bible. I said that you asserted that Constantine had something to do with the composition of the Bible. Which you then repeated in this very post, and which is mere wild speculation that neither you nor Xamiel have ever been able to produce a shred of credble evidence for.

And, in case I need to remind you, Acharya S doesn't count as reliable.

[Zguy28]

Just curious Z, but what do you think about the gnostics and their versions of Christ?

Which one? There are so many different flavors of gnosticism, from those that believed that all matter is evil and that Christ couldn't have therefore come in the flesh, all the way to the belief that the Old Testament Yahweh was not God the Creator but a "demiurge".

Basically, I believe what Paul and the Apostles believed.

for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. ~ 1 Corinthians 8:6

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. 9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed. ~ 1 Corinthians 15:1-11

What do you think about the relationship of Mary to Christ, and why do you think she was mentioned in the New Testament.

That is a very good question. Thanks for asking.

I think she was the vessel by which the Son of God became incarnate in the flesh. His conception was by the Holy Spirit. Matthew presents her as part of a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy from Isaiah.

And obviously, there is no denying that it is also to help establish His supernaturality (is that a word?). That's not a bad thing, after all, they were preaching that He was the Son of God Almighty.

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

[Xameil]

That is a very good question. Thanks for asking.

I think she was the vessel by which the Son of God became incarnate in the flesh. His conception was by the Holy Spirit. Matthew presents her as part of a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy from Isaiah.

And obviously, there is no denying that it is also to help establish His supernaturality (is that a word?). That's not a bad thing, after all, they were preaching that He was the Son of God Almighty.

:doh: I believe he meant you know the one that they make a whore...you know the one from Egyptian Royalty...Mary Magdeline..the one you all fear

[Zguy28]

:doh: I believe he meant you know the one that they make a whore...you know the one from Egyptian Royalty...Mary Magdeline..the one you all fear

You mean the one who supposedly mothered the Holy Grail? :laugh: In my defense, he did say Mary, not Mary Magdalene.

I think her mention adds to the strength of the Gospel canon.

Q: Why mention a woman when they are second class citizens?

A: Because they wanted to be as truthful as possible.

[techboy]

:doh: I believe he meant you know the one that they make a whore...you know the one from Egyptian Royalty...Mary Magdeline..the one you all fear

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, Mary of Magdala was not identified as a prostitute until the Middle Ages. Pope Gregory I was influential in this, giving a sermon in 591.

As Dr. Ben Witherington notes:

It is important to stress where she first appears in the Gospels, because by the Middle Ages there had long been a confusion about who she was. The anonymous sinner woman mentioned in Lk. 7, who anointed Jesus' feet in the house of Simon the Pharisee, was assumed to be Miriam of Magdala. This is a serious mistake, and it really only became possible to make this mistake once manuscripts of the New Testament began to appear with separations of words, sentences, paragraphs, and then chapters and verses. That process first happened in the early Middle Ages.

[TriangleSkinsFan]

I think the fact that are so many different versions and revisions of holy text that have all been translated into different languages makes it impossible to say that any of them can be considered the exact words of any god. If you think that one of the versions, revisions, or translations is the correct one then which one do you pick and how do you justify that pick vs any other?

Forget the details, they are moot if you don't have a way to identify which set of details you are dealing with.

For my own curiosity...for those of you who have picked a favorite version, how do you determine how literally to take the gospel? All of it exactly literally, some of it? How do you select which ones to take literally and which ones are allegorical?

[Zguy28]

I think the fact that are so many different versions and revisions of holy text that have all been translated into different languages makes it impossible to say that any of them can be considered the exact words of any god. If you think that one of the versions, revisions, or translations is the correct one then which one do you pick and how do you justify that pick vs any other?

Forget the details, they are moot if you don't have a way to identify which set of details you are dealing with.

For my own curiosity...for those of you who have picked a favorite version, how do you determine how literally to take the gospel? All of it exactly literally, some of it? How do you select which ones to take literally and which ones are allegorical?

Well, the gospels are mostly a record of Christ's works and in many cases is an eyewitness account.

They were written down so that people would believe in Jesus, just as if the Apostles themselves had told you the Gospel. They are mostly self explanatory.

The historical record of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

~Gospel of Matthew 1:1

Many have undertaken to compile a narrative about the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us. 3 It also seemed good to me, since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first, to write to you in orderly sequence, most honorable Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed. ~ Gospel of Luke 1:1-4

But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name. ~ Gospel of John 20:31

As far as translation, you have to determine which MSS are used to translate from: Alexandrian or Byzantine? Also, the method. Some, such as The Message, are paraphrases. Others like the NASB are more literal, but don't make for as easy reading, since Greek and Hebrew grammar is totally different than English. They usually explain the translation efforts in the preface of the edition.

Here is the Holman Christian Standard Bible's explanation.

Bible translations generally follow one of three approaches to translating the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words into English:

1. Formal Equivalence: Often called "word for word" translation, formal equivalence seeks to represent each word of the original text with a corresponding word in the translation so that the reader can see word for word what the original human author wrote. The merit of this approach is that the Holy Spirit did inspire the very words of Scripture in the original manuscripts. A formal equivalence translation is good to the extent that its words accurately convey the meaning of the original words. However, a literal rendering can result in awkward English or in a misunderstanding of the author's intent.
   
2. Dynamic Equivalence: Often called "thought for thought" translation, dynamic equivalence seeks to translate the meaning of biblical words so the text makes the same impact on modern readers that the ancient text made on its original readers. Strengths of this approach include readability and understandability, especially in places where the original is difficult to render word for word. However, some serious questions can be asked about dynamic equivalence: How can a modern translator be certain of the original author's intent? Since meaning is always conveyed by words, why not ensure accuracy by using words that are as close as possible in meaning to the original instead of words that just capture the idea? How can a modern person ever know the impact of the original text on its readers?
   
3. Optimal Equivalence: This approach seeks to combine the best features of both formal and dynamic equivalence. In the many places throughout Scripture where a word for word rendering is clearly understandable, a literal translation is used. In places where a literal rendering might be unclear, then a more dynamic translation is given. The HCSB® has chosen to use the balance and beauty of optimal equivalence for a fresh translation of God's word that is both faithful to the words God inspired and "user friendly" to modern readers.
   

[artmonkforHOF]

I can tell you for sure it is not #2.

I really wish I had a better memory, but about 2-3years ago, there was a fundamentalist Christian on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Being a fundamentalist Christian, this man was interested in studying the history of the Bible, as he takes the Bible as God's true word and trying to trace the bible back to its earliest origins might bring him closer to God. But in his research he started to find inaccuracies, alterations and complete deletions/additions of stories into the bible throughout history.

He found that most discrepancies occured when people where- mainly monks- translating or transcribing the Bible in the early to middle ages. back then, before printing presses, if you wanted a copy of book, you had to write it out yourself. But what if its in a different language? or a dead language? Or in most cases, an older Bible was high decorated with calligraphy and difficlut to decipher. Or sometimes sloppy handwritting was the culprit.

What he also found was that when some of these monks transcribed the Bible for their own records, some would write notes in the margin, and then their copy would be later transcribed and their "notes" would then be included. This fundamentalist Christian-and apparently he still is by the way- also found that some of the most popular biblical stories (I think he cited David vs Goliath or Kane & Able) where in fact not in the original scriptures but added up to 400-700 years after the original scriptures.

Common sense always told me that there was no way the Bible could be an accurate account of what happend 2000 years ago, and I was pleased to see a factual account- by a fundamentalist Christian no less- confirm that for me.

I just wish I could remember his name or the name of the book. I remember doing a preview on amazon online when it first came out becasue the book intereseted me, but I cant for the life of me remember what its called.-Is anyone here aware of the author or book and could help me out?

[TriangleSkinsFan]

You didn't answer my question.... Which one do you choose and why?

And by the way you cannot use scripture to prove that the scripture is true regardless of the version. Self definition is not an acceptable method. "It's accurate because it says it is" ? c'mon you have to at least do better than snake oil.

By the way, this is no way a criticism but just something I find funny....Jim Ignatowsky in your signature....the Irony of someone with your views having his signature occupied by a character who was so blasted out of his gord on drugs makes me chuckle...Don't change it...I love Jim.

[edgun88]

:mmm: You'v also got

That does it for me. :cloud9: Although I think she his hotter with shorter hair.

[Zguy28]

And by the way you cannot use scripture to prove that the scripture is true regardless of the version. Self definition is not an acceptable method. "It's accurate because it says it is" ? c'mon you have to at least do better than snake oil.

All I said was that accuracy was the author's intent. This is clear from the text.

Do you believe a newspaper when it describes some community event that you did not personally witness? Why or why not?

You didn't answer my question.... Which one do you choose and why?

I use several translations. I use the HCSB, I use the New International Version, I use the New King James Version, and the English Standard Version most of the time. Occasionally I use the 1850 King James, the 1588 Geneva Bible, and the Greek Majority Text. I also use a Strong's Concordance and Lexicon and various commentaries which include greek and hebrew analysis. Its good to view several translations to get a better feel for what the author meant.

By the way, this is no way a criticism but just something I find funny....Jim Ignatowsky in your signature....the Irony of someone with your views having his signature occupied by a character who was so blasted out of his gord on drugs makes me chuckle...Don't change it...I love Jim.

I love Reverend Jim as well. He made the show.

[TriangleSkinsFan]

All I said was that accuracy was the author's intent. This is clear from the text.

I'll agree with that. I am not a Christian but I doubt any of the authors of the bible or any of the versions, revisions, or translations had the intention to be inaccurate.

Do you believe a newspaper when it describes some community event that you did not personally witness? Why or why not?

Sure I do, exactly because I wasn't there to witness it, besides if it was horribly incorrect, either the news, radio, or internet would give another account. But then again, the disposition of my immortal soul does not rely on whether or not I believe in the newspaper.

I use several translations.....

To me the fact that there is more than one translation and that they are different means that it can't be "the true word of god" It has to be a work of men....but I don't think that this by itself means that the content is any less credible or useable for the purpose that it fulfills.

I love Reverend Jim as well. He made the show.

The best thing I saw was when Louie grabbed Jim's ear with a pair of pliers while Jim was reading and got no response...then like 5 minutes later Jim sits up and screams while holding his ear.

[Xameil]

You didn't answer my question.... Which one do you choose and why?

And by the way you cannot use scripture to prove that the scripture is true regardless of the version. Self definition is not an acceptable method. "It's accurate because it says it is" ? c'mon you have to at least do better than snake oil.

By the way, this is no way a criticism but just something I find funny....Jim Ignatowsky in your signature....the Irony of someone with your views having his signature occupied by a character who was so blasted out of his gord on drugs makes me chuckle...Don't change it...I love Jim.

lol forget it...he is unable to post without posting scripture...I challenged him, and he didn't even try....hell I think he quoted scripture in a post in the Stadium :laugh:

When asked what he thinks of Jason Campbell..

ZGuy answers I believe my answer to that can be found in....<insert obscure bible verse here>

:laugh:

[Zguy28]

Sure I do, exactly because I wasn't there to witness it, besides if it was horribly incorrect, either the news, radio, or internet would give another account.

You could kind of consider the Gospel in a similar way. For instance, Luke wasn't and eyewitness, but a later convert. I view him like a First Century investigative reporter. He interviewed everybody he could find who was a witness.

But then again, the disposition of my immortal soul does not rely on whether or not I believe in the newspaper.

Yeah, well there is that. It doesn't change things with regard to textual criticism though.

To me the fact that there is more than one translation and that they are different means that it can't be "the true word of god" It has to be a work of men....but I don't think that this by itself means that the content is any less credible or useable for the purpose that it fulfills.

Earlier in this thread I wrote what my opinion is on inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

By Inspiration , we mean that through the superintending influence of God's Spirit on the writers of Holy Scripture, the account and interpretation of God's revelation have been recorded as God intended so that the Bible is actually the Word of God.

Inerrancy means, when all the facts are known, the Bible (in its autographs, that is the original documents), properly interpreted in light of the culture and the means of communication that had developed by the time of its composition, is completely true in all that it affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the author's purpose, in all matters relating to God and His creation.

The best thing I saw was when Louie grabbed Jim's ear with a pair of pliers while Jim was reading and got no response...then like 5 minutes later Jim sits up and screams while holding his ear.

:laugh:

[Zguy28]

lol forget it...he is unable to post without posting scripture...I challenged him, and he didn't even try....hell I think he quoted scripture in a post in the Stadium :laugh:

When asked what he thinks of Jason Campbell..

ZGuy answers I believe my answer to that can be found in....<insert obscure bible verse here>

:laugh:

If you recall, I took it as a compliment.

[TriangleSkinsFan]

Yeah, well there is that. It doesn't change things with regard to textual criticism though.

You bet it changes things. Don't you think that the amount of tolerance you have for getting it wrong is different for something like your soul's destiny vs something like how much money from the till the idiot who robbed the liquor store got away with.

i.e. maybe by reading the paper I don't the exact whole story, but so what if I have the details wrong? It's just designed to give me an idea of what is going on. It's not like my afterlife depends on it.

Earlier in this thread I wrote what my opinion is on inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture.

By Inspiration , we mean that through the superintending influence of God's Spirit on the writers of Holy Scripture, the account and interpretation of God's revelation have been recorded as God intended so that the Bible is actually the Word of God.

Inerrancy means, when all the facts are known, the Bible (in its autographs, that is the original documents), properly interpreted in light of the culture and the means of communication that had developed by the time of its composition, is completely true in all that it affirms, to the degree of precision intended by the author's purpose, in all matters relating to God and His creation.

To me, the Inerrancy is the important part. IF you believe that the first recorded version was the word of god according to the inspiration part then you have to admit that what is available as the written word today, in all of the possible iterations, has to exist in varying degrees of inaccuracy. The fact that those versions are different make it necessarily true.

[The_cavalierman]

The bible is definitely man made because if it were a God's creation their would be no room for misinterpretations or confusion.

The bible has been altered by the following:

• Biblical scholars
  
• Roman Emporers
  

Some of the bible books are missing, altered or changed completely. How can anyone trust a book that has over 1500 versions as the unquestioned word of God?

Just a reminder that religion comes from the latin root religo which means to obligate.

In my opinion the bible is a tool of religion which is nothing more than mind control for the masses. If the bible were truly of God then why are so many "believers" confused?

[Zguy28]

You bet it changes things. Don't you think that the amount of tolerance you have for getting it wrong is different for something like your soul's destiny vs something like how much money from the till the idiot who robbed the liquor store got away with.

So, you're saying the writers had people's eternal destiny in mind, and therefore made extra-special to get it right?

To me, the Inerrancy is the important part. IF you believe that the first recorded version was the word of god according to the inspiration part then you have to admit that what is available as the written word today, in all of the possible iterations, has to exist in varying degrees of inaccuracy. The fact that those versions are different make it necessarily true.

Do you know how many differences there are among known translations?

Do you know what those differences change with regards to meaning?

[TriangleSkinsFan]

So, you're saying the writers had people's eternal destiny in mind, and therefore made extra-special to get it right?

Sure, I suppose that would be the case. But I'll also point out that someone's intention of taking extra special care to get it right does no mean that what they wrote is true, only that they intended for it to be good.

Do you know how many differences there are among known translations?

No, do you? Really all it takes is one documented difference for there to be problems, back to the fundamental question...Which one did god mean? If it is his word there would be no discrepancy or ambiguity about which one was the right one. Again, by definition it would have to be the very first one that was right. Unless you were suggest that god got it wrong the first time.

Do you know what those differences change with regards to meaning?

Some of them I do. For simplicity I'll use the example from some scripture that you stuck in another one of your posts....so many to choose from...

Paul says in his first epistle to the Corinthians:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

The bold is my emphasis.

Your bold emphasis talks about people who are "still living" and people who have "fallen asleep" This seems to me to be simple to get right through translation since being asleep and being dead are very different. Wake up a guy who is asleep and ask him if he was sleeping or if he was dead, then go to try and wake up a dead guy and ask him the same thing.

It could be that they phrased it this way back then but then that would introduce another problem with translation, it would be tough to get the meaning right. Much in the same way it is tough to tell a play on words or pun joke in another language. You have to trust the guy who translated it, and that he knew what the guy who wrote it meant, and also trust that you correctly understand what the guy who wrote the translation meant. Much of the time people standing in the same room don't get the same meaning out of what someone says... It truly would take divine intervention to understand the exact meaning of what someone wrote about what someone else said about what they witnessed, in another language, on another continent, thousands of years ago.

[TriangleSkinsFan]

And by the way I was really hoping someone was going to answer my question.

For my own curiosity...for those of you who have picked a favorite version, how do you determine how literally to take the gospel? All of it exactly literally, some of it? How do you select which ones to take literally and which ones are allegorical?

[Zguy28]

Your bold emphasis talks about people who are "still living" and people who have "fallen asleep" This seems to me to be simple to get right through translation since being asleep and being dead are very different. Wake up a guy who is asleep and ask him if he was sleeping or if he was dead, then go to try and wake up a dead guy and ask him the same thing.

It could be that they phrased it this way back then but then that would introduce another problem with translation, it would be tough to get the meaning right. Much in the same way it is tough to tell a play on words or pun joke in another language. You have to trust the guy who translated it, and that he knew what the guy who wrote it meant, and also trust that you correctly understand what the guy who wrote the translation meant. Much of the time people standing in the same room don't get the same meaning out of what someone says... It truly would take divine intervention to understand the exact meaning of what someone wrote about what someone else said about what they witnessed, in another language, on another continent, thousands of years ago.

Ever heard about people who believe the bible is one of the boringest books ever? Then they become a Christian, and BAM! suddenly they understand it? We have a doctrine for that: Illumination. But that's a Christian thing.

You might find this interesting in regards to textual criticism:

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: Are they reliable?

Also, we are pretty sure what the Greek means. Hebrew OTOH does have a few words that we don't know what they mean. But they don't change any doctrines.

If you want that verse in greek:

ἔπειτα ὤφθη ἐπάνω πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς ἐφάπαξ, ἐξ ὧν οἱ πλείους μένουσιν ἕως ἄρτι, τινὲς δὲ καὶ ἐκοιμήθησαν·

I underlined the word translated as "fallen asleep".

Thankfully I have scholars who I can rely on.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2837&Version=KJV

G2837

κοιμάω

koimaō

koy-mah'-o

From G2749; to put to sleep, that is, (passively or reflexively) to slumber; figuratively to decease: - (be a-, fall a-, fall on) sleep, be dead.

[TriangleSkinsFan]

You aren't helping your argument....Are they asleep or dead? Big difference.. but it clearly states, in English, that they are asleep but not still alive. The point is that there is confusion on something simple and easy to find. It has to get worse as the meanings or intentions become less black and white than dead and alive. People do dumb stuff when they misinterpret things.

You aren't convincing me more when you say that rely on a scholar to help... to me that means you have another level of separation from the original text and another layer of possible confusion.

[techboy]

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread about the accurate transmission of Scripture. I'm not going to do a ridiculously long multi-quote to address all of it individually, so hopefully this will generally cover everything.

Executive summary for those who don't want to wade through all of this:

People who talk about the Bible being hopelessly corrupt, changed, or unreadable are as outside the mainstream of the scholarly field of textual criticism as Young Earth Creationists are outside of the mainstream of science.

The texts we can look at today are substantially identical to the texts as they were written, and where there are questions, they are generally minor, with no essential doctrine effected.

Now to the lengthy part where I back all of this up.

The idea that the Bible is “corrupt”, and that we can’t trust the texts is one of the more common arguments I see. Frequently, the presenter of this argument will offer, by way of analogy, the “phone game” children play, wherein a message will be passed from child to child, and by the end, it is so garbled that a funny result almost always occurs. It turns out, however, that due especially to advances in the field of textual criticism, this could not be farther from the truth.

Before we go further, we should examine the “phone game” comparison. The situation is not analogous for a number of reasons.

First, in the case of the New Testament texts, as well as later transmission of the Old Testament texts, the transmission was written, not oral. Try the “phone game” again, but in writing, and see what happens.

Second, while the “phone game” provides a single line of transmission, in the case of the Biblical texts there are literally thousands of manuscripts (more on this later), so there are many lines of transmission, with the result that a mistake in one line does not affect any of the others.

Third, textual criticism compares all the sources with each other, while in the “telephone game”, there is no attempt to go back to previous transmitters.

Finally, the process of transmission of the texts of the Old and New Testament was literally a sacred duty. The Jewish transmission of the Old Testament, especially, involved a complex series of rites and steps, and even one mistake led to the destruction of the copy and starting over. No such care is taken with the “phone game”, obviously.

So, with the “phone game” safely out of the way, the question which then remains is, just how reliable are our copies of the Bible texts?

As I will elaborate on a bit later, we can be certain that the texts we read in our Bibles today (especially the New Testament) are substantially identical to the originals as written by the likes of Paul.

Consider first, the New Testament. As noted in this Q&A piece by Dr. William Lane Craig, of the roughly 138,000 words in the New Testament, only about 1400 are doubted in any way by scholars. Thus, if we do the math, we can see that scholars have pinned down with certainty the text of 98.5% of the New Testament .

To back this up, let's look at The New Testament in the original Greek, by Westcott and Hort, which was one of the first translations to use the art of textual criticism to put together the text. You can find this quote on page 2:

The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism. If the principles followed in the present edition are sound,this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgement in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one sixtieth of the whole New Testament. In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole

residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.

Most of these are disputes over words like “and” and “but”, or unresolved spellings like “honor” vs. “honour”, and in any case there is no significant theological doctrine which is impacted by any of these disputed texts. Just as an example, one of the biggest areas of dispute currently is Romans 5:1. Did Paul write “We have peace”, or did he write “let us have peace”? Is anyone lying awake at night struggling with the potential impact on the Christian faith over this?

Sometimes people note that there are thousands of variants between the various manuscripts of the texts of the Bible. This is true. What these people often don’t realize, however, is that any disagreement between any two manuscripts counts as a “variant”. Given that there are literally thousands of manuscripts, the fact that there aren’t more is amazing, frankly. In any case, virtually all of these variants are basically typos, and in almost all cases, it is a fairly trivial matter for scholars to consult the various manuscripts, and thus puzzle out the original text.

This brings me to the issue of manuscripts. As noted in the article Is the Bible Reliable?, there are over 5,000 ( I believe the latest number is around 5,700) Greek manuscripts, with another 19,000 or so in other ancient languages. These more than 24,000 manuscripts dwarf any other work of antiquity, both in number and in time seperation from the original (see, for instance, the chart in Are the Biblical Documents Reliable?).

With this vast wealth of source material, it becomes fairly easy in most cases to pin down the original wording, because when a scribe made an error or change (intentional or unintentional), it only affected one line of manuscripts, and scholars can compare these with the others, puzzling out the original meaning.

Further, even if all the manuscript evidence were to disappear overnight, it would still be possible, using quotations from the writings of the early Church fathers, to reconstruct the entire New Testament except for somewhere between 11 and 20 verses! (See either of my last two links for this information).

In terms of the Old Testament, the number is a little harder to pin down (because it's far older, and thus the copies we have are much more removed from the originals), but the evidence we do have, together with our knowledge of just how meticulous Jewish scholars were in copying their sacred texts (it's amazing to investigate... the process included a multitude of steps, and the tiniest error meant the copyist had to destroy the whole thing and start over), tells us that the copies of the Old Testament we have are substantially identical to the originals as well.

Consider the recent findings of scholars regarding the Book of Isaiah (as related in my last link):

These materials are dated around 100 B.C. The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, was recognized by Merrill F. Unger when he said, "This complete document of Isaiah quite understandably created a sensation since it was the first major Biblical manuscript of great antiquity ever to be recovered. Interest in it was especially keen since it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the Massoretic tradition."{2}

The supreme value of these Qumran documents lies in the ability of biblical scholars to compare them with the Massoretic Hebrew texts of the tenth century A.D. If, upon examination, there were little or no textual changes in those Massoretic texts where comparisons were possible, an assumption could then be made that the Massoretic Scribes had probably been just as faithful in their copying of the other biblical texts which could not be compared with the Qumran material.

What was learned? A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the Massoretic text revealed them to be extremely close in accuracy to each other: "A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone 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 meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."{3}

17 letters over a period of 1,000 years. Now that's accuracy.

Issues of translation and manipulation simply fall away in the face of this evidence. It's not necessary for us to read a possibly flawed translation. The seriously interested individual need only turn to the original Greek and Hebrew to see what the original documents had to say.

Manipulation by later individuals is likewise irrelevant, because we can look past that to the earlier texts. The breadth and amount of manuscripts (see the Jimmy Williams article for a brief summary), from all areas of the world, make it easy to see when such manipulations occur. The change will show up in one line of manuscripts, but not the others, and so scholars know it to be a later interpolation. The Johannine Comma is one famous example of this.

All of this adds up to the simple conclusion that we can be sure that the texts we read in the compilation we call the Bible today are substantially identical to those texts as originally written.

But what about that "fundamentalist Christian" that did the research and found out that stories were inserted?

The individual in question is Dr. Bart Ehrman, who wrote the book Misquoting Jesus, in which he did indeed talk about many of the non-typos I referenced earlier. (He is not a Christian anymore, by the way... he left the faith over these issues and is now an agnostic, not that this affects his credentials in any way... he is a highly qualified Bible scholar who had the great Bruce Metzger as his mentor). By the way, the story in question that got added later was the adulterous woman at the well, known as the Johanine Pericope in John 8:1.

What people need to understand, though, is that even Dr. Ehrman, despite the sensational nature of his book, agrees that most of these points are minor. He simply blows things that have been common knowledge in academic circles for years out of proportion, and his lay audience, who don't know any better, freak out and think "the Bible can't be trusted!".

For instance, consider this from this review of Dr. Ehrman's book by Dr. Craig Blomberg (himself a highly qualified Bible scholar). He speaks very highly of some of the work, but then there's this:

Thus a substantial majority of this book provides information already well-known and well-accessible in other sources, such as Bruce Metzger’s works on the text and transmission of the New Testament (including one that Ehrman himself recently helped to revise), but in slightly more popular form that is likely to reach a wider audience. What most distinguishes the work are the spins Ehrman puts on some of the data at numerous junctures and his propensity for focusing on the most drastic of all the changes in the history of the text, leaving the uninitiated likely to think there are numerous additional examples of various phenomena he discusses when there are not. Thus his first extended examples of textual problems in the New Testament are the woman caught in adultery and the longer ending of Mark. After demonstrating how neither of these is likely to be part of the originals of either Gospel, Ehrman concedes that “most of the changes are not of this magnitude” (p. 69). But this sounds as if there are at least a few others that are of similar size, when in fact there are no other textual variants anywhere that are even one-fourth as long as these thirteen- and twelve-verse additions.

Emphasis mine. Also note the "most of the changes are not of this magnitude” language.

Dr. Daniel Wallace has a similar comment in his review:

First is my plea to all biblical scholars to take seriously their responsibility in caring for God’s people. Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Indeed, even agnostic teachers bear this responsibility. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave Misquoting Jesus with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. The irony is that Misquoting Jesus is supposed to be all about reason and evidence, but it has been creating as much panic and alarm as The Da Vinci Code. Is that really the pedagogical effect Ehrman was seeking? I have to assume that he knew what kind of a reaction he would get from this book, for he does not change the impression at all in his interviews. Being provocative, even at the risk of being misunderstood, seems to be more important to him than being honest even at the risk of being boring. But a good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.74

Emphasis mine again.

For a more detailed analysis of each of the problem areas, see Dr. Wallace's review I linked earlier. For example, here is his response to Dr. Ehrman's discussion of Hebrews 2:8-9:

Hebrews 2.8–9

Translations are roughly united in how they treat Heb 2.9b. The NET is representative: “by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.” Ehrman suggests that “by God’s grace”—χάριτι θεου'—is a secondary reading. Instead, he argues that “apart from God,” or χωρὶς θεοῦ, is what the author originally wrote. There are but three Greek manuscripts that have this reading, all from the tenth century or later. Codex 1739, however, is one of them, and it is a copy of an early and decent manuscript. χωρὶς θεοῦ is also discussed in several fathers, one Vulgate manuscript, and some copies of the Pe****ta.36 Many scholars would dismiss such paltry evidence without further ado. If they bother to treat the internal evidence at all, it is because even though it has a poor pedigree, χωρὶς θεοῦ is the harder reading and thus may require some explanation, since scribes tended to smooth out the wording of the text. As well, something needs to explain the several patristic citations. But if a reading is an unintentional change, the canon of the harder reading is invalid. The hardest reading will be a nonsense reading, something that cannot be created on purpose. Although χωρίς is apparently the harder reading,37 it can be explained as an accidental alteration. It is most likely due either to a ‘scribal lapse’38 in which an inattentive copyist confused χωρίς for χάριτι, or ‘a marginal gloss’ in which a scribe was thinking of 1 Cor 15.27 which, like Heb 2.8, quotes Ps 8.6 in reference to God’s subjection of all things to Christ.39

Without going into the details of Ehrman’s defense of χωρίς, we simply wish to note four things. First, he overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct. After three pages of discussion of this text in his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, he pronounces the verdict: “The external evidence notwithstanding, Hebrews 2:9 must have originally said that Jesus died ‘apart from God.’”40 He’s still seeing things in black and white terms. Second, Ehrman’s text-critical views are getting dangerously close to rigorous eclecticism.41 The external data seem to mean less and less to him as he seems to want to see theological corruption in the text. Third, even though he is certain about his verdict, his mentor, Bruce Metzger, is not. A year after Orthodox Corruption was published, Metzger’s second edition of his Textual Commentary appeared. The UBS committee still gave the χάριτι θεοῦ reading the palm, but this time upgrading their conviction to an ‘A’ rating.42 Finally, even assuming that χωρὶς θεοῦ is the correct reading here, Ehrman has not made out a case that this is a variant that “affect the interpretation of an entire book of the New Testament.”43 He argues that “[t]he less attested reading is also more consistent with the theology of Hebrews.”44 He adds that the author “repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus died a fully human, shameful death, totally removed from the realm whence he came, the realm of God. His sacrifice, as a result, was accepted as the perfect expiation for sin. Moreover, God did not intervene in his passion and did nothing to minimize his pain. Jesus died ‘apart from God.’”45 If this is the view of Jesus throughout Hebrews, how does the variant that Ehrman adopts in 2.9 change that portrait? In his Orthodox Corruption, Ehrman says that “Hebrews 5:7 speaks of Jesus, in the face of death, beseeching God with loud cries and tears.”46 But that this text is speaking of Jesus ‘in the face of death’ is not at all clear (nor does Ehrman defend this view). Further, he builds on this in his concluding chapter of Misquoting Jesus—even though he has never established the point—when he asks, “Was [Jesus] completely distraught in the face of death?”47 He goes even further in Orthodox Corruption. I am at a loss to understand how Ehrman can claim that the author of Hebrews seems to know “of passion traditions in which Jesus was terrified in the face of death”48 unless it is by connecting three dots, all of which are dubious—viz., reading χωρὶς θεοῦin Heb 2.9, seeing 5.7 as referring principally to the death of Christ and that his prayers were principally for himself,49 and then regarding the loud cries there to reflect his terrified state. Ehrman seems to be building his case on linked hypotheses, which is a poor foundation at best.

I think the most telling point is that even if Dr. Ehrman is correct, it still doesn't change the reading of Hebrews or any important doctrine of the Church. I bolded that part, because I think it's representative of most of Dr. Ehrman's arguments. As another example, even if he's right that Jesus was angry, there are other places where Jesus shows anger (like cleansing the Temple). Another case of overstating the consequence.

Anyway, I think I will wrap things up with this piece of an interview with Dr. Bruce Metzger, Dr. Ehman's mentor, and widely considered to be the greatest and most influential textual critic and translator of the last century (and perhaps ever): I think this passage from Lee Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus is telling.

As I drove away from Wallace's house, my mind flashed back to my interview several years earlier with a scholar who's universally acknowledged as the greatest textual critic of his generation. In fact, Bruce M. Metzger was Ehrman's mentor at Princeton. Ehrman even dedicates Misquoting Jesus to him, calling him "Doctor-Father" and saying he "taught me the field and continues to inspire me in my work." (32)

At the time we chatted, Metzger was eighty-three years old. He died in 2007, ten years later. What was fascinating to me was how much his remarks during our interview reflected what Wallace was now telling me years later. For instance, I remember asking Metzger, "So the variations [between manuscripts], when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?"

"Yes, yes, that's correct," Metzger replied, adding: "The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church."

Then I recall asking him how his many decades of intensely studying the New Testament's text had affected his personal faith. "Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, "it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very ancient."

Emphasis mine. I'll stop here, before the sappy Christian ending.

Here's a bonus for those who have waded through all this- a funny story about Dr. Metzgeras recalled by Ben Witherington:

Of course, many will remember Professor Metzger for his work on the RSV translation committee. I remember when that translation first appeared in the '50s. RSV Bibles were burned soon afterward on the lawn of a fundamentalist church in my home state of North Carolina because of the translation of Isaiah 7:14. Metzger quipped: "Well, we have come a long way since William Tyndale. Now, at least, they burn the translations rather than the translators!"

:laugh:

[techboy]

You aren't helping your argument....Are they asleep or dead? Big difference..

Oh, come on...

This is clearly a metaphor, and I have never seen anybody seriously suggest that it means they were literally asleep. You're really stretching here.

but it clearly states, in English, that they are asleep but not still alive.

Who cares what it says in English? We have a very accurate idea of what the originals said in Greek, as I noted above. For the layperson, any decent translation should be sufficient for day to day worship, and if a person really wants to be the kind of hyper-literalist you suggest, he can learn Greek.