Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Has The Bible Been Changed A Lot?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Has The Bible Been Changed A Lot?

    Do we have cause for concern?

    The link can be found here.

    -----

    Is the text vastly different than it was? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

    It was recently brought to my attention that Business Insider decided to celebrate Christmas with a video on why the Bible isn't trustworthy. Normally, I prefer to celebrate with presents and time with friends and family, but to each his own I suppose. So do we really have anything new here?

    Of course not.

    That doesn't mean it doesn't need to be addressed. After all, a lot of people will never bother to study what it is they believe and why. (You know how it is, we live in a society where people will learn about their favorite sports team, TV show, video game, etc. but won't dare to really consider maybe they should think about the belief that they base their entire life on.) Sadly, this will also apply to many skeptics who will take a faith that makes strong claims and decides ipso facto that since those claims involve miracles they must be nonsense and never examine the claims seriously.

    So let's dive into this video. The speaker starts with talking about the Bible being the most sold book of all and that many think it contains the actual words of God. What many people don't realize according to him is that the Bible has been changed, A LOT. So what are these evidences?

    To begin with, no first edition exists. All we have are copies of copies.

    This sounds scary if you're someone who doesn't know about manuscripts in the ancient world, until you realize that we don't have the first writing of ANY ancient work that I know of. If there is one, I will be quite surprised. We have copies in every case. How much we can trust the account depends on a number of factors.

    How soon is the earliest copy to the date of the original writing?
    How many copies do we have?
    Can we check these copies back and forth?

    So how does the New Testament measure up?

    manuscript copies.jpg

    As you can see, Homer comes closest and it's not even a contest really. Now if the speaker wants to make a big deal out of this, we ask that he be consistent. Please be extremely skeptical of all the other books on the list as well.

    The speaker then says that this all took place many years after the events supposedly took place. It would be good to know how much skepticism he has. Would he go all the way to being a mythicist? Inquiring minds want to know! He also points out that many of these copies weren't made by professionals but were made by laymen.

    Naturally, we can't expect someone busy enough to make a video for Business Insider to go out and read some of the scholarship on this issue and actually inform himself. While he cites a couple of scholars, there's no in-depth looking at what they say and providing context for the issue. He could do what I did and interview Charles Hill on the Early Text of the New Testament and issues of canonicity or interview Daniel Wallace. (And if he can't interview at least listen to what they have to say.)

    The speaker goes on to talk about how this lead to many errors and omissions.

    No. It's not a typo on my part. He's the one who said "This lead to many," Who knows? Maybe he differed from the original script at one point.

    If he wants to talk about these kinds of omissions and errors, he's free to examine the texts. We will have a little bit more on this, but we have so many texts in so many languages that it's easy to cross-check. When we do, we find that in fact the Bible does hold up, but again, a little bit more on this later.

    We go to the three biggest changes. The first is the woman caught in adultery. It's a shame that this is news to so many Christians, but such it is. We live in a time of great Biblical ignorance.

    The next is the Gospel of Mark. (It's amazing how predictable these are.) This change is the ending of the Gospel and how it has no narrative of Jesus rising and appearing. The speaker then tells us that in original manuscripts, this story is nowhere to be found.

    Wait a second.

    What original manuscripts?

    Our speaker has gone on and on about how there are no original manuscripts and now is saying this is not to be found in the original? In what way does he know? Could it be that we can tell because we can actually check the texts back and forth and see what they say and compare them? Has our speaker undermined his own case?

    The third is that in Luke, Jesus makes a dying plea to forgive the executioners, but it was not intended to refer to the Romans but to the Jews. This was taken out and then added centuries later to appear to be about the Romans. This is one many haven't heard of, but notice something.

    Apparently, we don't have a clue what the text said, but we can tell what the originals somehow said, that a change was made, and that said change was later corrected. We can discuss why it happened and how, but that doesn't change what the original said. Even his source on this, Bart Ehrman, says it is likely to be found in the originals.

    While we're at it, what else does Bart Ehrman, this non-Christian New Testament scholar say about the New Testament?

    If the primary purpose of this discipline is to get back to the original text, we may as well admit either defeat or victory, depending on how one chooses to look at it, because we’re not going to get much closer to the original text than we already are.… At this stage, our work on the original amounts to little more than tinkering. There’s something about historical scholarship that refuses to concede that a major task has been accomplished, but there it is. Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior: An Evaluation: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998, a revision of a paper presented at the Textual Criticism section of the 1997 Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco. http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Ehrman1998.html



    In spite of these remarkable [textual] differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy. Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 481.
    Sadly, too many Christians won't be prepared for something like this because, well, all those sermons on how to be a good person and how much God loves you won't really matter when the text that all that is based on is called into question. Even worse, these kinds of objections are not the crisis that many people think that they are. With some serious study, instead of focusing only on one's personal hobbies, it's amazing what one can learn.

    Hopefully Business Insider from now on will stick to business instead of going to Biblical studies.

    In Christ,
    Nick Peters

  • #2
    But the Mandela Effect!!!
















    (you should do a podcast on that)

    Comment


    • #3
      If you don't have the first edition then how can you contend that it has been drastically altered?

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        If you don't have the first edition then how can you contend that it has been drastically altered?
        Argument from silence? Claim that we can't know it hadn't been changed? Double standard about being paranoid concerning the validity ancient documents.
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          If you don't have the first edition then how can you contend that it has been drastically altered?
          because that way you can claim that all the bits that are inconvenient to you weren't in the original.
          Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
          1 Corinthians 16:13

          "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
          -Ben Witherington III

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            If you don't have the first edition then how can you contend that it has been drastically altered?
            Of course, I would correct anyone who claimed that the NT documents have been "drastically" altered, over the centuries, but they have certainly been altered, whether accidentally (as in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases) or intentionally. And we can know this without access to the autographs specifically due to the incredible wealth of manuscripts available for these documents, because they differ from one another.
            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

            Comment


            • #7
              Business Insider... lol. I wonder how they would react to a theologian speculating on the future of the American economy or what the Fed will do.
              We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'
              - 2 Corinthians 5:20.
              In deviantArt: ll-bisto-ll.deviantart.com
              Christian art and more: Christians.deviantart.com

              Comment


              • #8
                There was an original for each NT text.
                Normal variants do to copying errors.
                Abnormal variants do to intentional changes to the text.
                . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                  There was an original for each NT text.
                  Normal variants do to copying errors.
                  Abnormal variants do to intentional changes to the text.
                  due.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                  14 responses
                  75 views
                  1 like
                  Last Post rogue06
                  by rogue06
                   
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                  6 responses
                  62 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                  1 response
                  23 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post rogue06
                  by rogue06
                   
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                  0 responses
                  22 views
                  2 likes
                  Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                  Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                  7 responses
                  63 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post whag
                  by whag
                   
                  Working...
                  X