A Response To John Tors on Inerrancy

[Apologiaphoenix]

This one is long, so just go to the link.

http://www.deeperwatersapologetics.com/?p=10101

[TheWall]

So this guy thinks that everything jesus said was copied down perfectly? What?

[37818]

So this guy thinks that everything jesus said was copied down perfectly? What?

No. Truthfully. Perfect in that regard.

The problem has to do with beliefs as to identifying the reading of the original text.

It is my understanding it is generally believed that with the number of NT manuscripts we have we can be about 99.5% sure as to the original reading of the texts.

There are some disagreements regarding the science of textual criticism and its application to what is regarded as the inerrant word of God (that is identifying the orginal autographs, of which we have only the copies).

[Same Hakeem]

No. Truthfully. Perfect in that regard.

The problem has to do with beliefs as to identifying the reading of the original text.

It is my understanding it is generally believed that with the number of NT manuscripts we have we can be about 99.5% sure as to the original reading of the texts.

There are some disagreements regarding the science of textual criticism and its application to what is regarded as the inerrant word of God (that is identifying the orginal autographs, of which we have only the copies).

The claim that "with the number of NT manuscripts we have we can be about 99.5% sure as to the original reading of the texts" lacks proof because we donot know for sure if for example Matthew 18:11 currently deleted or John 5:4 currently deleted or if Jesus became angry or was moved with compassion in Mark 1:41 are in the original text or not.

[KingsGambit]

The claim that "with the number of NT manuscripts we have we can be about 99.5% sure as to the original reading of the texts" lacks proof because we donot know for sure if for example Matthew 18:11 currently deleted or John 5:4 currently deleted or if Jesus became angry or was moved with compassion in Mark 1:41 are in the original text or not.

Mark 1:41 is part of the other 0.5%.

You still don't understand why this isn't that important and that Christianity does not view Scripture the same way Islam does.

[Same Hakeem]

Mark 1:41 is part of the other 0.5%.

You still don't understand why this isn't that important and that Christianity does not view Scripture the same way Islam does.

If we are 0.5% (like you said) unsure on what the orginal text says, then we cannot reconstruct the original text 100%. For example, some manuscripts have in John 1:18 "the only begotten Son" while others have "the only begotten God" or "The Only God".