Oh, and I forgot. Here is one example where the discrepancy has a very gigantic effect on the doctrines on christianity. There is even a denomination that specialises in the picking up of snakes. I can't remember their name but they're in US sha.

The sheer fact that there are so many denominations of xtianity with so many different doctrines is enough evidence to show that there are discrepancies that impact doctrine in a mighty way. I'm not talking about the dots and commas kind of discrepancies.

CAPTIVATOR:
Its true some parts of the new testament have been tampered with . # dont be a religious fanatic# ! God wants us to be wise !

EXAMPLE !

The most original gospel of mark ends at Mark 16:8 ( Canon BSy Arm) !!

Certain manuscript such as ( ACD) includes verse 9 - 20 and some latest manuscripts even add more .

Lets take a look at this additions.

Mark 16:14 ... " He ( Jesus) appeared to the eleven and REPROACHED thier lack of faith and hardheartedness" !!! Imagine d same Jesus thats compasionate in Gethsemane now rebuking the apostles and accusin them of hardheartedness ! ... This is suprising . Once again those verses ar not verified !

Mark 16:17,18 " These signs shall accompany those that bliv ... With their hands They will pick up serpents, AND IF they drink anythin deadly it wont hurt them at all " !! Did Jesus say this ? Why are so called christians not picking up serpent since its a sign of blivers ?? Why do they run when they see snakes ?? Una no dey drink Poison?

PastorAIO:


Actually I was tired because it was late and I spent a lot of time on a post that did nothing but demonstrate the ignorance of the poster. I'd rather have been dealing with pertinent points than with 'needless rigmarole and much ado about nothing'.

The ignorance of the poster indeed. What more is pertinent when your principal says himself that all of his struggles and argument are insignificant? He said that "The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing." In that case, we should not lose sleep or waste time over whatever he has to say. Why are we discussing if the Bible is inerrant when the inerrancies are insignificant?

the book of hebrew said it is appointed unto man 1ce to die and after death judgment. xo does who resurrected b4 christ did they die twices? or they assum into heaven wif a glorified body?? following#

Image123:


The ignorance of the poster indeed. What more is pertinent when your principal says himself that all of his struggles and argument are insignificant? He said that "The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing." In that case, we should not lose sleep or waste time over whatever he has to say. Why are we discussing if the Bible is inerrant when the inerrancies are insignificant?

Hey hey hey, wait there mister man. This is the post that you promised to come back and address. If you cannot address it just say so and we'll register it as another of your epic fails:

[size=14pt]

Image123:


i said to get back to you the next day on this. Sorry i wasn't able to do that.

No wahala, we are here now.

To this, i replied,
"Please i beg you, present your view's research first." It is to this that you presented the debate video. On your definition of research, the video you gave presents the 'research' of the two sides of the argument. Obviously, Both Wallace and Ehrman came to the debate discussing their researches. They are both professors as well. It's not like one is talking from thin air and one is pulling out facts. They both had their 'facts'.

I hope you are not suggesting by putting research in open/close inverted commas that Ehrmanns views are not backed by research, or that his research had no part to play in his argument. Yes, I agree that they both brought their facts. So it is those facts that we now have to turn too.

The first video that frosb presented on the thread, that sort of brought us to this point of the discussion implied that the Bible is not reliable, and that this view is the consensus view among critical scholars. Now, he subtly adds that the new testament contains errors and discrepancies and variants and uses that to arrive at the implication that the Bible is unreliable. This is dishonesty subtly used on the undiscerning. THE FACT is that the majority of what he calls errors, discrepancies and variants are insignificant and trivial stuff. They are things like punctuation marks and spelling errors. Every one knows this, every scholar consents to this. It is almost common sense implied, because we have so many Bible versions and the majority of christians refer to them all as the Bible. Of course different versions have different wordings, spellings, sentences , punctuations etc. Cunningly implying that the Bible is not reliable as a consensus is the issue here.

First let's know what we are talking about.

The topic of this thread is 'Who wrote the New Testament'?. The discussion have ranged in and out of the confines of this but that was the initial gist.

My contribution to this thread really got involved when the issue of inerrancy came up. This is different from knowing who wrote the bible. People are claiming, and I believe that you don't disagree with them, that the bible is inerrant in matters of history and in matters of science.
This is my bone of contention. I say that the bible is not an historical document and it is not a scientific document either.
Ehrmann and I are in agreement on that. in fact in the second link that frosbel posted Ehrman started off like this:
Our ultimate question comes down to whether the gospels are reliable or not. My view is that the gospels have mistakes, discrepancies, contradictions, factual errors, textual alterations, additions, omissions and corruptions in them.

Now I have noticed from the responses of people like yourself, and the scholars opposed to Ehrman that they constantly and continuously fixate on the fact that the discrepancies are things like commas etc. But you all seem so terrified to address any of the other points that makes which he himself says are the more crucial points. Ehrmann agrees that the minor details are not that important. I noticed that you are trying to make him sound dishonest by saying : In the 35th minute, Ehrman finally confesses like a possessed man by saying "Most of these 400,000 mistakes IN FACT are not important AT ALL. The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing."

So you mean to tell me that in the entire video and with all that he said it is only the minor discrepancies part that he himself says is 'completely insignificant', that is the only part that you can make any comment on. Who is being possessed with dishonesty? Who needs to make confessions?

He says every new testament agree with him and teaches it in every Ivy league school. What are the teaching and agreeing with him? That the Bible is not reliable? Of course not. What they teach and which is truth is that the manuscripts contain variants. The Bible is both theologically and historically reliable. He claimed to be searching for the truth and not afraid to go wherever the truth seems to lead. For me, i cannot follow such blind search. i already found the truth, and it is in God's Word. Of course, you know God's Word. i'm not going to leave it because there is a comma here that is not there. Only someone who has not found Jesus would be so foolish.

You see where you said historically reliable there, together with theologically reliable. That is where God has caught you.

Professor Bruce Metzger is an authority, he has done research. Actually, he taught your lord Bart in Princeton where Bart received his PhD and M.Div. Though he is late now, but if we are talking about scholar or research or critical or whatever other high sounding title you hope to bamboozle us with. Bruce Metzger is Ehrman's daddy, lord, oga and master. Professor Metzger says it is safe for any scholar to say at least 99% of the New testament Bible is reliable. He said the New Testament Bible is more than 99% accurate. no ancient document or literature has the kind of documentary support that the New testament Bible has. This is fact. It follows that whatever conclusions we make on the New Testament Bible, we should be prepared to make same on ALL ancient literature.

Ol boi, even Einstein had a teacher. Einstein's teacher cannot claim to be his daddy, lord, oga and master when it comes to modern physics. what you've said up there is so inane... At the end of the day I will be more likely to give a theory consideration if it is put forward by a scholar than by you. Now that doesn't mean that it should be swallowed hook line and sinker, but it makes it worthy of consideration. At the end of the day you have your own brain to think with. I can understand Ehrmann referring to a lot of authorities in bible scholarship in a debate because he wants to demonstrate that he is not a crank acting on his own. That is his purpose for making references to other authorities. If you doctor tells you that you have to undergo a very expensive operation and then noticing your consternation he refers you to another doctor for a second opinion, it is to help you confirm what he is saying has merit. If you like claim that the dead doctor that taught your own doctor medicine said otherwise so you'll dismiss your doctor's advise, especially when you know that medicine advances everyday and there are always new discoveries.

Oh.. and before I forget. 99% reliable or accurate is NOT inerrant. We haven't even gone into reliable as what. Does he mean reliable as an historical document?

That part in brown is a very correct fact but what those of you that keep going on about that fail to get is that No one is making those claims for any other ancient literature that are being made for the bible. Yes, we all know that there are mistakes in copying Homer and Plato etc and that their student added to their works. We all accept that as a fact. We can not fully know what Socrates' philosophy was. But why is it so hard for you to accept the same for the bible? Why this supernatural claims when we know how distorted all books from antiquity are?

Ehrman and his minions make all the fuss and noise and ado about the New Testament manuscripts having textual variations. What he should emphasize more is the fact that more than 75% of these textual variations are irrelevant spelling differences and punctuation.

He, after making note of the variations, emphasizes over and over again how irrelevant they are. He then goes on to make some very salient points. Why do you tremble when it comes to considering those points for discussion? I actually think Ehrmann is gentle. Me, I would construct more devastating arguments, personally.

8 minutes into your video in quote, Bart Ehrman states that the debate is not about the validity or importance of the Bible. An extremely confused man if i may so point out. Anyways, aio, frosb and other minions should carefully note that. The validity of the Bible is not in question by scholars. The Bible is valid and more than 99% reliable. The importance of the Bible is not a debate. It is not time to throw away the Bible and go on some wild goose chase looking for what is not missing.

No, the debate is NOT about the validity and importance of the bible. There is nothing confused or confusing about that. The debate is about whether or not we have the Original New testament. It is the very title of the video, how can you miss that?
I never said that the bible was not valid (ie to have value). And please note that by stating that the bible is 99% reliable you have already admitted that it is not inerrant. even if you think that the error is only 1%. It's game over, but I'm having such fun so I'll continue.
Bingo!! The importance of the bible is not a debate, or even The debate. Please acquaint yourself with the title of the video one more time. and furthermore no one has told you to throw away your bible.

Again, i'm assuming that the evil spirit that lives inside Bart came late for this debate. In the beginning of the presentation around the 11:20 mark, Ehrman says again that "Whoever Mark was, he wrote the gospel".

What is your point? Nobody is saying that the gospel wasn't written by someone. Those that are claiming that God wrote it have ducked.

This is before he started ranting and blustering about original manuscripts being copied, and that he somehow knows that mistakes are being made everywhere along the line. Well, we should apply that line of reasoning on every ancient literature possible. Socrates, Herodotus, Shakespeare, Caesar, Homer and other important and unimportant historians. Also, the early christian fathers like Augustine, Ignatius, Iraneus, Jerome etc. All their works are copied, we do not have their original manuscripts.

Such line of reason is applied to every ancient literature possible. But it is only raises anxiety amongst people such as yourself when it is applied to the bible.

So what? We cannot conclude what their original text is. So there is nothing like Shakespeare. Forget all those Macbeth and whatever books you have read. Shakespeare didn't write them, because we cannot conclude what his original text might be, as we do not have his original manuscript. Let us conclude that it has all being doctored and twisted. That is a most insane thing to embark on, that is not critical thinking but a manipulation by the devil on poor human souls who are taken captive by him at his will.

Now you are just being f oolish. Why should I forget Macbeth even if it were discovered that Shakespeare didn't write it? This has been suggested so many time already in fact and nobody threw Macbeth away. It has been suggested that his actors improvised and devised some of his lines and he just polished them up. You can acquaint yourself with some of those arguments here:
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2010_top_ten.pdf

Yet no one is throwing macbeth away and nobody is crying and pulling their hair out over whether or not shakespeare actually existed. The difference is that you have a vested interest in a certain narrative of how the bible came to be and your psychological well being rests on that narrative. To suggest anything other than the narrative is nothing short of an attack on your sanity.

Bart claims that 2Corinthians is made up of five separate letters, that somebody copied and pasted from each five and made one. i say that is an assumption at best. There is no proof to that super story and its similar ones which i am aware of that some 'scholars' bandy around. What i know and do not just assume is that the Scriptures cannot be broken, and that the Word of God cannot pass away. You can take that to the bank with Bart and others. The Bible will continue to outlive its pallbearers. Voltaire was more vociferous, i can tell you what happened to him if you do not know.

Also, when Bart and his wannabes talk about earliest manuscripts, they should learn to add "that I can find". It is earliest manuscripts that I can find. Earliest is not more authoritative. Earliest is most likely more destroyed, distorted and fragmented due to the nature of the material used in writing. There is a continuous wild assumption of gross unfaithfulness and trite behaviour on the part of the scribes. This assumption is unfounded and unscholarly.

Leave the 5 letters becoming corinthians part because he makes reference to the research of other scholars but does not lay out the arguments, most likely because of lack of time, so we cannot peruse and examine them. Even to call them an 'assumption at best' is an assumption on your part.

I'm sure Ehrmann doesn't go hunting for manuscripts himself, so I doubt he can ever say 'that I can find'. It is the academic community as a whole that discovers texts from various sources and they then present it to the community as a whole. Peer review is very important.
Earliest may not be more authoritative but it is definitely more likely to be closer to the original. That is a desperate point you are making there.

Papyrus was in use through all of the first millenium and so was parchment which was more durable (I think). The dead sea scrolls which were written in the first century before CE survived and they were written on paper. Another of your desperate arguments.

Also, when Bart asks where are the original manuscripts, i take that as a senseless question. Because he knows about papyrus and scrolls and how they cannot survive for long. This is without mentioning the gruel history of persecution and wars particularly against the Bible, and major efforts to obliterate it. Is he unaware of these or has he forgotten? Should we take it from him that all books rewritten, reprinted, or having editions are problems? This is his conclusion on the New testament Bible for not seeing the original manuscript.

Ehrmann asks a very sensible question consider the title of the debate. If you are looking for the Original New Testament what questions would you ask?

The Dead sea scrolls survived, so what are you talking about? Desperation.

But you are actually starting to get interesting when you talk about wars and persecution against the bible, and efforts to obliterate it. Me o, I'm not aware of this. Pray tell. I cannot speak for Ehrmann but I don't know about any war fought against the bible or attempt to obliterate it. If it is not your imagination going kookoo please give us the historical facts on this new story.

The problem of not finding the original manuscript is very very problematic when you are trying to ascertain whether the New Testament we have today is the Original one. It makes sense to me.

When he(Bart) says 4th century manuscripts differ significantly from 9th century manuscripts, he forgets to highlight his context of significance. Textual variations of spelling differences or synonyms or punctuations are not christian significant.None of these significant differences changes any cardinal truth of the christian faith. There are no blatant contradictions that we would lose sleep over.

In the 35th minute, Ehrman finally confesses like a possessed man by saying "Most of these 400,000 mistakes IN FACT are not important AT ALL. The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing." What then on earth are we arguing about? What is all the ado about it being unreliable?

In the 38th minute, Ehrman asks another contradictory question "Why can't scholars agree?" Why then does he give the impression that the whole world agrees with him, apart from ignorant people and fundamentalists?

The issue is not of the cardinal truth of the christian faith. The issue is whether the bible has preserved it's form over the centuries. I've pointed this out about 3 times now so I hope it has sunk in.

at the 35th minute, he didn't finally confess like he was under duress or something. He stated quite clearly in his opening talk that they were not significant to the christian doctrines.
you ask, what on earth are we arguing about? I'll repeat it one more time. The issue is whether or not the bible has changed from it's original form or not and whether we can say that we have the Original bible. Not it's reliability as a source of doctrines but whether what we have is reliably true to the original.

You really gave me an assignment here with this your long post that only shows that you're not even on the topic of discussion. Like I said before Ehrmann doesn't go into more devastating points on the bible probably because he was sticking to the topic of the discussion but if it is about reliability in matters of science and history that you want to talk about then I have some points that I'd happily share with you and I'm an anonymous guy so I can afford to be more devastating than Ehrmann.
[/size]

Image123:


The ignorance of the poster indeed. What more is pertinent when your principal says himself that all of his struggles and argument are insignificant? He said that "The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing." In that case, we should not lose sleep or waste time over whatever he has to say. Why are we discussing if the Bible is inerrant when the inerrancies are insignificant?

The ignorance of the poster very very indeed.

Once again I'll post Ehrmann's opening statement:

Our ultimate question comes down to whether the gospels are reliable or not. My view is that the gospels have mistakes, discrepancies, contradictions, factual errors, textual alterations, additions, omissions and corruptions in them.

Ehrmann's argument was about a lot more the minor discrepancies and you know it. He mentions them and then tells us that they are not what is important.

He also tells us about contradictions and factual errors.


He also spends quite a bit of time discussing the ending of Mark which in the earliest manuscripts end at verse 8 of 16th chapter. Sinaiticus ends there and so does another one (I think vaticanus) which then follows with the words "This is the End"


The question therefore is: Were the verses 9 to 20 that you get in the KJV in the original gospel of Mark? if not then what we have is obviously NOT true to the original. 11 whole verses is more than a slight discrepancy, abeg. Or do you want to insert another whole gospel before you admit that that is a significant difference?

I know that you are now doing the obvious typical thing that all you Liars for your Fake assed God do, twisting and turning and tell outright lies.

Where please did you hear Ehrmann say his efforts were insignificant:

What more is pertinent when your principal says himself that all of his struggles and argument are insignificant?

You will tell me where he said that.... Actually you won't because you know he didn't say that and that you are just a lying little turd.

PastorAIO:


Hey hey hey, wait there mister man. This is the post that you promised to come back and address. If you cannot address it just say so and we'll register it as another of your epic fails:

Patience is a virtue, not just a girl's name. I'll answer you in due time, for you to suggest otherwise already shows that you don't know me very well. Kindly let us see this your register of my epic fails BTW.

PastorAIO:




I hope you are not suggesting by putting research in open/close inverted commas that Ehrmanns views are not backed by research, or that his research had no part to play in his argument. Yes, I agree that they both brought their facts. So it is those facts that we now have to turn too.

i said "the 'research' of the two sides of the argument.

First let's know what we are talking about.

The topic of this thread is 'Who wrote the New Testament'?. The discussion have ranged in and out of the confines of this but that was the initial gist.

My contribution to this thread really got involved when the issue of inerrancy came up. This is different from knowing who wrote the bible. People are claiming, and I believe that you don't disagree with them, that the bible is inerrant in matters of history and in matters of science.
This is my bone of contention. I say that the bible is not an historical document and it is not a scientific document either.
Ehrmann and I are in agreement on that. in fact in the second link that frosbel posted Ehrman started off like this:
Our ultimate question comes down to whether the gospels are reliable or not. My view is that the gospels have mistakes, discrepancies, contradictions, factual errors, textual alterations, additions, omissions and corruptions in them.

Now I have noticed from the responses of people like yourself, and the scholars opposed to Ehrman that they constantly and continuously fixate on the fact that the discrepancies are things like commas etc. But you all seem so terrified to address any of the other points that makes which he himself says are the more crucial points. Ehrmann agrees that the minor details are not that important. I noticed that you are trying to make him sound dishonest by saying : In the 35th minute, Ehrman finally confesses like a possessed man by saying "Most of these 400,000 mistakes IN FACT are not important AT ALL. The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing."

So you mean to tell me that in the entire video and with all that he said it is only the minor discrepancies part that he himself says is 'completely insignificant', that is the only part that you can make any comment on. Who is being possessed with dishonesty? Who needs to make confessions?

Of course we are discussing in the christian context. People don't normally say who wrote Isaiah, or Daniel or Job. We all know that they were not penned in stone tablets by God or fall from Heaven. We all know that we do not have their original manuscripts, neither did the apostles or Jesus. We do know that they did not lose sleep over this but referred to these books as the Word of God and Scripture. There is a context in which we say Isaiah penned down or Paul wrote or Peter wrote. However, we christians refer to these writings as, not just the words and writings of men but as the Word of God. We don't say Oxford Press or Nelson Publishers even though they were our present day scribes that wrote from some manuscript that is not the original manuscript. Making a point about that is as baseless as having nothing to do, the works of an idle mind. And yes, the bible is inerrant in matters of history and in matters of science. i'm not talking about typos in the manuscript, i'm talking in the context of teaching and doctrine. When the Bible says and corroborates that Jesus is historically of the tribe of Judah and born in Bethlehem, that is an historical fact. Or that Daniel served under Nebuchadnezzar and some other Kings, or that the Israelites fought with the Philistines, i take and believe those as historical facts. i'm not talking about writing 8 instead of 18 and other such typos. When the Bible says that God created the earth or that Adam is the father of all, or that a leopard cannot change its spots, these are things i agree to, the Bible is inerrant in stating so. Of course, the Bible is not chiefly a history book or a chemistry textbook. But everything it says about history and science and any other field is reliable.
You want to know what we are talking about and you quote "Our ultimate question comes down to whether the gospels are reliable or not." This so called ultimate question is answered by a chief scholar and Ehrman's daddy and oga and teacher. Bruce Metzger says that the New Testament is reliable. Ehrman forgets to specifically say, but subtly wants us to think otherwise.
When Ehrman and his like constantly and continuously tell people that the New testament has over 400,000 variants and discrepancies, we have to constantly and continuously remind him and his hearers that the bulk of those variants and discrepancies are punctuation marks and spelling errors. This is the fact. i'm not making Ehrman sound dishonest, he is dishonest. i simply stated some crucial points of what he said. If that makes him sound dishonest, then maybe he indeed sounds dishonest. You hardly made any comment on Wallace's presentation so don't point fingers carelessly. Ehrman said we can't say that we have reliable manuscripts or early manuscripts.

You see where you said historically reliable there, together with theologically reliable. That is where God has caught you.

Actually, that is where you are lost. The Bible is both theologically and historically reliable. Like i have hinted earlier, i am not talking about useless arguments about irrelevant things like say numbers, which is usually the most common arguments brought forth. i'm for instance saying that historically, Jesus healed the blind, raised the dead, died on the cross, fed the multitude. When the Bible says a person or group or cities existed historically, then they did. That is reliable. i'm not talking about whether someone is 8years old or 10years old or 18years old. We are not in statistics class.

Ol boi, even Einstein had a teacher. Einstein's teacher cannot claim to be his daddy, lord, oga and master when it comes to modern physics. what you've said up there is so inane... At the end of the day I will be more likely to give a theory consideration if it is put forward by a scholar than by you. Now that doesn't mean that it should be swallowed hook line and sinker, but it makes it worthy of consideration. At the end of the day you have your own brain to think with. I can understand Ehrmann referring to a lot of authorities in bible scholarship in a debate because he wants to demonstrate that he is not a crank acting on his own. That is his purpose for making references to other authorities. If you doctor tells you that you have to undergo a very expensive operation and then noticing your consternation he refers you to another doctor for a second opinion, it is to help you confirm what he is saying has merit. If you like claim that the dead doctor that taught your own doctor medicine said otherwise so you'll dismiss your doctor's advise, especially when you know that medicine advances everyday and there are always new discoveries.

Oh.. and before I forget. 99% reliable or accurate is NOT inerrant. We haven't even gone into reliable as what. Does he mean reliable as an historical document?

That part in brown is a very correct fact but what those of you that keep going on about that fail to get is that No one is making those claims for any other ancient literature that are being made for the bible. Yes, we all know that there are mistakes in copying Homer and Plato etc and that their student added to their works. We all accept that as a fact. We can not fully know what Socrates' philosophy was. But why is it so hard for you to accept the same for the bible? Why this supernatural claims when we know how distorted all books from antiquity are?

You wanted people to think that all scholars think that the Bible is unreliable, i simply showed you that is not true. Bruce Metzger is Ehrman's oga and superior till eternity, he said it is safe for any scholar to say at least 99% of the New testament Bible is reliable. Give that some consideration, it was said by a chief oga scholar, not just me. i am not a crank acting on my own. Wallace and Bock are also scholars. It is you who wants to argue from authority, so i am giving you authority. While Einstein is more brilliant than his teacher, Metzger is more brilliant than Ehrman and more recognised in the academia till tomorrow. He literally taught Ehrman how to wear his payint, hahahaha.
You can tell us oh, what is the Bible reliable as?
The premise is what we are talking about, not the claims. If your premise is that the Bible is not reliable because you did not see the original manuscript, then what about other ancient documents that you did not see the original manuscript? What about the scribes of other ancient documents? That is the crux, the premise. Do you ever argue that the books of Homer, Socrates, Plato, Archimedes, Shakespeare and co are not theirs because there are mistakes in copying? Who fully understands God or makes such claims. If there are any claims, it is the Bible itself that makes claims that the Word of God cannot pass away. Not one tittle of it can be missing. i've suggested you employ all the world powers to help you disprove that.

He, after making note of the variations, emphasizes over and over again how irrelevant they are. He then goes on to make some very salient points. Why do you tremble when it comes to considering those points for discussion? I actually think Ehrmann is gentle. Me, I would construct more devastating arguments, personally.

What he should emphasize more is the fact that more than 75% of these textual variations are irrelevant spelling differences and punctuation.. We need more of that emphasis. What are the salient points trembled at? Please state them, maybe i didn't know they were salient enough or i have already commented on them. Be specific as he was about 400,000 errors. Where are your devastating arguments already? Who has hindered you? Threads are still free on the forum na. If Ehrman is gentle and subtle, it is because he knows that he cannot fool and bamboozle the people he is addressing.

No, the debate is NOT about the validity and importance of the bible. There is nothing confused or confusing about that. The debate is about whether or not we have the Original New testament. It is the very title of the video, how can you miss that?
I never said that the bible was not valid (ie to have value). And please note that by stating that the bible is 99% reliable you have already admitted that it is not inerrant. even if you think that the error is only 1%. It's game over, but I'm having such fun so I'll continue.
Bingo!! The importance of the bible is not a debate, or even The debate. Please acquaint yourself with the title of the video one more time. and furthermore no one has told you to throw away your bible.

If the debate is about whether or not we have the Original New testament, then there was no debate. Nobody argued against that. The two parties know and state that we do not have the original manuscripts. Of course, nobody can claim that the current new testament is not what the original manuscript content was if he does not have the original manuscript. He can only say maybes and speculate, but you have not proof if you do not have the original manuscript. On the other hand, the Bible itself claims that the original content cannot be lost. Jesus Himself claims so when He states emphatically that the Scriptures cannot be broken, and that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one tittle of the law to.
This is not a game, i never claimed that the Bible manuscripts do not contain variants. i said that the Bible is infallible and i defined that and showed the context.
-Is the Bible valid?
-Is the Bible important?
- Should christians do away with the Bible or still hold on to it as the Bible?
These are fairly simple and straight forward questions to help us measure your perspective better.

What is your point? Nobody is saying that the gospel wasn't written by someone. Those that are claiming that God wrote it have ducked.

Duh, the OP started by saying that "Contrary to popular opinion ( or even popular fiction ) the New Testament was mostly written by people other than their current authorship."
Thankfully we now agree that such statement can only be made by nobodys. "Whoever Mark was, he wrote the gospel".

Such line of reason is applied to every ancient literature possible. But it is only raises anxiety amongst people such as yourself when it is applied to the bible.

Where is it so applied? Have you ever read the writings of Shakespeare? Pastor Kumuyi writes books. Do you know that we do not have their original manuscripts? He most likely didn't do the scribing or typing or printing. Do you think there might be any variant between his original manuscript and the printed ones out there? Why are we taking those books as his writings, is it because he is alive and in our midst?

Now you are just being f oolish. Why should I forget Macbeth even if it were discovered that Shakespeare didn't write it? This has been suggested so many time already in fact and nobody threw Macbeth away. It has been suggested that his actors improvised and devised some of his lines and he just polished them up. You can acquaint yourself with some of those arguments here:
http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/Oxfordian2010_top_ten.pdf

Yet no one is throwing macbeth away and nobody is crying and pulling their hair out over whether or not shakespeare actually existed. The difference is that you have a vested interest in a certain narrative of how the bible came to be and your psychological well being rests on that narrative. To suggest anything other than the narrative is nothing short of an attack on your sanity.

No, i wasn't being foolish but being sarcastic. If you would, you should notice that i used italics on those statements. i also said in the same paragraph that "That is a most insane thing to embark on, that is not critical thinking" Again you have gone ahead to show forth your endpoint/destination, which is that those so called 400,000 variants are important and significant, affecting one's psychological well being and sanity. Those variants and whatever other adjectives used in describing them do not affect anything core, they are at best superficial scratches. You are the one insisting that we consider them and not be terrified or anxious about them. i dismiss them because they are indeed insignificant and we seem to be agreed on that. However, if there is time, i do answer relevant questions on them.

Leave the 5 letters becoming corinthians part because he makes reference to the research of other scholars but does not lay out the arguments, most likely because of lack of time, so we cannot peruse and examine them. Even to call them an 'assumption at best' is an assumption on your part.

I'm sure Ehrmann doesn't go hunting for manuscripts himself, so I doubt he can ever say 'that I can find'. It is the academic community as a whole that discovers texts from various sources and they then present it to the community as a whole. Peer review is very important.
Earliest may not be more authoritative but it is definitely more likely to be closer to the original. That is a desperate point you are making there.

Papyrus was in use through all of the first millenium and so was parchment which was more durable (I think). The dead sea scrolls which were written in the first century before CE survived and they were written on paper. Another of your desperate arguments.

Your calling my deductions an assumption is also an assumption on your part na. You said to leave the 5letters becoming 2Corinthians part. Na wa o, i thought those were the so called other points that Ehrman talke d about that you calimed that i was terrified at. Anyways, please state them specifically and lets see how terrified i can get. For the benefits of others though, we should all remember that the Bible was not written in one sitting or in a day, it was COMPILED in more than 1600years or so. Moses didn't pen down the 5books at once, neither did Paul pen down his epistles at once. We know though that his epistles were to all saints and were encouraging read in all churches as it were. So, there is nothing wrong with 10 of his letters being compiled together. What we are sure of his that not all of his letters and writings are in the Bible, and that the Scriptures cannot be broken. If it was meant to be there, it would be there. Nobody can remove it.
Maybe i should say then that they should learn to add "that we can find". It is earliest manuscripts that we can find. i'm using 'i' or 'we' gernerically, not really personally. It is earliest manuscripts that is available. Having a document 200years later doesn't mean it is more authentic than the other 250 0r 400 years later. Have you considered their line or traced their scribal history? What if the 400yrs manuscript copied from a better manuscript(s) than the 200yrs manuscript? If i copied the national anthem from my illiterate uncle's book 30years ago, and you copied the national anthem from a more reliable source like say Wole Soyinka's writing. Would it be desperate for you to say that yours could be more reliable or authoritative than mine?
Whether papyrus, parchment, paper or even computer, earlier documents are most likely more destroyed, distorted and fragmented due to the nature of the material used in writing and age.

Ehrmann asks a very sensible question consider the title of the debate. If you are looking for the Original New Testament what questions would you ask?

The Dead sea scrolls survived, so what are you talking about? Desperation.

But you are actually starting to get interesting when you talk about wars and persecution against the bible, and efforts to obliterate it. Me o, I'm not aware of this. Pray tell. I cannot speak for Ehrmann but I don't know about any war fought against the bible or attempt to obliterate it. If it is not your imagination going kookoo please give us the historical facts on this new story.

The problem of not finding the original manuscript is very very problematic when you are trying to ascertain whether the New Testament we have today is the Original one. It makes sense to me.

It is a senseless question if the destination is that a document is not reliable if we cannot find the original manuscript. that would make all ancient documents and even present day documents unreliable based on such insane and foolish premise alone. We are both agreed on that i suppose. How old are the dead sea scrolls and why did they survive? If you are not aware of wars and persecution against the bible, and efforts to obliterate it, simply research na. Are you not a 'scholar' ko? What happened to google, are they charging you? So you do not know about the several persecutions that the early church suffered and how people tried to destroy the Bible. i thought that at least you would know about severe persecution of the early church. A little common sense put to use would tell you that if people are persecuted, killed, suddenly and massively displaced, their property does not stay intact. You can imagine if God forbid, someone just picked up Adeboye and Kumuyi today, and killed them because they are christians. Do you suppose that every of their church information and documents would be intact and recovered? Now, for your information, early church fathers were killed, burned, thrown to the lions, property burned, houses razed, families imprisoned etc. It was almost like a norm i will be very surprised that you claim not to know this one. Why do you think the manuscripts you find coincide with the times when persecutions sort of abated. Fortunately for me, i have read about some of these things and more for a long time, and knew them for a fact. i don't have them intact again but i guess you won't take that for an excuse, so i simply helped you with the google search and will post you some links that corroborate what i am saying. Specifically on Bible attack, see this, and this one and even JW. i hope that would do, if not, do your own research, i didn't do mine online initially.
How very very problematic exactly is the New Testament for not having the original manuscript? Are we now to be in doubt as to whether Jesus died or not? Did he die for our sins or not? Is He the Son of God or not? Did He live on earth and work all those things He is said to have worked? Can He? Is He preparing a place for His own, or coming back or not? These are the core of the faith and they are UNTOUCHED by the so called magnified errors. What problem exactly do we have on our hands? Are we to lose our sleep, our faith, our prayers, our devotion, our commitment, our righteousness? What exactly are we to lose. Jesus had 12 disciples or He had 14 disciples. This is serious trouble. Oh my God, it is time to backslide. Again, that is madness and foolishness in its extremity. Who cares if He had 52 disciples? What i know is that He died for me, and gave me power to become the child of God when i received Him. What again are we arguing about?

The issue is not of the cardinal truth of the christian faith. The issue is whether the bible has preserved it's form over the centuries. I've pointed this out about 3 times now so I hope it has sunk in.

at the 35th minute, he didn't finally confess like he was under duress or something. He stated quite clearly in his opening talk that they were not significant to the christian doctrines.
you ask, what on earth are we arguing about? I'll repeat it one more time. The issue is whether or not the bible has changed from it's original form or not and whether we can say that we have the Original bible. Not it's reliability as a source of doctrines but whether what we have is reliably true to the original.

You really gave me an assignment here with this your long post that only shows that you're not even on the topic of discussion. Like I said before Ehrmann doesn't go into more devastating points on the bible probably because he was sticking to the topic of the discussion but if it is about reliability in matters of science and history that you want to talk about then I have some points that I'd happily share with you and I'm an anonymous guy so I can afford to be more devastating than Ehrmann.

It is a non-issue because we are all agreed on that. That you and your gang choose to highlight it, bold it, emphasize it, and create threads and videos about it does not increase its significance. Wallace himself says that the original manuscripts are of course lost, He says it in the 42nd minute, only quacks and charlatans would say otherwise. Is the Bible reliable as a source of doctrines? You seem to allude to that in your post, what is your answer. Bring on the devastations already. Like i said, we have being there, done that, read this and heard those. There is nothing new under the sun, i can almost ascertain that what you have to present are things pertaining to 'contradictions'. Well, we will answer them all if God wills and in their time. But like Prof Wallace said, if the title of this thread or of the video is what we want to talk about, it would make for pretty boring discuss and almost nothing to debate. Even my seminar and projects in school, i don't have the original manuscripts again. And i can assure you that the business centre where they typed them made errors and variants to what i originally gave. But i passed sha and i can even make reference to them as my works, thank God ohhhhhhhhhhh. i'll address your other posts in time.

PastorAIO:
Was minor Textual variations like commas etc the main thrust of Ehrmann's work. The answer is No. Why is it the only thing that these guys can address? Even Ehrman himself said they were not that important. It smacks of dishonesty.

i gave you a short and concise video as i promised to. It is a 11minutes video or thereabout. In the video you presented, Erhman spent the bulk of his time and argument talking about minor textual variations, so that smacks like the main thrust of his work. Thankfully, he said in the 35th minute that he is majoring on minors. He said "Most of these 400,000 mistakes IN FACT are not important AT ALL. The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing." In case you somehow missed it, these professors talked about the other textual variations in this video that i posted. From like the 8th minute, after showing the FACT that 99% of these textual variations are INSIGNIFICANT and IMMATERIAL. It is the smallest group of textual variants, it is much less than 1% of all the textual variants that one can even begin to discuss. And these 1% hardly impact anything of worth. They do not touch any cardinal truth or central doctrine. This is the fact. Kindly produce evidence to the contrary if you can.

PastorAIO:
Most of your garbage here is not even pertinent but let me just pick those parts that I think are more pertinent to the discussion.

How can they be pertinent to you when they do not contain unbelief in the Bible.

When a NT writer explicitly states that an instruction from him is NOT from God but from himself, and yet you claim that the NT was written by God then You have Failed with a capital F. Twist it anyhow you like. The writer himself very clearly and explicitly said: This is not from God. so unless your god is confused (which would make sense) you have Failed.

Do you believe that the other parts of the New testament are from God? It would be pointless proving anything to you if even the other parts that do not make so called explicit claims, you do not believe to be from God.

Okay this is not pertinent but heck. Emotionality is alright. But it is a problem when it interferes with rational thinking. That's all.

How did it interfere with rational thought if you call it emotional? Is it not your position on the thread that others with opposing views should go and read and research like you have done. Are you not of the opinion that they need to wake up and find guidance?

More nonpertinent stuff. However... If I call you a Greedy pig on account of your eating habits, would you also say I called you Happy because we also have a saying, 'As happy as a pig in mud' ?

If stuff is not pertinent, then don't bring it up in the first place. Why did you refer to a fellow human as a donkey? Why did you think that you took a fellow human to the stream to drink or think? Why should i be compared to a pig for any reason? i consider it insulting even if you say as rich as or holy as a pig or donkey.

Please what did Wallace say apart from that the discrepancies are minor as Bart said earlier, and that they have an embarrassment of riches in terms of manuscripts? What other point did he make?

Amongst other things, he said that the writings of the early church fathers make sure that the New testament can be reconstructed.
He said that later manuscripts add only 2% of material to the text of the earliest manuscripts found.
He said there are no radical changes and asked for what theological beliefs depend on textually suspect passages that Bart and his village scholars are having fits about.

What is scripture and what isn't scripture? Is Macbeth scripture given by God? What about the Book of Enoch? What about the text that explicitly states that it is NOT from God.

The Bible is Scripture, the 66books compiled.

He also tells us about contradictions and factual errors.

Actually, contradictions and factual errors do not disprove who wrote the New Testament(which is what this thread is about). They do not say much about the original manuscripts either. The original manuscripts and who wrote the New Testament can as well contain what you refer to as "contractions and factual errors". So, "contradictions" is another kettle and business entirely. For instance, someone indeed talks about faith, someone indeed talks about works, skeptics assume a contradiction or more.

He also spends quite a bit of time discussing the ending of Mark which in the earliest manuscripts end at verse 8 of 16th chapter. Sinaiticus ends there and so does another one (I think vaticanus) which then follows with the words "This is the End"


The question therefore is: Were the verses 9 to 20 that you get in the KJV in the original gospel of Mark? if not then what we have is obviously NOT true to the original. 11 whole verses is more than a slight discrepancy, abeg. Or do you want to insert another whole gospel before you admit that that is a significant difference?

Like i said earlier, the earliest manuscript they can find is not necessarily the earliest manuscript. Those manuscripts are dated over 100years after the perceived original. You answer, is there no chance whatsoever that a manuscript dating earlier can be found in future? What happens if by some chance this new manuscripts contain the remaining verses?
Again, what is the another gospel that is in the 11 verses? Are those verses not corroborated by other scriptures? Which of the verses are not corroborated in other parts of scriptures?

I know that you are now doing the obvious typical thing that all you Liars for your Fake assed God do, twisting and turning and tell outright lies.

Kindly be more specific, what are the lies that i have told? Are you lying?

Where please did you hear Ehrmann say his efforts were insignificant:
You will tell me where he said that.... Actually you won't because you know he didn't say that and that you are just a lying little turd.

Ehrman says "Most of these 400,000 mistakes IN FACT are not important AT ALL. The mistakes are COMPLETELY INSIGNIFICANT, immaterial and matter for nothing." He reiterates this in his book "Misquoting Jesus". When someone looks for what is not missing, that is effort. If the results of his attempts yield 400,000 that is some real effort. If he confesses openly without duress that the bulk(actually 99%) of his findings are insignificant, completely insignificant, immaterial, and not important at all. This is what is called WASTED EFFORT. When one considers that he has spent years trying to gather this and research that, only to come to such a conclusion, it is called WASTED YEARS. You understand it now, or you still need more elucidation?

Image123:



Of course we are discussing in the christian context. People don't normally say who wrote Isaiah, or Daniel or Job. We all know that they were not penned in stone tablets by God or fall from Heaven. We all know that we do not have their original manuscripts, neither did the apostles or Jesus. We do know that they did not lose sleep over this but referred to these books as the Word of God and Scripture. There is a context in which we say Isaiah penned down or Paul wrote or Peter wrote. However, we christians refer to these writings as, not just the words and writings of men but as the Word of God. We don't say Oxford Press or Nelson Publishers even though they were our present day scribes that wrote from some manuscript that is not the original manuscript.

Who are 'we all' because last time I checked you were saying this:

Image123:
@OP,
God of course, who else.

Making a point about that is as baseless as having nothing to do, the works of an idle mind. And yes, the bible is inerrant in matters of history and in matters of science.

Nobody argued with you about the Bible being reliable as a source of christian doctrines. Whether the bible can be the source of a cogent coherent doctrine is a different matter, and the sheer existence of hundreds and thousands of various denominations with varying doctrines should tell anyone that Doctrine is as much a matter of the readers creativity as it is a product of a text.

Where we are arguing is that the bible is NOT reliable as a scientific document.

The bible is NOT reliable as an historical document.

The Bible is NOT reliable as a true representation of the original texts that left the hands of the writers.

The existence of discrepancies and variations are enough to show any intelligent soul that there has been some departure from the original text. What Ehrman keeps saying is that the discrepancies do not have any Theological significance. The significance is the fact that it is not the same text as was originally written. Whether the changes are theologically significant or not is a different matter.

i'm not talking about typos in the manuscript, i'm talking in the context of teaching and doctrine. When the Bible says and corroborates that Jesus is historically of the tribe of Judah and born in Bethlehem, that is an historical fact. Or that Daniel served under Nebuchadnezzar and some other Kings, or that the Israelites fought with the Philistines, i take and believe those as historical facts. i'm not talking about writing 8 instead of 18 and other such typos. When the Bible says that God created the earth or that Adam is the father of all, or that a leopard cannot change its spots, these are things i agree to, the Bible is inerrant in stating so. Of course, the Bible is not chiefly a history book or a chemistry textbook. But everything it says about history and science and any other field is reliable.

In the context of teaching and doctrine the bible is as reliable as your creative imagination allows it to be.

In the context of historical accuracy the bible is NOT reliable. Historians are interested in FACTS. Statements of Facts include things like 'Jesus died at the 3rd hour'. Or 'Jesus died at the 6th hour'. 2 mutually exclusive events cannot both be facts so a document that contains 2 mutually exclusive events cannot be factual. Jesus could either die on the 3rd hour or on the 6th hour but he cannot die at both times. It's either one is true and the other is false or both are false. This is what we call Internal inconsistencies.
Whether it has doctrinal import is irrelevant to the matter of whether it is a fact or not. Perhaps one is a code/allegory for a deep christian doctrine, that's okay but it doesn't make it a fact. Jesus made plenty of use of allegory when he taught spiritual Truth but no one is insisting that The Good Samaritan actually existed and the events in the story actually happened historically.

You want to know what we are talking about and you quote "Our ultimate question comes down to whether the gospels are reliable or not." This so called ultimate question is answered by a chief scholar and Ehrman's daddy and oga and teacher. Bruce Metzger says that the New Testament is reliable. Ehrman forgets to specifically say, but subtly wants us to think otherwise.

Metzger, according to you, said the bible is 99% reliable, (but I see you've hidden the 99% now). 99% reliable is not inerrant. Plus you didn't tell us in what capacity he was calling the bible inerrant. He didn't mean in a historical capacity, and he didn't mean that it was a reliable copy of the original texts. I know that because he blatantly stated that the bible had been intentionally doctored.

Actually, that is where you are lost. The Bible is both theologically and historically reliable. Like i have hinted earlier, i am not talking about useless arguments about irrelevant things like say numbers, which is usually the most common arguments brought forth. i'm for instance saying that historically, Jesus healed the blind, raised the dead, died on the cross, fed the multitude. When the Bible says a person or group or cities existed historically, then they did. That is reliable. i'm not talking about whether someone is 8years old or 10years old or 18years old. We are not in statistics class.

You see, numbers are not irrelevant in history. In fact if there is anything that historians are pedantic over it is dates, times, sequences, and numbers. If the bible cannot tell us accurately what time Jesus died, at the 3rd hour or at the 6th hour, then the bible is not historically accurate. It contradicts itself.

If you read a text that says William the Conqueror conquered england in 1055ad, every historian will tell you that it is historically inaccurate. If you're dumb enough to say that it doesn't matter that all that matters is that William came to England and conquered it and ruled England and the date doesn't matter, you will fail even a primary school history exam. Or if you say Nigeria got independent on 1st sept, 1944, if you like argue that it is historical because Nigeria did get its independence.

You wanted people to think that all scholars think that the Bible is unreliable, i simply showed you that is not true. Bruce Metzger is Ehrman's oga and superior till eternity, he said it is safe for any scholar to say at least 99% of the New testament Bible is reliable. Give that some consideration, it was said by a chief oga scholar, not just me. i am not a crank acting on my own. Wallace and Bock are also scholars. It is you who wants to argue from authority, so i am giving you authority. While Einstein is more brilliant than his teacher, Metzger is more brilliant than Ehrman and more recognised in the academia till tomorrow. He literally taught Ehrman how to wear his payint, hahahaha.

I'm glad that you have such a high respect for Metzger. Let's look at what Metzger the chief oga scholar has to say:

In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1:2, the composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet". Later scribes, sensing this involves a difficulty replaced "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet" with the general statement "As it is written in the prophets". Since the quotation Matthew(27:9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah(11:12f), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing ’sixth hour’ of John 19:14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark 15:25). At John 1:28, Origen altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS. 33 69 and many others , including those behind the King James version. The statement in Mark 8:31, that ‘the Son of man must suffer many things…and be killed and after three days rise again’, seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to the more familiar expression, ‘on the third day’. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30:1-6). The scribe of Codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the account by transferring the words to 9:2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.


He said that scribes constantly corrected errors that they found in the original documents. Your oga is basically saying that the writers of NT, for example the writer of Hebrews, didn't have his facts straight when he wrote that the altar of incense was in the Holy of Holies. It was later scribes that corrected this error.

You can tell us oh, what is the Bible reliable as?

The bible is reliable as a source of spiritual teachings but only when it is read with discerning.

The premise is what we are talking about, not the claims. If your premise is that the Bible is not reliable because you did not see the original manuscript, then what about other ancient documents that you did not see the original manuscript? What about the scribes of other ancient documents? That is the crux, the premise. Do you ever argue that the books of Homer, Socrates, Plato, Archimedes, Shakespeare and co are not theirs because there are mistakes in copying? Who fully understands God or makes such claims. If there are any claims, it is the Bible itself that makes claims that the Word of God cannot pass away. Not one tittle of it can be missing. i've suggested you employ all the world powers to help you disprove that.

You're still coming with this one. Yes, it is argued all the time that the books of Homer, Scorates Plato Shakespeare etc etc etc are not theirs, not only because their are mistakes in copying but also because we know that their disciples and students added and subtracted from their works.
It is a common issue that since all we know about Socrates' teachings come from Plato, how do we know that Plato was not putting words in Socrates mouth. We don't. We cannot tell the different between Socrates' original teachings and Plato's own ideas. But nobody is crying about this.
The only reason you are crying about the same scholarly investigation being applied to the bible is because you have stupidly made the bible the foundation of your very sanity. If the bible is questionable your sense of sanity crumbles. You are lost.

What he should emphasize more is the fact that more than 75% of these textual variations are irrelevant spelling differences and punctuation.. We need more of that emphasis. What are the salient points trembled at? Please state them, maybe i didn't know they were salient enough or i have already commented on them. Be specific as he was about 400,000 errors. Where are your devastating arguments already? Who has hindered you? Threads are still free on the forum na. If Ehrman is gentle and subtle, it is because he knows that he cannot fool and bamboozle the people he is addressing.

The sheer fact that there are textual variations tells us that we've deviated from the original text, whether in a theologically significant way or not.
Metzger, your super lord oga daddy of all scholars also tells us explicitly that early christians amended the texts.
The text is internally inconsistent. What time did Jesus die? Or did he faint at the 3rd hour and then wake us again to properly die in the 6th hour? Even then at least one of the gospels is in error.

If the debate is about whether or not we have the Original New testament, then there was no debate. Nobody argued against that. The two parties know and state that we do not have the original manuscripts. Of course, nobody can claim that the current new testament is not what the original manuscript content was if he does not have the original manuscript. He can only say maybes and speculate, but you have not proof if you do not have the original manuscript.

O my God! All that just to arrive at this point. So there is no debate and you agree that we do not have the Original New Testament. So what are you making noise for?


Err... No! You're wrong, very wrong there. We know that the NT we have today has deviated from the original text because even the church fathers who copied the texts and handed them down to us, like Origen, admitted the texts had been doctored though he levels the accusation mainly against the marcionites. And remember that your very clever oga and master scholar himself has pointed this out to us. even showing us where Origen himself doctored texts.

On the other hand, the Bible itself claims that the original content cannot be lost. Jesus Himself claims so when He states emphatically that the Scriptures cannot be broken, and that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one tittle of the law to.
This is not a game, i never claimed that the Bible manuscripts do not contain variants. i said that the Bible is infallible and i defined that and showed the context.
-Is the Bible valid?
-Is the Bible important?
- Should christians do away with the Bible or still hold on to it as the Bible?
These are fairly simple and straight forward questions to help us measure your perspective better.

T

You know that NT didn't exist when Jesus said that. He was talking about the Law.

Where is it so applied? Have you ever read the writings of Shakespeare? Pastor Kumuyi writes books. Do you know that we do not have their original manuscripts? He most likely didn't do the scribing or typing or printing. Do you think there might be any variant between his original manuscript and the printed ones out there? Why are we taking those books as his writings, is it because he is alive and in our midst?

Dude I'm a writer, and I know that I've gotten into big bust ups with Editors when a publication came out and it wasn't what I wrote that I saw in the magazine. It is more difficult when it involves people I know personally and they are shocked to read 'me' saying inaccurate things about them. It happens all the time and as vigilant as you try to be those editors can be very sneaky people. and that is when you're alive and able to do something about it. What if you were dead? That is how it will go down in posterity that you said something that you never said.

No, i wasn't being foolish but being sarcastic. If you would, you should notice that i used italics on those statements. i also said in the same paragraph that "That is a most insane thing to embark on, that is not critical thinking" Again you have gone ahead to show forth your endpoint/destination, which is that those so called 400,000 variants are important and significant, affecting one's psychological well being and sanity. Those variants and whatever other adjectives used in describing them do not affect anything core, they are at best superficial scratches. You are the one insisting that we consider them and not be terrified or anxious about them. i dismiss them because they are indeed insignificant and we seem to be agreed on that. However, if there is time, i do answer relevant questions on them.

well, your 'sarcasm' is Foolish. Italics don't save a dumbassed question from being dumbass. But since you now admit that it's only sarcasm then that means that you don't think 'it is a most insane thing' and you agree that it is 'critical thinking'.
As for the rest of what you are saying, your attempts at being logical are now starting to break down completely. lf I say that it's effect on your psychological well being and sanity are beginning to show you might answer that 'it's only superficial scratches'.

Maybe i should say then that they should learn to add "that we can find". It is earliest manuscripts that we can find. i'm using 'i' or 'we' gernerically, not really personally. It is earliest manuscripts that is available. Having a document 200years later doesn't mean it is more authentic than the other 250 0r 400 years later. Have you considered their line or traced their scribal history? What if the 400yrs manuscript copied from a better manuscript(s) than the 200yrs manuscript? If i copied the national anthem from my illiterate uncle's book 30years ago, and you copied the national anthem from a more reliable source like say Wole Soyinka's writing. Would it be desperate for you to say that yours could be more reliable or authoritative than mine?
Whether papyrus, parchment, paper or even computer, earlier documents are most likely more destroyed, distorted and fragmented due to the nature of the material used in writing and age.

If you want to speculate wildly, feel free but I'll stick to considering the facts as they turn up. If a new earlier document is found tomorrow then I'll take it into consideration and might even change my opinion if it convinces me but till then I'll stick with the evidence available.

Dead Sea scrolls still survived till today, what is the difference? Or was God protecting those texts more than he was protecting your bible?

This is what we call shabby and scrappy response, did you lose your original manuscripts? Abeg answer my posts jare or at least confirm that you have learnt the lessons taught.

PastorAIO:

Who are 'we all' because last time I checked you were saying this:

Oh, but you just confessed that you knew that the matter of inerrancy is different from the matter of who wrote the Bible nah. The Bible is the Word of God, deal with that, its not my fault that it is. We all know that different men like Paul and Moses were used to pen it down. What Ehrman and his fellows like frosb are drumming up is that it is not even penned by these men but by scribes and printers like Oxford Press and Longman.

Nobody argued with you about the Bible being reliable as a source of christian doctrines. Whether the bible can be the source of a cogent coherent doctrine is a different matter, and the sheer existence of hundreds and thousands of various denominations with varying doctrines should tell anyone that Doctrine is as much a matter of the readers creativity as it is a product of a text.

Where we are arguing is that the bible is NOT reliable as a scientific document.

The bible is NOT reliable as an historical document.

The Bible is NOT reliable as a true representation of the original texts that left the hands of the writers.

The existence of discrepancies and variations are enough to show any intelligent soul that there has been some departure from the original text. What Ehrman keeps saying is that the discrepancies do not have any Theological significance. The significance is the fact that it is not the same text as was originally written. Whether the changes are theologically significant or not is a different matter.

Well, your arguments remain vain and only for the gullible and undiscerning. You and frosb and Ehrman are yet to show anyone these departures. Are they a figment of your wild imaginations?

In the context of teaching and doctrine the bible is as reliable as your creative imagination allows it to be.

In the context of historical accuracy the bible is NOT reliable. Historians are interested in FACTS. Statements of Facts include things like 'Jesus died at the 3rd hour'. Or 'Jesus died at the 6th hour'. 2 mutually exclusive events cannot both be facts so a document that contains 2 mutually exclusive events cannot be factual. Jesus could either die on the 3rd hour or on the 6th hour but he cannot die at both times. It's either one is true and the other is false or both are false. This is what we call Internal inconsistencies.
Whether it has doctrinal import is irrelevant to the matter of whether it is a fact or not. Perhaps one is a code/allegory for a deep christian doctrine, that's okay but it doesn't make it a fact. Jesus made plenty of use of allegory when he taught spiritual Truth but no one is insisting that The Good Samaritan actually existed and the events in the story actually happened historically.

The Bible is historically accurate and reliable. Only petty minds have migraines over whether Jesus dies at the third hour or at the sixth hour or from the foundation of the world. This is what we call Irrelevant, insignificant, worthless and immaterial inconsistencies. Great minds know that He indeed died and rose again as the Bible reliably tells.

Metzger, according to you, said the bible is 99% reliable, (but I see you've hidden the 99% now). 99% reliable is not inerrant. Plus you didn't tell us in what capacity he was calling the bible inerrant. He didn't mean in a historical capacity, and he didn't mean that it was a reliable copy of the original texts. I know that because he blatantly stated that the bible had been intentionally doctored.

It is not just according to me, it is what Metzger said, and he is Ehrman's oga and daddy, automatically you are in the subset. Any gold that is 99% gold is gold. Go and read, i cannot keep doing it for you, are you not a scholar wannabe? Abi you want youtube video for it instead fa?

You see, numbers are not irrelevant in history. In fact if there is anything that historians are pedantic over it is dates, times, sequences, and numbers. If the bible cannot tell us accurately what time Jesus died, at the 3rd hour or at the 6th hour, then the bible is not historically accurate. It contradicts itself.

If you read a text that says William the Conqueror conquered england in 1055ad, every historian will tell you that it is historically inaccurate. If you're dumb enough to say that it doesn't matter that all that matters is that William came to England and conquered it and ruled England and the date doesn't matter, you will fail even a primary school history exam. Or if you say Nigeria got independent on 1st sept, 1944, if you like argue that it is historical because Nigeria did get its independence.

Minute numbers are important in statistics and in maybe numerical analysis, not history. i don't care to know if Abacha died 12:44pm, i'm not his coroner. i doubt if his family members care about such detail. Again, numerics and statistics is not history, don't mix the facts. See your shameliness coming up with analogy of years of difference to compare to 3hours of difference. i have no time for such pettiness.

I'm glad that you have such a high respect for Metzger. Let's look at what Metzger the chief oga scholar has to say:

In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1:2, the composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet". Later scribes, sensing this involves a difficulty replaced "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet" with the general statement "As it is written in the prophets". Since the quotation Matthew(27:9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah(11:12f), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing ’sixth hour’ of John 19:14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark 15:25). At John 1:28, Origen altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS. 33 69 and many others , including those behind the King James version. The statement in Mark 8:31, that ‘the Son of man must suffer many things…and be killed and after three days rise again’, seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to the more familiar expression, ‘on the third day’. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30:1-6). The scribe of Codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the account by transferring the words to 9:2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.


He said that scribes constantly corrected errors that they found in the original documents. Your oga is basically saying that the writers of NT, for example the writer of Hebrews, didn't have his facts straight when he wrote that the altar of incense was in the Holy of Holies. It was later scribes that corrected this error.

Duh, you were the one who claimed that you would listen to a scholar instead of listening to people like me nah. So i gave you a scholar who is Ehrman's oga and master forever. i guess you have not read about him to doff your hat in eternal respect. He said that the Bible is 99% reliable. Go and read why or ask him why. i noticed earlier how you yourself are trying to form scholar on my post , by being overreactive about my 99% post. You no try, ask Bart to teach you better or better still, read through before posting.

The bible is reliable as a source of spiritual teachings but only when it is read with discerning.

Lol, no comments for now.

You're still coming with this one. Yes, it is argued all the time that the books of Homer, Scorates Plato Shakespeare etc etc etc are not theirs, not only because their are mistakes in copying but also because we know that their disciples and students added and subtracted from their works.
It is a common issue that since all we know about Socrates' teachings come from Plato, how do we know that Plato was not putting words in Socrates mouth. We don't. We cannot tell the different between Socrates' original teachings and Plato's own ideas. But nobody is crying about this.
The only reason you are crying about the same scholarly investigation being applied to the bible is because you have stupidly made the bible the foundation of your very sanity. If the bible is questionable your sense of sanity crumbles. You are lost.

Scholarly indeed, abi beer parlor gists. Again, the irony of it is that you say the errors are insignificant but yet think it should crumble the foundations of my faith. Which way? If its being questionable is insignificant and immaterial, how does it crumble anything at the same time?

The sheer fact that there are textual variations tells us that we've deviated from the original text, whether in a theologically significant way or not.
Metzger, your super lord oga daddy of all scholars also tells us explicitly that early christians amended the texts.
The text is internally inconsistent. What time did Jesus die? Or did he faint at the 3rd hour and then wake us again to properly die in the 6th hour? Even then at least one of the gospels is in error.

What are the salient points trembled at? Please state them, maybe i didn't know they were salient enough or i have already commented on them. Be specific as he was about 400,000 errors. Where are your devastating arguments already?
What sane person would go like "Oh my God, Jesus died 3pm and not 6pm, my faith is gone"?

O my God! All that just to arrive at this point. So there is no debate and you agree that we do not have the Original New Testament. So what are you making noise for?


Err... No! You're wrong, very wrong there. We know that the NT we have today has deviated from the original text because even the church fathers who copied the texts and handed them down to us, like Origen, admitted the texts had been doctored though he levels the accusation mainly against the marcionites. And remember that your very clever oga and master scholar himself has pointed this out to us. even showing us where Origen himself doctored texts.

Another foolish variant discovered i guess. A little common sense and further reading shows that i referred to the original manuscripts as the Original New testament. BTW, Scholar Metzger says that all of the New testament is easily recoverable and 99% accurate. You should read him.

T

You know that NT didn't exist when Jesus said that. He was talking about the Law.

Duh, the law, the Word of God, the Scripture, the Bible, the Book, the Sword of the Spirit are all synonyms for all the Word of God. Abi you do not know that Peter called Paul's epistles scripture?

Dude I'm a writer, and I know that I've gotten into big bust ups with Editors when a publication came out and it wasn't what I wrote that I saw in the magazine. It is more difficult when it involves people I know personally and they are shocked to read 'me' saying inaccurate things about them. It happens all the time and as vigilant as you try to be those editors can be very sneaky people. and that is when you're alive and able to do something about it. What if you were dead? That is how it will go down in posterity that you said something that you never said.

Exactly, Mr writer. This again is why we have nothing to worry about. God the Writer is not complaining or having nightmares. Instead, He continues to honour His Word as we quote them, act on them and believe in them.

well, your 'sarcasm' is Foolish. Italics don't save a dumbassed question from being dumbass. But since you now admit that it's only sarcasm then that means that you don't think 'it is a most insane thing' and you agree that it is 'critical thinking'.
As for the rest of what you are saying, your attempts at being logical are now starting to break down completely. lf I say that it's effect on your psychological well being and sanity are beginning to show you might answer that 'it's only superficial scratches'.

i already said "That is a most insane thing to embark on, that is not critical thinking". How many times do you read before you comprehend? Please work on this.
You, Ehrman and your ilk consistently forget to show how crucial this your argument is or how it affects psychological well being and sanity. Are you attempting to say this things by 'faith'?

If you want to speculate wildly, feel free but I'll stick to considering the facts as they turn up. If a new earlier document is found tomorrow then I'll take it into consideration and might even change my opinion if it convinces me but till then I'll stick with the evidence available.

Dead Sea scrolls still survived till today, what is the difference? Or was God protecting those texts more than he was protecting your bible?

It's not a wild speculation, it is a very interesting and near possibility. Consider the analogy again, If i copied the national anthem from my illiterate uncle's book 30years ago, and you copied the national anthem 2years ago from a more reliable source like say Wole Soyinka's writing. Would it be desperate for you to say that yours could be more reliable or authoritative than mine? Should we say mine is older and closer to the time the National Anthem was written(it can be any other document or writing, this is just analogy), therefore mine is more reliable? What is in the Dead Sea scrolls that you think is not in my Bible? i'm waiting for your answers to the other posts.

Image123:

Please I'm not interested in vacuities. I have raised some points and if you are incapable of addressing the points then just leave the matter there. I'll spell out the points again.

- The thread is about who wrote the new testament. First you said God and then you backtracked and said human beings. Which is it?

- There are factual contradictions in the bible about the time of Jesus' death. This makes the bible an unreliable historical document. History is about facts, dates and times.

- inerrant means 100 per cent no error. 99 percent (or sorry did you change that to 99.9 percent - you can't make up your mind) is not inerrant.

- Your hero Metzger said that the bible was doctored. You totally ducked that one. Answer him now? I'll re copy what he said for you in big print so you don't have to get your glasses.

[size=14pt]
In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1:2, the composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet". Later scribes, sensing this involves a difficulty replaced "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet" with the general statement "As it is written in the prophets". Since the quotation Matthew(27:9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah(11:12f), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether. A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing ’sixth hour’ of John 19:14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark 15:25). At John 1:28, Origen altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS. 33 69 and many others , including those behind the King James version. The statement in Mark 8:31, that ‘the Son of man must suffer many things…and be killed and after three days rise again’, seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to the more familiar expression, ‘on the third day’. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30:1-6). The scribe of Codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the account by transferring the words to 9:2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.
[/size]

- The matter of textual variants affecting christian doctrines doesn't come into play. Why? Because these doctrines owe more to your imagination than what is actually in the text. If it was just a matter of the text then how come there so many denominations of christianity each with conflicting doctrines and all reading from the same 'inerrant' book.

frosbel:
Contrary to popular opinion ( or even popular fiction ) the New Testament was mostly written by people other than their current authorship.

Some quick facts ;

- None of the Gospels were written by the Disciples of Jesus
- Writers of Luke and Matthew copied heavily from the oldest gospel of Mark
- The Book of Revelation was not written by John the apostle and it has been said to be a collection of excerpts , titbits and stories from the books of Enoch, Daniel and even Jeremiah etc.
- Not all Letters attributed to Paul were written by Paul , example ; First Timothy , Second Timothy , Titus and Hebrews
- Peter did not write 1 Peter or 2 Peter
- Jude the brother of Jesus did not write Jude
- Writers of Jude and Peter quoted heavily from the Book of Enoch which is strangely not considered to be authentic by orthodoxy.

Source - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_New_Testament


I am still researching but I will like to know if you have explored this topic and come to the same or a different opinion.

Thanks.

The problem I have now is time and PHCN.

But can you place your points in each bible book you mention, lets see how well those points support your claim.

^^^

An example, the story of the woman caught in adultery was a forgery ;

Read evidence / http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm

PastorAIO:


Please I'm not interested in vacuities. I have raised some points and if you are incapable of addressing the points then just leave the matter there. I'll spell out the points again.

i see you have nothing to say than to resort to insult. Your posts on this thread have being vacuity personified and defined. You have consistently being unable to show us the importance of your agitations. You have shamefully turned a blind eye, a deaf ear and paralysed hands to posts that address your heartaches and question your fears. i will still wait for your visible and logical attempts on this, and this one, and that, and that one, and this too. Like i guess, you cannot cope to reason things for yourself and attempt a logical discussion except copy and paste from links and videos. In the end, it is we christians that get the stick for not thinking for ourselves. You came into this harping on scholarship, show us some of it from your very self.

- The thread is about who wrote the new testament. First you said God and then you backtracked and said human beings. Which is it?

i have consistently stated that the Bible(both Old and New Testament) is the Word of God. Of course it was penned down by men. It is daily printed by men. If you cannot reconcile or process that, you can ask God in prayer to help you. He is a present help in time of need.

- There are factual contradictions in the bible about the time of Jesus' death. This makes the bible an unreliable historical document. History is about facts, dates and times.

i have never denied that there are seeming contradictions in the Bible. i have said that those ' contradictions' either take a little common sense to figure out or at most have no significance whatsoever in the scheme of things and in the divine perspective. There remains nothing unreliable about the Bible's account of Christ's death. We can reliably say that Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary for our sins, and rose again for our justification. This is the greatest truth in the universe. It matters not whether He died 12:10pm or 3:58pm or from the foundation of the world. The Bible is not a coroner's report or a statistics textbook or a chronology guide. History can do well without pesky and petty details that suit the gainsayer's fancy.

- inerrant means 100 per cent no error. 99 percent (or sorry did you change that to 99.9 percent - you can't make up your mind) is not inerrant.

Yes, and context is of the essence. Again, you shamefully lie and attempt to twist the records when you claim that i changed numbers. Can you please show us where i said 99.9% and quit being dishonest? This is the same rubbish and vanity you employ towards Bible study and manuscript evaluation. Any reader can grab that i have consistently maintained on this thread that scholar Bruce Metzger said that the Bible is more than 99% reliable. If you cannot pick up that straight point, too bad for you. The meaning of the more than 99% is that all the so called over 400,000 errors alleged are an insignificant less than 1%. The figures simply show and emphasize the insignificance of your arguments. The context of inerrancy and infallibility is that the Bible is without error or fault in its teaching/doctrine. That definition does not deny textual variants and its similar rubbish, neither have i.

- Your hero Metzger said that the bible was doctored. You totally ducked that one. Answer him now? I'll re copy what he said for you in big print so you don't have to get your glasses.

Again you lie, Metzger did not say that the Bible was DOCTORED. i'm assuming that "doctored" means to change something in order to deceive: to change something in order to make it appear different from the facts or the truth. People tried to correct and change stuff in the Bible. The changes or correction are common sense that anyone can normally figure out. Like for instance, a passage says "He cometh to them", and the scribe or translator puts "Jesus cometh to them". Those are the kind of things you want me to respond to. To doctor is to make a radical change, like to change Jesus to Peter, or to intentionally twist a fact. i will answer you still as requested, i hope you can do same instead of abscond as is becoming your custom.

In the earlier manuscripts of Mark 1:2, the composite quotation from Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is introduced by the formula "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet". Later scribes, sensing this involves a difficulty replaced "As it is written in Isaiah the Prophet" with the general statement "As it is written in the prophets". Since the quotation Matthew(27:9) attributes to the prophet Jeremiah actually comes from Zechariah(11:12f), it is not surprising that some scribes sought to mend the error either by substituting the correct name or by omitting the name altogether.

Mar 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, [color=#990000]Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mar 1:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Isaiah indeed says verse 3 while Malachi says verse 2. The earlier manuscript says written in Isaiah the prophet. It is glaring that verse 3 is written in Isaiah and verse 2 in Malachi. What is the big deal about that, it is all the Word of God. People do this every day. The secretary knowing her boss or his boss and what he meant to say, the church interpreter, not interpreting grammatical error literally. Video editors and programmers transcribing texts and audio. We are not talking of some kind of sabotage or sinister attempts to deceive. You've got to be kidding me, we are aware of such variants, human beings are not perfect in that context. They make mistakes, misspell words, skip lines, make pronunciation mistakes etc. Those human limitations are insignificant in the divine scheme. God is not particular about that. When He puts 10 mango trees in a street, they don't have the same height or length, or fruitage, but they have the same life and are all mango trees. It is man that makes sure that all 10 buildings in the street look exactly alike and have the same color, that is man's definition of excellence and beauty, not God's. We are talking about God's Word, duh.

A few scribes attempted to harmonize the Johannine account of the chronology of the Passion with that in Mark by changing ’sixth hour’ of John 19:14 to ‘third hour’ (which appears in Mark 15:25).

i did not deny this or duck this, i have already answered on this. So stop lying and making hasty generalisations.

At John 1:28, Origen altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty, and this reading is extant today in MSS. 33 69 and many others , including those behind the King James version.

Joh 1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
It is a geographical difficulty. The place is described clearly as being 'beyond Jordan'. That means across Jordan or close to jordan. Meanwhile Bethany is close to Jerusalem, just 15 furlongs away.
Joh 11:18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off:
Common sense will tell us that it is either John1's Bethany is a different Bethany with the same name, because Bethany is just about 3km away from Jerusalem while the River jordan is about 30km away. Meanwhile Bethabara is quite close to Jordan as described and it has almost the same greek spelling as Bethany. A preacher can say John 3v6 and quote the popular "God so loved the world that He gave". Everyone knows and figures that he meant to say John 3v16. The technical crew putting up the texts would usually put up the right text meant. that is similar to what happened here. There is no effort to twist or deceive or cajole or politicise in favour of a particular doctrine. That is your aim and attempt in all this. Evidently, that is not what happened. What happened is very common sense for any serious person to take in.

The statement in Mark 8:31, that ‘the Son of man must suffer many things…and be killed and after three days rise again’, seems to involve a chronological difficulty, and some copyists changed the phrase to the more familiar expression, ‘on the third day’.

There is no chronological difficulty in this. It is simply an understanding of the prevalent language. It happens in some prevalent languages in Nigeria too, especially market day calculations or child dedications are common instances. Or in yoruba when you say 'day before yesterday', it would wrongly but literally be three days ago when translated to the english language.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews places the golden altar of incense in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4), which is contrary to the Old Testament description of the Tabernacle (Exod. 30:1-6). The scribe of Codex Vaticanus and the translator of the Ethiopic version correct the account by transferring the words to 9:2, where the furniture of the Holy Place is itemized.

The golden censer can be in any of the two places, the author of Hebrews is not making a mistake.
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all;
Heb 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

There is an altar of incense in the Holy place. The priest takes of that incense and brings it into the Holy of Holies using the golden censer.
Lev 16:12 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the LORD, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil:
Rev 8:3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.

So the censer can indeed be found in either of the two places, both in Heaven and in the Old Testament. However, the location does not detract or remove from the point and thrust of the writer which is about Christ, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.

- The matter of textual variants affecting christian doctrines doesn't come into play. Why? Because these doctrines owe more to your imagination than what is actually in the text. If it was just a matter of the text then how come there so many denominations of christianity each with conflicting doctrines and all reading from the same 'inerrant' book.

Interesting and funny, again you tell like i have said several times that textual variants are irrelevant, immaterial and insignificant. They do not affect any core christian doctrine or come into any form of play. Christian doctrine do not owe to the imagination, they are in the Word of God. God is the creator of heaven and earth and of life. God is coming to judge the world. Jesus Christ came to earth as the Son of man, born of a virgin birth. He lived on earth and overcame. he is the Lamb of God for the salvation of mankind. He died for our sins and was resurrected for our justification. he offers abundant life. His offer is received on faith, grace, repentance and trust in His Word. That is the core of christian doctrine at a glance and just at the fingertips.

^^^^

Shows you have not done your homework.

I only picked out the last paragraph in regard to textual variants. While it is mostly true that textual variants make minimal impact on the New Testament material, the small errors and fabrications that do exist have a major impact to the Beliefs and doctrines of christisnity.

For example, the contradictions in the resurrection accounts, the confusion surrounding the Virgin birth with outright fabrications to support this myth, the addition of 1 John 5:7 by a deceiving scribe to support the trinity, the bogus anecdote on the woman caught in adultery , the mishmash conglomeration of extra and intra biblical references to form the book of revelation, the fact that NONE of the apostles wrote Mark, Matthew , Luke and John, that the book of revelations was not written by apostle John, etc etc.

I suppose that to the fundamentalist dogmatic mindset which is set in its ways, all this evidence means nothing, the bible is still infallible, despite the fact that even God accuses some wicked scribes of writing lies ?.. Read Jeremiah 8:8

Stop deluding yourself !!!

frosbel:
^^^

An example, the story of the woman caught in adultery was a forgery ;

Read evidence / http://www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm

Are you blind, your link says " Bruce Metzger, author of the "Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" writes that the passage is "obviously a piece of oral tradition" and that it "has all the earmarks of historical veracity."

frosbel:
^^^^

Shows you have not done your homework.

I only picked out the last paragraph in regard to textual variants. While it is mostly true that textual variants make minimal impact on the New Testament material, the small errors and fabrications that do exist have a major impact to the Beliefs and doctrines of christisnity.

For example, the contradictions in the resurrection accounts, the confusion surrounding the Virgin birth with outright fabrications to support this myth, the addition of 1 John 5:7 by a deceiving scribe to support the trinity, the bogus anecdote on the woman caught in adultery , the mishmash conglomeration of extra and intra biblical references to form the book of revelation, the fact that NONE of the apostles wrote Mark, Matthew , Luke and John, that the book of revelations was not written by apostle John, etc etc.

I suppose that to the fundamentalist dogmatic mindset which is set in its ways, all this evidence means nothing, the bible is still infallible, despite the fact that even God accuses some wicked scribes of writing lies ?.. Read Jeremiah 8:8

Stop deluding yourself !!!

You are what my neighbor would call an unserious element. Do the homework of patiently reading ALL my posts on this thread instead of skimming through the last paragraph. After that, i get back to you.

Image123:

You are what my neighbor would call an unserious element. Do the homework of patiently reading ALL my posts on this thread instead of skimming through the last paragraph. After that, i get back to you.

I dont't take fundamentalists seriously !

Image123:

Are you blind, your link says " Bruce Metzger, author of the "Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" writes that the passage is "obviously a piece of oral tradition" and that it "has all the earmarks of historical veracity."

It's one against 5 , appears you skimmed past these comments on the same page ;

John 7:53 to John 8:11 describes the story of Jesus and the adulteress. It appears to be a forgery that was not part of the Book of John as it was originally written, but was added later by an unknown person:
The New International Version of the Bible states:
"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11."

The "Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible" states:
"7:53-8:11: This passage is omitted or set off in modern editions of the gospel since it does not appear in the oldest and best manuscripts and is apparently a later interpolation. In some manuscripts it occurs after Luke 21:38."

"The New Commentary on the Whole Bible" says:
"This story is not included in the best and earliest manuscripts [of John]. In fact, it is absent from all witnesses earlier than the 9th century, with the exception of a fifth century Greek-Latin manuscript. No Greek church father comments on the passage prior to the 12th century."

The "Precise Parallel New Testament" states in a footnote:
"The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts.: here, or after 7:36 or at the end of this gospel, or after Luke 21:38 or at the end of that gospel"

"The Five Gospels" states:
"The story of the woman caught in the act of adultery...was a 'floating' or 'orphan' story. It is almost certainly not a part of the original text of John, but is a noteworthy tradition nonetheless...While the Fellows [of the Jesus Seminar] agreed that the words did not originate in their present form with Jesus, they nevertheless assigned the words and story to a special category of things they wish Jesus had said and done."

frosbel:



I dont't take fundamentalists seriously !

What is a fundamentalist and what makes me one? Usually, i don't answer wishy-washy confused unbelievers but "unfortunately" for me, God loves you too. So, you have my attention.

frosbel:



It's one against 5 , appears you skimmed past these comments on the same page ;

Lol, definitely you have not 'met' Bruce Metzger.

Image123:

va·cu·i·ty (vă-kyo͞o′ĭ-tē, və-)
n. pl. vac·u·i·ties
1. Total absence of matter; emptiness.
2. An empty space; a vacuum.
3. Total lack of ideas; emptiness of mind.
4. Absence of meaningful occupation; idleness:

when you start addressing the points and making meaningful contributions I'll retract calling you vacuous.

i will still wait for your visible and logical attempts on this, and this one, and that, and that one, and this too.

For example when you ask me to address this. What is that? What question did you ask me there? If you have any points to make then please lay them out succinctly. I don't have time to read vacuous nonsense. I was good enough to lay out my points to you succinctly and I even gave them bullet points. Look again here:

I'll spell out the points again.

- The thread is about who wrote the new testament. First you said God and then you backtracked and said human beings. Which is it?

- There are factual contradictions in the bible about the time of Jesus' death. This makes the bible an unreliable historical document. History is about facts, dates and times.

- inerrant means 100 per cent no error. 99 percent (or sorry did you change that to 99.9 percent - you can't make up your mind) is not inerrant.

- Your hero Metzger said that the bible was doctored. You totally ducked that one. Answer him now? I'll re copy what he said for you in big print so you don't have to get your glasses.

and I did it earlier like so:

Where we are arguing is that the bible is NOT reliable as a scientific document.

The bible is NOT reliable as an historical document.

The Bible is NOT reliable as a true representation of the original texts that left the hands of the writers.

from here: https://www.nairaland.com/2072612/wrote-new-testament/4#29694233

So it is without a doubt what this debate is about. True to form you have sought to obscure and obfuscate the discussion by talking about the theological relevance of the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS. Yet we have told you from the start that it is not a theological issue.

Bart Ehrmann states unequivocally in the video that the bible's errors and contradictions have no bearing on christian doctrine. I have said the same. Everyone had said the same. Then why are you trying to argue against the straw man. All you have said is that there is no theological or doctrinal relevance in the mistakes. Nobody is arguing with you on that. Yet you keep repeating it. Why are you running away from the true discussion. I'll repeat the points.

-Where we are arguing is that the bible is NOT reliable as a scientific document.


- The bible is NOT reliable as an historical document.


- The Bible is NOT reliable as a true representation of the original texts that left the hands of the writers.

Like I said, your ability to theologise and extract doctrines from the bible is limited only by your imagination. However what we are talking about here are historical and scientific facts.

Any other talk is nothing but vacuity.

Image123:


i have consistently stated that the Bible(both Old and New Testament) is the Word of God. Of course it was penned down by men. It is daily printed by men. If you cannot reconcile or process that, you can ask God in prayer to help you. He is a present help in time of need.

Yes you have consistently stated, but you have never demonstrated.

i have never denied that there are seeming contradictions in the Bible. i have said that those ' contradictions' either take a little common sense to figure out or at most have no significance whatsoever in the scheme of things and in the divine perspective. There remains nothing unreliable about the Bible's account of Christ's death. We can reliably say that Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary for our sins, and rose again for our justification. This is the greatest truth in the universe. It matters not whether He died 12:10pm or 3:58pm or from the foundation of the world. [size=14pt] The Bible is not a coroner's report or a statistics textbook or a chronology guide. History can do well without pesky and petty details that suit the gainsayer's fancy. [/size]

I think we are starting to get somewhere although the red part is a lie. At least now you seem to accept that there are contradictions although you only call them 'seeming' contradictions. You will still explain how Jesus dying at 3rd and 6th hour are only seeming contradictions and not actual contradictions. The red part is a lie because you explicitly stated that the bible is historically and scientifically inerrant and that means that there can be no contradictions. So in fact you did deny that there were contradictions. You're a liar (though it's not your fault).


Nobody is talking about scheme of things in divine perspective. We are talking about history and scientific facts. Historical and scientifically the bible is full of error.

on the cross of calvary? are you sure that detail is important. does it matter that it was on the cross of calvary? Couldn't any old cross do? Does it even have to be a cross sef? Why couldn't it have been firing squad? After all that changes nothing. so far he died for our sins and rose the next few days later. Even a week later wouldn't matter.

[size=14pt] Somebody shout Hallelujah!![/size] Lord now lettest thy servant depart in peace. [size=14pt] you're darn right that 'the Bible is not a coroner's report or a statistics textbook or a chronology guide', cos these would make them scientific and historical documents. I especially like the fact that you've now admitted that the bible is NOT a chronology guide, nor should it ever be. Any historian that looks to the bible for chronological facts is going to get lost. [/size]

I think we can end our little exchange with these final admissions of yours.

I'm really sorry I missed this argument AIO.

Image has done enough justice though.

Mark my words carefully please so you don't run off misunderstanding anything.

The bible isn't JUST a historical document, The bible isn't JUST a scientific document(it's more than those things). But it contains reliable historical and scientific data from the hands of many witnesses, and it is an accurate record of the original texts that left the hands of the original writers. More accurate than any other ancient text in the world.

click here and here for some mild references.

bringing up petty word plays like "whether it was written by God himself or not" seems like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand the simple issue that the bible is God-inspired but was penned by men.

Your statement of contradictions is also dwarfed by the fact that archaeology has confirmed events, people and places of the bible well enough as I have said before.

The minor grammatical errors and typos are due to the human factor.(The differences themselves are insignificant as image has pointed out) and they cannot change the foundation of the scriptures veracity. let us stop playing over the same issues and move on.

jayriginal:



Damn!

thought you didn't read my posts anymore?

Joshthefirst:
I'm really sorry I missed this argument AIO.

Image has done enough justice though.

Mark my words carefully please so you don't run off misunderstanding anything.

The bible isn't JUST a historical document, The bible isn't JUST a scientific document(it's more than those things). But it contains reliable historical and scientific data from the hands of many witnesses, and it is an accurate record of the original texts that left the hands of the original writers. More accurate than any other ancient text in the world.

click here and here for some mild references.

bringing up petty word plays like "whether it was written by God himself or not" seems like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand the simple issue that the bible is God-inspired but was penned by men.

Your statement of contradictions is also dwarfed by the fact that archaeology has confirmed events, people and places of the bible well enough as I have said before.

The minor grammatical errors and typos are due to the human factor.(The differences themselves are insignificant as image has pointed out) and they cannot change the foundation of the scriptures veracity.let us stop playing over the same issues and move on.

Going by this logic, I think men would have made the same mistake during the writing of the 'inspired' Bible. Don't you think so?

Sunymoore:

Going by this logic, I think men would have made the same mistake during the writing of the 'inspired' Bible. Don't you think so?

as said before, these mistakes are mostly insignificant issues of grammar errors and mild typos, none of which will affect the veracity and reliability of the messages themselves. Don't draw us backward please.

Joshthefirst:
as said before, these mistakes are mostly insignificant issues of grammar errors and mild typos, none of which will affect the veracity and reliability of the messages themselves. Don't draw us backward please.

OK then.. I reserve my comment since you said 'don't draw us backward please.'

Joshthefirst:
thought you didn't read my posts anymore?

I think you're mistaking me for someone else.

Joshthefirst:
I'm really sorry I missed this argument AIO.

It seems you're still missing it.

The bible isn't JUST a historical document, The bible isn't JUST a scientific document(it's more than those things). But it contains reliable historical and scientific data from the hands of many witnesses, and it is an accurate record of the original texts that left the hands of the original writers. More accurate than any other ancient text in the world.

Wake up, we're are passed that now. The bible is not a historical document at all, not even a scientific document. Check out what your boy Image123 said here:

i have never denied that there are seeming contradictions in the Bible. i have said that those ' contradictions' either take a little common sense to figure out or at most have no significance whatsoever in the scheme of things and in the divine perspective. There remains nothing unreliable about the Bible's account of Christ's death. We can reliably say that Jesus Christ died on the cross of calvary for our sins, and rose again for our justification. This is the greatest truth in the universe. It matters not whether He died 12:10pm or 3:58pm or from the foundation of the world. The Bible is not a coroner's report or a statistics textbook or a chronology guide. History can do well without pesky and petty details that suit the gainsayer's fancy.

If you agree with him, then I have no argument with you.