₦airaland Forum

Firefire:
“Ask him, when he was the head of government, did he buy one rifle for the Nigerian military? They refused to equip the military. Ask them what they did with their defence budget that they did not equip the military".
[size=28pt]

Buhari did you buy a rifle? Yes or No ?[/size]

It's common sense, if GEJ says his 6 years as commander in chief is just OVERNIGHT, what should we call Buhari's 20 months?

asiwajumi:
* He never champion for a university in his state nor has he ever been involved in any kind of programme to better the lives of the Almajiris in Daura. Rather he intensified the promotion and proliferation of Almajirism in the entire Northern States, grooming and sponsoring them for political violence and as Boko Haram recruits, turning these innocent children of 13yrs into suicidal bombers!
* His entire existence has not lead to any meaningful development in Daura, even in Kaduna where he resides yet they say he can change Nigeria. No Industry to his name, no job creation, he has never empowered anybody since he left office 32years ago!
Doesn't charity begin at home again?

So you want him to allocate the nation's resources to his village and family? Can you send your child or self to school in Bayelsa BTW?

frosbel:
^^

One of you has to be right though , carry on let me observe.

Christianity and confusion since AD 100...

You can run but you can't hide, I'm waiting for your answer.

Alwaystrue:
Happy New Year guys.
@OP, ah I saw my name and thought to comment though it has been done justice to already. @Bidam, @Candour @Ayoku's comments seem to cover it all.



I think I particularly like @Ayoku's comment here and more or less sums it all up.
I believe unbelief starts when we start overlooking and 'It doesn't mean'-ing what Jesus says or how He acts in the belief that whatever we do we are covered since we have righteosness in us.
As was said, sinning as falling and rising is different from falling and wallowing and even becoming indifferent about it.

Maaaaama o ga oh, long time. i just dey gladys to see your post again, Happy 2015.

Dividing Nigeria along every line including nollywood. We've not had it this poor in a while.

PastorAIO:
For those who are saying that there are no inconsistencies in the bible can you please tell me what time Jesus died. Did he die on the 3rd hour or did he die on the 6th hour. This is a simple matter of historical accuracy. To be historically inerrant you have got to be one or the other but not both.

What is historically inerrant is the fact that Jesus died. When He died is majorly insignificant. Who cares if He died 4:15pm or 20:00GMT? For all i know, He was slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus died on the cross and bare the sins of the world. He is the Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. This is history and it is what matters. i write reports and i have an idea what reports mean to be true or to be doctored. Even making jotting right there on site doesn't erase human frailty in penning down accounts. Not to mention getting back home or to the office the same day or the next week to write reports of what took place. Not to mention writing those reports 10years after or 30years after. The consistency and corroboration of the gospel accounts is top notch, and no serious person would be bugged with minor inconsistencies of numbers. Event A happened on monday or it happened on Tuesday. Ronaldo scored in the 77th minute or in the 80th minute, Nigeria equalized or took the lead in the first half or second half of the game, i arrived home around 10 or around 1. These things lose their importance and cock sure statistical accuracy with time. The real thing that stand out and are historically true are that Event A happened, Ronaldo scored, Nigeria did equalise or take the lead, i indeed arrived home. These are the things that truly matter when it's all being said and done.

Oh, and I've just discovered something my dear Image123. but first please remind me what it was you said about Metzger, the bible scholar. Something about him being a lord and oga and daddy to Ehrmann and a mighty scholar something or the other. what was it again? Oh yeah:

Metzger is a scholar, has done research and is Ehrman's oga , master, daddy and superior at any time 't'. Do you now agree to that?

So since you yourself have picked out this man as a scholarly authority, then let us see what he has to say.

i didn't just pick him out, he is what i said he is. Do you agree? He also reminds us that the Bible is more than 99% reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible

He admits that the bible was doctored in so many different places, sometimes to smooth out inconsistencies that were already there. He mentions where Origen, the church father, 'altered Bethany to Bethabara in order to remove what he regarded as a geographical difficulty'.

The funny thing is that on that very same wiki page there we are told that Origen himself admitted that the gospels had been doctored. And all the while he himself was in involved in the doctoring process.

i've most likely seen whatever Metzger has to say before you ever heard his name, and i agree with what Metzger says. Of course, i know that there are variants and additions in the Bible. i so generally talked about different translations and versions, additions of prefaces, concordance, cross references, and even verses and chapters. These are all additions to start with. What i however emphasize is that one, the Scriptures cannot be broken, and two, not one tittle(if you know what a tittle means) of the Word of God can pass away. i know and agree that human instruments have their frailty when we quote, recite, read and write scriptures. These does not stop God or add anything to Him. The Word of God continues to work mightily. Nobody should think any less of the Word of God because man lives by EVERY Word of God. Man is washed by the Word, the soul is renewed till tomorrow by the Word, and the Word is still that the man of God may be perfect and thoroughly furnished unto all good work. It is not a time to turn to newspapers or some other source when the Word is God. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.

I never said that consistency was required for theological purposes or purposes of faith. But it is very important for scientific or historical purposes.

Faith is a different kettle of fish altogether. You can even build a faith around pop singer Beyonce and use her songs are scriptures. It possible. Hang on, wait a minute. Some people have done that already.

You can even take the same text and create various, rather different faiths or denominations or doctrines. That has been done too based on the bible. You see to do that doesn't require an inerrant text. It just requires a robust imagination.

One more thing lest i forget. 2Co 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
If you want to establish any word or teaching or doctrine, get it from the mouth of two or three witnesses. If one scripture is saying 3 and two others or more are saying 6, you should know now what to establish. And even as you establish, it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein. This is what faith should be built on. It is on the solid, infallible and unchanging Word of God. Who is having faith in Jesus dying 3:00 or 3:30? Or in Jesus healing 2 or 15 lame men? Or in Jesus rising after three days or after one? Our faith is in Jesus, not in mathematics or statistics. Faith is in the atoning blood of the Lamb, in His resurrection, His ascension, the awesome power of His name and of His Word, the immeasurable nature of His grace. Take that to the bank, this is the faith that we earnestly contend for.

PastorAIO:
Liar Liar pants on fire.

The video does not even go into the difference in spellings and commas etc. (oh by the way do they even use commas when writing koine greek).
It mentions the codex sinaiticus which ends marks gospel on verse 9 when the KJV ends on verse 20. Where did KJV get the extra 11 verses from. Is that a spelling error in your mind. Is that a comma? It won't even surprise me if you return to say yes it is. I don't think we've yet seen the depths which you're prepared to sink.

You mumus will not leave this matter of spellings and commas alone like a drowning man clutching at straws. Even in a video where they don't mention anything about spellings you're still arguing against the straws. This is so sad. pitiful.

You are emotional, wetin happen? When i said commas, i meant to say punctuations. i think my other posts have being more consistently describing punctuations and spellings. This is something that one can easily resolve/deduce with some common sense. "When we say that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. It is not in the context of punctuations and spellings, which are the major/bulk issues that 'scholars' usually present. Infallibility and inerrancy is in the context of what the Bible affirms and teaches."
Again, don't let your emotions becloud your comprehension and judgement. i said "This video and so called discoveries do not negatively impact the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible." i was referring to THIS video and OTHERS, similar videos and discoveries. You forgot to answer the questions i asked you, here they are again.
Questions for the makers of the video and its similar, and for those that take such serious.
1. Is it possible to discover an earlier manuscript than the three or so Codex mentioned?
2. Is it possible for those earlier manuscripts to contain anything missing in the three or so codex?
3. Do you believe that the portions that are not missing(that are consistent) in all of the manuscripts are the Word of God?

Did you read me say this quote, and what do you think of it? "We know and agree that there are OF COURSE additions to every one Bible. Starting from various prefaces and concordances, and cross references. Even to the addition of chapters and verses which is more uniform."
Did you read this "The Old Testament Bible also had different versions and translations in the time of Jesus, the apostles and first century christians. They had variants too. But no sane person went beating up himself or herself or having sleepless nights. They still revered them as SCRIPTURE and the very Word of God. Variants and variations are only deeply unsettling and frightening for the unfaithful, not for the faithful. "
And this, "The reality on ground is that God keeps on honouring His Word(the Bible) till tomorrow. Evil spirits and sicknesses and circumstances continue to subject and tremble live at the Word of God. Sinners continue to be saved, humans transformed, believers made holy, and the righteous prepared for Heaven by the Word of God."

Yet again, All of the so called added verses of Mark are corroborated in other Scriptures by the way. So no worries, dump the tension. Here they are briefly. Also note that the three codex contain these OTHER passages outside Mark.

Mar 16:9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Mar 16:10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
Mar 16:11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.

Joh 20:14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Joh 20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
Joh 20:16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
20:18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
Joh 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Mar 16:12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
Mar 16:13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

Luk 24:13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
Luk 24:14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
Luk 24:15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
Luk 24:16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
Luk 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
Luk 24:35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

Mar 16:14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

Luk 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Joh 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
All the signs are seen in the Acts of the apostles.

Mar 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
Mar 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

Again, this is found in Acts of the apostles. No conspiracy or subtle additions or new gospel. Everything is corroborated by other parts of the scripture.

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?

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.

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:
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.

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.

sufido123:
What is competent and efficient about illiteracy? Illiteracy is a bane to humanity and for Buhari, it is Boko haram!
Even Tinubu knew that Buhari is an agent of destabilization but now he is hand in glove with him.

With what is going on around the world, Buhari and his Islamofascism will not smell the presidency. He can attend all the churches he wants and pick the Pope as a running mate but no dice friend!

Don't be childish, only an ignorant person would seriously call Buhari an illiterate. It's not time to play pranks and jokes.

@OP, if the FG had put in the same effort that Akpabio put into governance, i doubt if Buhari himself will be contesting for President. South South is pdp's main hope for the presidential election and akwa ibom is the leading light for pdp. However, opposition will still make attempt to woo them, that is normal. What is abnormal is the FG victimizing opposition states, neglecting them, delaying and frustrating their allocation, and promising to develop them on condition that they vote for pdp.

sufido123:
This is nothing but a walk to perdition led by Alimi Buhari and Afonja Tinubu. Buhari as an illiterate or semi illiterate should not be leading the highly educated Yoruba under normal circumstances.

Unfortunately, this is a season of anomie.

I'd rather have a competent and efficient illiterate work for me and with me than some incompetent wishy-washy professor.

While APC has literally hit the ground running in aggressive campaign everywhere, the PDP seems to still be observing public holiday and praying. Are they banking on sharing 27 billion on the D-day or what? Why wouldn't people cry foul play when we start seeing irreconcilable election results and sowing where they didn't reap?

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?

PastorAIO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sizLaInysA

This video and so called discoveries do not negatively impact the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. You need to realise the context and meaning in which it is said that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. It is not in the context of commas and spellings, which are the major/bulk issues that 'scholars' usually present. Infallibility and inerrancy is in the context of what the Bible affirms and teaches. That is, if the Bible says you are a goat, we can be very sure you are indeed a goat. You only may not know it yet. If the Bible says "All have sinned", then indeed all have sinned. When the Bible says "you must be born again", or when it teaches that "whosoever believes in the name of Jesus will be saved", it is inerrant and infallible.
We know and agree that there are OF COURSE additions to every one Bible. Starting from various prefaces and concordances, and cross references. Even to the addition of chapters and verses which is more uniform. All these are accepted additions everywhere and we can all hold up the Bible and still declare it is the Word of God. Then not to mention the thousand different translations and their different wordings. When i pick up an Amplified Bible or a King James Bible or a the Living Bible or a Good News Bible. Of course there are variants, maybe thousands or millions of what is defined as variants between each of the versions and translations. Yet, i do know and say that they are all the Word of God and Life. The Old Testament Bible also had different versions and translations in the time of Jesus, the apostles and first century christians. They had variants too. But no sane person went beating up himself or herself or having sleepless nights. They still revered them as SCRIPTURE and the very Word of God. Variants and variations are only deeply unsettling and frightening for the unfaithful, not for the faithful. It is the unfaithful and the unbelievers that keep on having fits and trying to make all men know about some non-existent conspiracy and its non existent implication. The reality on ground is that God keeps on honouring His Word(the Bible) till tomorrow. Evil spirits and sicknesses and circumstances continue to subject and tremble live at the Word of God. Sinners continue to be saved, humans transformed, believers made holy, and the righteous prepared for Heaven by the Word of God.
Questions for the makers of the video and its similar, and for those that take such serious.
1. Is it possible to discover an earlier manuscript than the three or so Codex mentioned?
2. Is it possible for those earlier manuscripts to contain anything missing in the three or so codex?
3. Do you believe that the portions that are not missing(that are consistent) in all of the manuscripts are the Word of God?

There is not one big deal about the ending of Mark missing in any manuscript. It takes and adds nothing to the Word of God. There was a time that the Word of God was only one book, or five books or 39 books. So, that some verses seem added at different times is nothing. The Bible was compiled for more than 1600years, more than 1600years. The important thing is that the Word of God will not pass away, and the scriptures cannot be broken. Even if all of the UN, EU, OPEC, OAU, G7, G20, G8, Bill Gates and Dangote Foundation, and all others pull all their resources together against the Bible, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Time has continued to prove that the Bible outlives its pallbearers. All of the so called added verses of Mark are corroborated in other Scriptures by the way. So no worries, dump the tension.

GenBuhari:
@Revolutnz
Thanks for your comments, it is very much appreciated.

Babangida devalued Naira by a massive 2,200% , which means that whilst we were able to get $1.13 for our Naira during Buhari's era, after Babangida's devaluation, the Naira could only fetch $0.04 cents, rendering the Naira effectively worthless and plunging the Nigerian masses into hardship and poverty that we are suffering today.

IBB is claiming sainthood today, and our president Jonathan says IBB is his father.

Ifeann:
You asked,"Ifeann, why didn't Buhari islamise Nigeria or join OIC as a military head of state with a muslim vice? "

I would have to ask him that but what I do know is that his muslim brother who led the government after the coup did infact sign up Nigeria with the OIC. It could be argued that babangida just continued from where buhari left off after he over threw him.


You asked me, "what exactly are your fears about Nigeria being islamised?".
Well emmm maybe its because I am a christain. And maybe its because I don't like a political ideology masked as a religion which is hell bent on a totalitarian Islamic government as commanded in their quran.

Lol, what can i more say than what the others have said? Calm your nerves. Be anxious for nothing.

Candour:
Very correct image. What's all the fear mongering about sef?

How many alhajis with multiple wives are hobnobbing with Jonathan this very moment in his quest for a second term?

Abegi jare

Interesting that, i supposed we ought to live and decide by faith, not by fear. Give me my CHANGE.
Ifeann, why didn't Buhari islamise Nigeria or join OIC as a military head of state with a muslim vice? Briefly, what exactly are your fears about Nigeria being islamised?

I'd rather have persecution and a few good christians, than the current pseudo persecution with so many wishy-washy christians all over the place. So, bring it on already, Nigeria deserves change, whether on the part of the current administration or else where.

He goes further to describe a sinner as a vile offender and criminal. When the sinner is forgiven, he is well, a forgiven criminal. He has been given presidential pardon, but we all know and he well remembers he is a forgiven pardoned criminal. He's got to hang his head a little low and endure the shame, ridicule, and gossip around about his past life and debt. But justification, that one. He is righteous! He is seen as if he never did anything wrong. He's seen like Jesus as it were. Not just forgiven, but a child of God and brother of Jesus Himself. He can hang his head high like na we get this street. That is justification. It has nothing to do with not been able to sin again. Of course a rich man can become a debtor if careless and prodigal. And a son can commit crime if foolish enough.

FortresOfChrist:
I have been studying the doctrine of Justification for some time and I must say it's a deep doctrine that beats the human mind of what the Lord our fortress did for us. How can a just God declare a sinner righteous even with their sins because they are in Christ Lord our fortress and some still say they have sin in their lives? Another issue is how can a sinner be declared guiltless without works? This doctrine of justification and righteousness by faith is really the Lord our fortress doing. So my question is is one who is justified and declared righteous still a sinner? Does the bible teaches that one can be righteous, justified and at the same time be sinner after being declared justified? I need my brethren in this discussion please.

Invited: Everyone
Special invitation: BabaGnoni, vooks, candour, Image123, Bidam, Gombs, Mbaemeka, 5solas, shdemidemi, elantraceey, Alwaystrue, PastorOluT, nannymcphee, Goshen360, DrummaBoy, ayoku777, GooseBaba, frosbel, ichuka, MEILYN, Ubenedictus, OLAADEGBU, nlMediator, Ishilove, ATMC, PastorKun, esere826, lastmessenger, italo, trustman, haibe, WinsomeX, Mintayo, God2man, nora544, QuiverBox, sexyseun, christemmbassey

Yeeee, they haf expose me today oh. I didn't know all this big big things like doctrine of justification oh. But i can do copy copy at least i am not in exam hall. I think it was Zac Poonen i heard explain justification using this analogy. Justification is like a step after forgiveness. While forgiveness comes through repentance, confession and accepting Christ as paying your debt, you do about nothing for justification but believe(faith). So as a huge debtor sinner, you receive forgiveness which is like a total erase of your debts. Justification takes you a step further by making you a rich man. A justified person is a billionaire. God alone can credit your account from negative to not just zero fresh start but a rich child of a rich king. That is justification.

londoner:
I get you, but we all now that VP's do not really have much say or doing power in Nigeria and to be honest, I don't see Buhari letting his vice be a back seat driver and neither do I see his core supporters in the north putting up with a southerner, christian pastor upstaging Buhari or getting the limelight.

Osibanjos plans although good, will not be allowed to see the light of day.

Buhari and not Osibanjo will be president if APC win and all his orating skills or plans will be forgotten.

Buhari has waited a long time and obviously wants to be in power. Where their visions differ, Buhari will dominate. Osibanjo is there to deliver the votes, not really for the things he can do once he becomes vice.

He will be VP and not president and his wings will be clipped as soon as he helped deliver the presidency to Buhari.

I think realistically, this is what will happen if APC win.

But nigerian history shows that Buhari has had the most popular and effective vice of them all in Idiagbon. There are even arguments that Idiagbon was more effective than Buhari and the brain behind the Buhari government then. Why should it be any worse in a democracy?

PastorAIO:
I'll come back to deal with this post tomorrow. I don tire.

You suppose tire na, who no go tire for needless rigmarole and much ado about nothing. I'll address your post later.

frosbel:
Don't be a bibletard, come to know the real
Messiah.

Mr, i dey queue oh.
https://www.nairaland.com/post/29394849

Are you still preparing the answer as you stated here?
https://www.nairaland.com/2060992/sincere-questions-frosbel/9#29407898

By the way, this real Messiah that you hint us of, kindly share the extra thing that he has done for you that Jesus has been unable to do for we christians?

PastorAIO:
[/color]

please explain the logic of this to me, it makes no sense to me. If I call it erroneous with unknown authorship that means that you cannot appeal to it as an authority? You are free to appeal to anything as an authority. that's your business. The bone of contention is your claim that it's authorship is from God. You say God used the people who are traditionally supposed to have written it to write it, but you cannot prove any of this.

That is straight forward enough. When you call an authority erroneous with whose authorship is unknown to us, you have technically stopped us from appealing to it. We are appealing to it for you, remember? We are saying look at this, or listen to this, SO THAT you can believe our point.

There you go, you're doing it again. Even after showing all the areas where your claims for it fail with a capital F you still insist on calling it infallible. Again that's your own private business.

Where did you or anyone show all the areas where my claims for it fails with a capital F? When we say INFALLIBLE, we are not talkng about commas, paragraphs and typos. We are talking about the truthfulness of the Bible and its assertions.

I never said that I'm the only one in the world who has done research you are getting emotional and desperate in your anxiety. I have only asked you to present your research. While I posted a video of a debate where Bart Ehrmann discusses his research in arguments to prove his point, you have presented nothing. Your latest claim now is that God himself wrote the bible. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Can you present any argument to support this assertion? Anyway I'll come back to this spurious claim with some scriptures.

While there is nothing wrong with being emotional as you are trying to imply, i am not being emotional. i am simply reading you and your conclusions and positions that others should go and read and research like you have done. This of course connotes that they have not read or researched, but need to wake up and find guidance.

Hah! 'Dumb' donkey. see desperation. I quoted a common saying that you can't make a donkey drink even if you took it to the water. You've added 'dumb' to my words. Please o! unless the shoe fits you leave the shoe alone. However if it fits then feel free to wear it anyhow you like.

You have to be ignorant not to know that it is a common saying too that donkeys are dumb. It is an insult to compare people to donkeys, stop pretending not to know about dumb donkeys, that is like their most common adjective.

Since it is known to you because you have so much inside information that scholars studying ancient documents don't have then you should tell us and provide the evidences to back it up.

Other scholars studying ancient documents know the authorship of the Bible.

You are soooo desperate. If you watch the video you will see therein where Ehrman is talking he is presenting various evidences and arguments in favour of his viewpoint. The strongest point that the opposing scholar made is that he was a private witness of some manuscripts that are not yet in public circulation. And Ehrmann says until such a time that he himself can see the evidence he'll have to suspend judgment on that (or words to that effect).

Did Wallace also present various evidences and arguments in favour of his viewpoint? Who determines the strongest point? Should i also determine Bart's strongest point?

Have you heard of Parody? maybe you haven't. I was parodying your comment about your Gods and heroes having studied the bible for 'decades'.

Then stop foolish and dishonest parodies here, this is not the jokes section. You said by the way, Bart Ehrman also[b] Studied, Preached and Practiced[/b] the Bible for decades. Perhaps, all your posts have been parodies all along.

[size=15pt]so let us get back to you God authored the bible claim.

Who was 'God' referring to when he wrote the following:
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away 1Cor chapt. 7

or this in the same chapter:
25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

When your God was writing this what was going on in his head? Is he a split personality mentally deranged God? He says: "I, not the Lord". So is he God or is he not God, or is there a different lord? If your God has such schizoid tendencies then your behaviour makes perfect sense. You need deliverance, my guy. But first let me wait for you to come and explain why your Author would refer to himself as not being the author of his judgment even as he is giving the judgment.
[/size]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Bidam:
Amen my bro...better don't waste time arguing here. It is a well known fact that demons tremble and get upset say Jesus na God.Lol

No problem, i'm doing it in spare time, for the records.

PastorAIO:
Please do the same for your side thanks. I've already put up a video.

Oh, and something else. When Bart Ehrmann goes on about all the bible scholars that claim bible authorship is unknown it is not because he just likes dropping names or appealing to authority. It is because his authority was first being attacked. And in defence he is saying that it is not just him that has come to that conclusion but very many eminent scholars. So what we have is not just an appeal to Authorities but also an appeal to Consensus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftHecLxquCg
Here is your video, short, concise. These are also scholars that have researched. Of course you've met Daniel B. Wallace, the other man is Darrell Bock. For the benefits of those who cannot watch, my highlights from the video are;
- There are textual variations, but they are irrelevant, 'typographic' errors, spelling differences. These make up 75% of the 'much adoed' 400,000 errors.
- The second largest group of errors/variants are still insignificant, transpositions, word order changes, synonyms. These make up the remaining 25%.
-No major doctrine is impacted by these variants.(It's variants like one manuscript saying "Lord" and the other manuscript saying "Jesus". These are mainly the errors and variations that Ehrman and his minions are having fits about).
- They don't change the historical view of Jesus or of christian doctrine.
- Cardinal truths like the resurrection, virgin birth, deity, heaven are untouched.

Dr Wallace makes an important point in the other debate, a point which was played down. Wallace said that the variants are actually a plus. The conclusion, the venue where these skeptics are taking us is that there is some sort of conspiracy, that the Bible has being doctored, twisted, deliberately changed by the pastors, bishops and clergy to a particular end. If this is so and true, then the manuscripts would agree totally, no variations. Our conspiring manuscripts would be saying the same thing in unity. But this is not the case. It is simply a case of human frailty in copying, typing, printing. Who does not make typos? Of course we know and it is common sense that humans, scribes manually wrote and print the Bible. It doesn't fall down from the sky a la ten commandments. We buy the Bible in bookshops and we know some of their printing houses. However, it is the Word of God, all God breathed. It contains life and is light, making wise the simple and converting the soul till tomorrow. It's like saying Solomon built a temple, or GEJ is constructing a road/bridge. We do not mean or think that he was the bricklayer or mason, yet he is in charge, responsible and takes credit for it. We would not watch wannabes play on our intelligence while they discover their new toys. We've being there, done that, read this and studied those. We can confidently say, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts."

PastorAIO:
The following is a debate between Ehrmann and another bible scholar called Daniel Wallace who is one of those you call 'brilliant men of honour'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA

i said to get back to you the next day on this. Sorry i wasn't able to do that. So, here we are. Now, you said,

I have only encouraged you and others to do research. Present their research.

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'.

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. 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.

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.

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.
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.
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". 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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

Bidam:
Good job Image123, i remembered calling this confused deluded pastoraio an atheist. He was visibly upset and angry. I wonder which folly of a so called research he made by posting a video that was more of a debate.SMH!

Sorry brother, where are my manners. Complements of the Season, and many returns in the precious name of Jesus Christ.