OK, so you are clearly not a Baptist.
Off topic as defined in the OP.
actually the op states central doctrine as being off topic. These passage has no doctrine what soever. So it's not applying to central doctrine but all doctrine. In order for this reply to stick you must rewrite the op. I apologize for that.
So do you want to argue that there are hundreds of errors or that there was unusual accuracy? [/QUOTE]
I argued both statements, because hundreds of errors is not alot, and accounts for less than .01% of the total approx.
Or are you arguing that both are the case, and that nearly all reproduced historical documents are filled to the brim with copyist errors?
yes, that is factual. Most copies, have numerous errors. It's a work in progress. The original documents do not exist and are non extant. But to say that a copy has errors and therefore the original does, is not too accurate of an assessment. We would need to original to state that God made an error, so basically your central premise of the op is unobservable and unprovable.
But if the Bible has "unusual" accuracy, what does that prove?
it proves that it is superior a text on basis of accuracy, by definition.
Either God is overseeing the process, in which case it will be PERFECT, or else God is not overseeing the process
as for the question why would God allow a perfect Bible to become corrupt, I would reply that there is no evidence of such corruption. As stated a few times, the slip of pen, or even if it is in direct error, is not a central part of any theology. (and again I am not talking central theology or orthodoxy, I am talking more general)
, in which case it will be AVERAGE WITHIN A FEW STANDARD DEVIATIONS.
as I stated most copies of historic documents contain a large percentage of error, as per my source. So you would have to support this statement with evidence.
If it is not perfect, and yet is better than a few standard deviations above average, how do you conclude God was involved?
I refer to copywrite if the following as equal to what is strict inspiration= (verbal plenary inspiration). So God copywrited all material in the original autograph, as well as its preservation, but in it's preservation He did not copywrite the authorship as strictly. He allowed for copyists to make mistakes, hence they needed to disciplined in scribal traditions similiar to massoretes. But ultimately they would make mistakes, and these would be numerous. But they would not be meaningful because a God has copywrote the Bible as well as it's transmissions, just not as strictly. I could make a translation into an unknown language right now, and say if I use the NIV for example which is not a literal translation, it would have multiple thousands of errors right off the bat. But God would allow this. And say I used a literal translation like NASB, ESV, NKJV, or KJV....then I would have much more accuracy, but again it would not be perfect, and again God would allow this too. So too He allowed people who had possessed a 100% accurate copy, with the ability to make it a 99% accuract copy, and then further...and 97% copy, and now it is at a 95% as far as the latest analysis has found (see my last post), I suspect in 5 thousand years, it may be less. But what is interesting is how these copies were created so accurate, that is what is amazing. The fact that they contain error, is no biggy, that is to be expected, as it is humans, not God doing the jotting down. But the fact that they are so complete, and so accurate, that is unique only to the Bible. again, see Saunders Bibliographical Test (a secular source for grading ancient scrolls).
Also, your argument clearly shows you did not even read the OP:
"Whether these are transcriber errors or errors in the original manuscript is not a question that has any meaning, since it cannot be verified one way or another. In fact, citing the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence that the scribes put forth a remarkable effort in preserving the texts actually does nothing if not suggest the original manuscripts were in error."
I did not bother to read your sources as they are off topic and also because you clearly did not bother to read what I had to say, nor did you even make a passing attempt at addressing either of the questions I posed (which are the topic of the thread).
It appears you wish to entrap Christians and not allow them to respond to you.
what I if mention a question that is "what is the sum of 2+2"
and then state that mentioning the number 4 is off topic? if your OP was in fact strictly outlawing all theology as off topic, then there essentially could be no response. And you would be guilty of creating impossible delemna, which is fallacy, also you would be guilty of another fallacy, that of dodging.
besides, the OP specifically mentions "central Theology"
and seeing you are not a religious person, that definition is what you are stuck with.
I would have said "any theological implications"
but you didnt.
hence it's not off topic, technically speaking.
but if you are worried, report it.
and let the moderators sort it out.
but I stand firm that your definition of theology is restricted to central theology, or theology which is required in christianity.
we call it essential theology or other creeds, or statements of belief.
but the Bible has alot of stuff that are not related to salvation, or the other veins of theology or pockets. Some of it is under theolgy but it is not general, or central or required theolgy.
it could be historical, in nature, etc.
so again, you would be wrong again here.
in conclusion, your post is guilty of a false dicotomy, AKA false dilemna.
