A confused atheist.

[Foolish]

That is not what the piece I quoted said at all; far from it.

For someone purporting to seek objectivity this is most bizarre; you don't even read objectively; you read with your own agenda firmly in place, and it colours your interpretation.

Approximately 3,000 mss of the Greek NT (part or whole) have been preserved, copied between the 2d and 17th centuries, plus over 2,200 lectionary mss, containing sections of the NT arranged for reading in church liturgy from the 7th century on. These witnesses to the text of the NT do not agree among themselves in myriad ways, but relatively few of the differences are significant. No autograph or original ms of a NT book has been preserved; the differences come in the course of copying the original. Not all the differences stemmed from mistakes by copyists; some arose from deliberate changes. Copyists, at times, felt impelled to improve the Greek of what they received, to modernise the spelling, to supplement with explanatory phrases, to harmonise Gospels, and even to omit something that seemed dubious. One might think that the oldest preserved copies of the Greek NT (part or whole) would be the best guide to the originals; but that is not necessarily so. For instance, a 6th century ms might be the only remaining exemplar of a much earlier, now lost copy that was closer to the autograph than an extant 2d or 4th century copy.

Actually that's exactly what that passage says.

It says there are significant differences, but that they are few. Well what are they?

It specifically says that the text was changed for various reasons.

It uses the word "might" in relation to which bible is the most accurate - this means that it may be, but it may not be.

I read that passage very carefully.

 

[Foolish]

That is not what the piece I quoted said at all; far from it.

For someone purporting to seek objectivity this is most bizarre; you don't even read objectively; you read with your own agenda firmly in place, and it colours your interpretation.

That's exactly my point cathrineanne.

If the information means something to the reader; then Everyone reads things with their own interpretation.

We've read the same passage and obviously have opposite opinions on its meaning.

Imagine someone now interpreting out interpretations, which I would suggests is what has happened to the bible. You very quickly move away from the original meaning of the source material.

I work in a legal profession, so I look out for words like "might" and "significant" because they denote uncertainty and provide loop holes. I believe that the author of that passage knew that he couldn't prove what he was saying and so gave himself a little wiggle room.

 

[razeontherock]

I would suggests is what has happened to the bible. You very quickly move away from the original meaning of the source material.

Finding the "original meaning of the source material" is the very first step towards Biblical Christianity:

"earnestly contend for the Faith once delivered to the Saints."

Your POV is that this process is no more real than an imaginary friend. Which is directly refuted by all the people who have encountered life-changing Power. Said Life-changing Power is not affected in the least by whatever little tidbits of disagreement there may be amongst various Christians, so your whole premise falls rather flat.

I would expect there would be relevant legal concepts to compare this to, to help you better relate. The accounting term that screams at me, is material. As in, the squabbles you refer to are immaterial.

 

[ebia]

It says there are significant differences, but that they are few. Well what are they?

well, the most significant is probably the ending to Mark. Up to chapter 16 v 8 is secure. The standard longer ending is common on later manuscripts but less common in earlier ones and is of a noticeably different style to the rest of the book. There is a short alternative but it's not hugely convincing either. Some scholars think Mark ended at verse 8: if Mark was written under persecution leaving his gospel with that unresolved ending leaves the hearer with the same choice the women had - will you tell know one because you are afraid, or not. Other scholars think there was an ending that got lost very early (the beginning and end of a scroll are the places it gets damaged most). We'll never know which is right. It's significant in understanding Mark's structure but no Christian doctrine is effected.


The only other big one is John 8:2-11 (the story of the woman caught in adultery). Again the significance of it's origin is more in understanding the flow of John than in any Christian teaching.

These and smaller others are significant for scholarly study - not that significant Christian doctrine is in question over them.

It specifically says that the text was changed for various reasons.

yeh. People fix what they think are errors. They sometimes "clarify". They mistakes. They harmonize. Etc.

This all goes on behind every other ancient text - it's just that it's only for the bible that we have enough early manuscripts to be able to tell where it has happened.

So there are certain things to look for to decide which choice is more likely:
The more manuscripts is likely to be better
The easlier manuscripts are likely to be better
The geographically dispersed is likely to be better
The longer is likely to be better (scribes shorten more often than they lengthen)
The more obscure or hard to make sense of is likely to be better (some scribes like to "fix" unclear phrases)
The more challenging is likely to be better
And so on. Often several of these will come together or one will be so overwhelming to make the case virtually certain. Other times it remains a matter of judgement. But never does it end up undermining the core Christian claims or ideas.

It uses the word "might" in relation to which bible is the most accurate - this means that it may be, but it may not be.

We have a good understanding of how people change texts so in many cases we can be very confident which is the original. In a few cases we are less certain. In a few cases we may have lost the original eg the ending of Mark. In no case - even if you add them altogether - does it effect the basic Christian claims.

I read that passage very carefully.

you're in danger of clutching at straws.

I've taught Maths for 8 years. Every textbook I've ever used has mistakes in them. But that doesn't undermine the Maths or make much difference to their reliability in achieving their purpose.


Grab a copy of the NET translation with full notes - it will explain for most of these textual variations what the issues are and why a particular version was chosen over the other.


Text criticism can be fascinating, but find out genuinely what the issues are and the kind of significance they have - at the moment you're sounding like a Year 8 student denouncing linear equations and binning his textbook because it had the answer wrong to Ex13C Q3c(iii)

 

[golgotha61]

His circle were the people that believed he was the lord.

Their vested interests were that they dedicated their lives to his message. They were hardly objective is my point.

The Gospels were not written to give a historical account of the events of Christ's life, they are apologetic narratives that contain a historical witness. The two Gospel writers that I understand to have been viewers of most of Christ's life and events were Matthew and John, Mark wrote for and traveled with Peter and so his testimony would not be considered as eyewitness. Luke was the closest to an objective account as he interviewed eyewitnesses and some of the apostles.

Luke did the best job of relating the events of Christ's life to historical timelines, this extended into the book of Acts.

If you understand that the Gospels were meant to convince hearers of the truth of Christ's life leading to His death and Resurrection, it is unreasonable to expect them to be objective. Sure there was emotion woven into their accounts, if I saw the miracles of Jesus and witnessed Him crucified and then alive again, I would not be objective and emotionless either, and I don't think you would be. I would place more value on what is truthful as opposed to what is more objective and this is the characterization of the New Testament, it is truthful.

Again however, I have to address the idea of a "vested interest", which means by the definition of the phrase, that the Gospel writers and the authors of the Epistles somehow had an expectation of a personal gain. This could not be further from what happened and the authors of these texts knew the only earthly reward for them was death and they were ready for that.

The only interest of any gain was life in heaven with God and the sole purpose of the texts in the New Testament was not for earthly gain but for eternal gain of life with God. And this gain was not one of self but to share the "good news" with as many people as possible so that the hearers would receive this eternal life. Case in point is in Acts chapter 8 where Simon the magician offered money to be able to impart the gifts of the Holy Spirit and Peter severely chastised him because the message of Christ is not for earthly gain but for eternal gain.


While attending university, I have studied the Old and New Testaments and in the text books used, each book of the Bible was examined separately and almost without fail there were textual and form criticisms of each book. The leading higher criticism of the OT of course was the Documentary Hypothesis in the 1700's and after it had run its course, many scholars, through archeological discoveries and study, have abandoned this criticism.

The NT has been harder for critics to prove as unreliable or untruthful in relation to the central eternal truths. As is fairly well known, the last few verses of Mark and the woman taken in adultery in John, may not have been part of the original autographs. It does not necessarily mean that the account of the woman taken in the book of John is not true, it just may mean that John did not pen the account. The determination of truthfulness is not in the accuracy of determining who penned what but rather, were the NT accounts God inspired and truthful?

"While we do not have the autographs (original writings) of the New Testament, nonetheless, the witness to the New Testament books is formidable. For example, there are some five thousand extant manuscripts that contain either the complete New Testament or portions of it.
Papyrus manuscripts. These manuscripts are old and an important witness. For example, the Chester Beatty Papyrus dates from the third century.
Uncial manuscripts. Approximately two hundred forty manuscripts are called uncial manuscripts and are identified by capital letters. Codex (meaning “book&#8221 Sinaiticus contains all the New Testament and is dated a.d. 331. Codex Vaticanus contains most of the New Testament, is dated from the fourth century, and is considered one of the most important manuscripts. Alexandrinus, dated fifth century, contains all the New Testament except part of Matthew and is helpful in determining the text of Revelation. Others include Codex Ephraemi (5th century), Codex Bezae (5th-6th century), and Washington Codex (4th-5th century).


Minuscule manuscripts. There are some twenty-eight hundred minuscule manuscripts that are written in small letters usually in a flowing hand. They are normally not as old as uncial manuscripts. Some of the minuscules reveal a similarity of text-types and are referred to as a “family” relationship and are so categorized.


Versions. A number of early versions of the New Testament also help in understanding the correct text. Several Syriac versions exist, among them Tatian’s Diatessaron (a.d. 170), the Old Syriac (a.d. 200), the Peshitta (fifth century), and the Palestinian Syriac (fifth century). The Latin Vulgate, translated by Jerome (c. a.d. 400), influenced the Western church. The Coptic translations (translated in the third century), including the Sahidic Version and the Bohairic Version, influenced Egypt.
Through the study of the Greek manuscripts as well as the early versions, textual critics have been able to determine the text that is substantially that of the original writings. It is evident that the hand of God has preserved the various texts through the centuries to enable scholars to collate them and reconstruct the text as closely as possible to the original writings."
The Moody Handbook of Theology.

Sometimes we lose track of the central message of the NT and that is Christ's death and resurrection as payment for our sins and in this truth, there is no contradiction or vagueness among the NT writers. When I die and stand before God and He asks me why He should let into heaven, my answer can not be "I believe the writers of the NT were truthful" or "I believe in the authenticity of the Bible". My answer must be to acknowledge and accept the truths of Christ's death and resurrection in all its demands and expectations.

 

[Catherineanne]

I read that passage very carefully.

Good for you.

Relatively few of the differences are significant.

Remember that bit?

 

[socialisview]

people are blinded by the dogma and dont realize what its really about. theres a reason why the four gospels are from different people but one story.