The Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

[Jack Koons]

Every once in a while someone makes a comment or two in a debating type of discussion, that absolutely brings things to a halt. Post #273 by PrincetonGuy is one of those times. Please allow me to elaborate. My format will be as follows: 1) I will present what I said; 2) I will present the reply by PrinctonGuy; 3) I will then comment. (This may require more than a single post)

Presentation begins:

I believe it is quite clear that God did in fact preserve the Scriptures, in spite of what some may think, and or believe. The method and extant of this preservation is what is to be considered. While God did not choose to preserve His word in a monolithic text, we have today over 24,000 MSS in several languages bearing witness to the preservation of the Scriptures.

What evidence does anyone have that God had anything at all to do with the “preservation” of these manuscripts? None! Absolutely None! We have millions upon millions of fossils from dinosaurs and other animals now extinct. Is this because God “preserved” the fossils? Why did not God instead “preserve” the dinosaurs and other animals now extinct?

Please allow me to address the latter, first. I do not know, and quite frankly, I don’t care. Moving on to the former: “What evidence does anyone have that God had anything at all to do with the “preservation” of these manuscripts?” Well Princeton, think about it. I can quickly think of four possible responses to your question: 1) The preservation of the Scriptures has been purely ‘chance’. This would probably be what you believe. (Or possibly the next one.) I highly doubt this would be the case. When we consider other writings of the same period such as: Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Herodian, Eusebius (of Caesarea), or Socrates of Constantinople, do we have multiplicity of witness of these writers as we do the Scriptures? I think not. Or maybe, 2) Have the Scriptures been preserved by the power and wisdom of men? I’m sure there are many scholars who believe just that! We’re running out of options. 3) Maybe the Scriptures were preserved by Satan. After all, He sure likes to misquote God! But then, maybe, just maybe … 4) The Scriptures were preserved by God Himself. Wouldn’t that just be something? For God to actually preserve His word, so that all generations could read and study it; why then He could actually hold us accountable for obeying what He tells us to do in it!!! Wouldn’t that just be something? Just a thought.

Nearly all of the scholars of what is today known as Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians believe that it is a redaction of at least two original letters that God failed to “preserve.”

I’m sure glad you said, “Nearly all”, I thought maybe about 1,000 faithful Bible believing scholar’s I thought still to be living had suddenly died. You had me worried there for a second! By the way, did I catch a bit of actual disbelief there, when you said, “God failed”? I didn’t know God could fail at anything He purposed to do. Just a thought.

The large majority of scholars of what is today known as The Gospel According to John believes that it is a redaction of the original. For a detailed (two volumes) study of the likely redactions from a moderately liberal Protestant perspective, please see the commentary on John by J. H. Bernard in the I.C.C. series. For a detailed (three volumes) study of the likely redactions from a moderately liberal Roman Catholic perspective, please see the commentary on John by Rudolf Schnackenburg. For a detailed (two volumes) study of the likely redactions from a conservative Roman Catholic perspective, please see the commentary on John by Raymond E. Brown in the Anchor Yale Bible series. All of these redactions occurred at a very early date and ALL of the pre-redaction manuscripts have been lost, but the evidence for these redactions is substantial.

Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you want me, an Independent, Fundamental, KJV Bible believing Baptist, to read a “moderately liberal Protestant perspective”, along with a “moderately liberal Roman Catholic perspective”, along with a “conservative Roman Catholic perspective”, in order to have what? Your perspective!!!??? I don’t see that happening any time soon.

As I have already stated, and as the following link shows, it was believed in the 1600's that God did preserve the Scriptures.
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)
The following excerpt was taken from the above source:
"God's Preservation of the Bible
The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.
The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.
Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.
By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Of what relevance is this?

PrincetonGuy, I understand that because you have the ‘perspective’ you have, all the actual ‘facts’ of history I present will be irrelevant to you. However, since I’m pretty sure others will be reading this, I will tell you, and them. The relevance of knowing that the London Baptists believed in the preservation of Scripture “by His singular care”; means that there were still some scholars remaining in the 1600’s (and beyond), that held this doctrine. In other words, they disagreed with ‘your perspective’. That again, is the relevance. Keep in mind, they knew it was NOT in a monolithic text, but they still believed it was “kept pure in all ages”.

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Every once in a while someone makes a comment or two in a debating type of discussion, that absolutely brings things to a halt. Post #273 by PrincetonGuy is one of those times. Please allow me to elaborate. My format will be as follows: 1) I will present what I said; 2) I will present the reply by PrinctonGuy; 3) I will then comment. (This may require more than a single post)

Presentation begins:

Please allow me to address the latter, first. I do not know, and quite frankly, I don’t care.

I care because the presence of many things for a long time is not evidence of preservation by God.

Moving on to the former: “What evidence does anyone have that God had anything at all to do with the “preservation” of these manuscripts?” Well Princeton, think about it. I can quickly think of four possible responses to your question: 1) The preservation of the Scriptures has been purely ‘chance’. This would probably be what you believe. (Or possibly the next one.) I highly doubt this would be the case. When we consider other writings of the same period such as: Gaius Cornelius Tacitus, Herodian, Eusebius (of Caesarea), or Socrates of Constantinople, do we have multiplicity of witness of these writers as we do the Scriptures? I think not. Or maybe, 2) Have the Scriptures been preserved by the power and wisdom of men? I’m sure there are many scholars who believe just that! We’re running out of options. 3) Maybe the Scriptures were preserved by Satan. After all, He sure likes to misquote God! But then, maybe, just maybe … 4) The Scriptures were preserved by God Himself. Wouldn’t that just be something? For God to actually preserve His word, so that all generations could read and study it; why then He could actually hold us accountable for obeying what He tells us to do in it!!! Wouldn’t that just be something? Just a thought.

This paragraph, and indeed the entire post, does not answer my question, “What evidence does anyone have that God had anything at all to do with the “preservation” of these manuscripts?” If God did preserve the redacted manuscripts, would He not have preserved the original pre-redacted manuscripts instead of simply allowing them to “wear out” so that we would be left with manuscripts that in some cases show more the hand of men than the hand of God? One redaction in the Gospel According to Mathew has directly resulted in literally millions of divorces and indirectly in thousands of suicides and murders. Why did God not preserve the original in order to prevent the millions of divorces and thousands of suicides and murders? God gave us the Scriptures, and placed them in the care of men.

I’m sure glad you said, “Nearly all”, I thought maybe about 1,000 faithful Bible believing scholar’s I thought still to be living had suddenly died. You had me worried there for a second!

Can you name even five scholars of what is today known as Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians publishing today in academic biblical journals who believe that it is not a redacted work? Indeed, can you name even one? So much for your “about 1,000 faithful Bible believing scholar’s.”

Just to make sure I understand you correctly: you want me, an Independent, Fundamental, KJV Bible believing Baptist, to read a “moderately liberal Protestant perspective”, along with a “moderately liberal Roman Catholic perspective”, along with a “conservative Roman Catholic perspective”, in order to have what? Your perspective!!!??? I don’t see that happening any time soon.

I want to know the truth, and I am willing to study to learn the truth—even if the truth causes me to modify my beliefs. Anyone who is willing to dismiss out of hand a huge amount of evidence in order to maintain a false belief is, in my opinion, dishonest—and in all likelihood, has been deceived.

PrincetonGuy, I understand that because you have the ‘perspective’ you have, all the actual ‘facts’ of history I present will be irrelevant to you. However, since I’m pretty sure others will be reading this, I will tell you, and them. The relevance of knowing that the London Baptists believed in the preservation of Scripture “by His singular care”; means that there were still some scholars remaining in the 1600’s (and beyond), that held this doctrine. In other words, they disagreed with ‘your perspective’. That again, is the relevance. Keep in mind, they knew it was NOT in a monolithic text, but they still believed it was “kept pure in all ages”.

In the 17th century, the study of the Bible was in the early days of its infancy. It is most regrettable that some people have a distaste for the things that God has allowed us to learn about the Bible since then. Moreover, personal opinions based upon an archaic and grossly wrong perspective are evidence of ignorance rather than evidence that God has preserved His word in the form of the King James translation of the Bible—or even that He has preserved it at all. What is both relative and important from God’s perspective is that we all read the Bible in the most accurate translation that we are able to understand, and that we not only read the Bible, but that we vigorously and relentlessly apply it to every aspect of our lives.

 

[now faith]

This statement is radically false. Here is the truth:

History of the English Revised Version (1881-85)

The Revised Version (1881-1895)





?



No one in this thread has equated the KJV with a medical book. However, the point was accurately and appropriately made that setting the KJV as a standard of accuracy for current Bible translations makes no more sense than setting an early 17th century medical book as a standard of accuracy for current medical books.

Here is a quote from the link you provided:

In dealing with the Old Testament the Revisers were not greatly concerned with questions of text. The Massoretic Hebrew text available in 1870 was substantially the same as that which King James' translators had before them; and the criticism of the Septuagint version was not sufficiently advanced to enable them safely to make much use of it except in marginal notes. Their work consisted mainly in the correction of mistranslations which imperfect Hebrew scholarship had left in the Authorized Version. Their changes as a rule are slight, but tend very markedly to remove obscurities .


This is not the description you provided,as to the King James being revised.


Here is your statement :Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy View Post
One of the primary reasons for the revision of the KJV in 1884 was that it seriously lacked contextual integrity—a problem that was resolved to a substantial extent in the 1884 Revised Version, and further resolved in the RSV.

Your link had no criticism of contextual integrity, and your statement as to resolving the RSV is a Red Herring.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Even though as stated it is not exact in translation,it still has more contextual integrity than modern versions.

One of the primary reasons for the revision of the KJV in 1884 was that it seriously lacked contextual integrity—a problem that was resolved to a substantial extent in the 1884 Revised Version, and further resolved in the RSV.

Here is a quote from the link you provided:

In dealing with the Old Testament the Revisers were not greatly concerned with questions of text. The Massoretic Hebrew text available in 1870 was substantially the same as that which King James' translators had before them; and the criticism of the Septuagint version was not sufficiently advanced to enable them safely to make much use of it except in marginal notes. Their work consisted mainly in the correction of mistranslations which imperfect Hebrew scholarship had left in the Authorized Version. Their changes as a rule are slight, but tend very markedly to remove obscurities .


This is not the description you provided,as to the King James being revised.


Here is your statement :Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy View Post
One of the primary reasons for the revision of the KJV in 1884 was that it seriously lacked contextual integrity—a problem that was resolved to a substantial extent in the 1884 Revised Version, and further resolved in the RSV.

Your link had no criticism of contextual integrity, and your statement as to resolving the RSV is a Red Herring.

Kenyon’s article is very brief and mentions only a few of the improvements found in the ERV. Have you read the ERV, or did you only read Kenyon’s brief article? I posted the link to Kenyon’s article (and the link to the Preface to the ERV) to prove that your following statement was incorrect:

The revision in 1884 was the removal of the apocryphal books.

 

[Jack Koons]

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.
Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.
The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.
Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively."

We have known for over 150 years that Genesis 1-11 is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Jesus and some of the writers of the New Testament used the very popular stories from Genesis 1-11 to teach their message, but there is no evidence of any kind that any of them believed that the stories were an accurate account of historic events. Indeed, the concept of history as an accurate account of historic events did not even exist in the ancient Hebrew world in which Genesis 1-11 was composed!

The first thing we must establish is, who is the “We” in the above paragraph? It certainly does not include me. Since we (any person reading this) live in the year 2015, I will presume that you have taken us back to 1865, and beyond. You are now asserting that ‘someone’ named “We” have [has] known for over 150 years that Genesis 1-11 is not “an accurate account of historic events”. In Matthew 19 we read:
“3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
PrincetonGuy, it appears to me that Jesus had a different perspective than you do, and the scholars that agree with you. Remember PrincetonGuy, they also did not see that Jesus was the Messiah. There was much in the Scriptures that the religious leaders did not see. The Apostle Paul himself, even after sitting at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), did not see the truth of Scripture until becoming saved on the road to Damascus.

Another excerpt, from another source:
https://books.google.com/books?id=a...omised+to+preserve+scripture&output=html_text

Of what relevance is this?

The above link gives evidence as to why the Scriptures need to be preserved by God.

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

I have purposely chosen to separate this comment separately because my response will be a bit lengthier.

The problem of course, (as I have already stated), is that the "definition" of both "inspiration" and "preservation", changed within 200 years of the publication of the 1649 and 1689 confessions. The question that we must ask, is why?
Jack

As I have already stated, individual Baptists and other Christians have proposed over the centuries a multitude of differing concepts regarding the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures. The reason for these varying concepts is obvious—they are merely human concepts conceived by mere humans of vastly differing backgrounds and education! Moreover, what does any of this have to do with the KJV or any one of the more than 400 translations of the Bible that have been made?

PrincetonGuy, did you read the Baptist Confession of 1646, and 1689? Just in case you didn’t; here it is again:

“Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15 But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read,16 and search them,17 therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.19
14 Rom. 3:2
15 Isa. 8:20
16 Acts 15:15
17 John 5:39
18 1 Cor. 14:6,9,11,12,24,28
19 Col. 3:16”

The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. 1

So what is the relevance here? Again, the relevance is that there were clearly Baptist in 1689 that believed the Scriptures “being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them”.

The question to be asked is, “Why do many have the ‘perspective’ you now share, while others (like myself), still believe as they did in 1689”? There is a very simple answer.

“Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction. This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study. This is in distinct contrast, for example, to the Islamic and Hindu scriptures (see Koran; Veda). Despite its long standing, however, the notion of critical biblical study has changed radically over the years.”

Biblical Scholarship

Notice the above words: “This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors.”

This is an absolute lie. The proof of this is in the 1689 Baptist Confession. These men in no way believed that the Scriptures were written by human authors. Now allow me to clarify a major point. God used humans to WRITE the Scriptures, but it is the Holy Spirit that gave those same humans the ‘words’ which they were to write. This is why the Bible is called the “Word of God”.
2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Peter 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So why do some people now believe that the Scriptures were authored by human authors, vs. God; as is clearly shown in the Confession of 1689? A simple look at history gives us the answer.

Johann Salomo Semler | biography - German theologian | Encyclopedia Britannica

““Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.”

Please notice the following:

There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) “He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”.

Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny “divine inspiration” and thereby challenge “divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).

How did Semler arrive at his conclusion?

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) German philosopher
Wolff (1679-1754) was the most eminent German philosopher between Leibniz and Kant.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) German philosopher
Baumgarten (1706-1757)was a follower of the philosophical teachings of Christian Wolff
Semler (1725-1791) was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten

Through the years there was a building belief among much of the intellectual philosophers that the Word of God was not the “Divine Word of God”. This belief was first made public by Johann Salomo Semler. Again I remind the reader, ““Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.”

By the end of the 1700's and into the 1800's the work of Textual Criticism was gaining a much better footing with the works of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. The key thing to remember here is that one of the men that brought Textual Criticism through its infancy, (Johann Salomo Semler) denied not only the “inspiration of the Scriptures”, but also the “authority” of the scriptures.
Why then do we have this debate?

The simple answer is, German rationalism led to textual criticism. Textual critics do not believe in 'Providential Preservation. They insist (according to them) that because God nowhere 'promised' to preserve His Word perfectly, He did not do it. That job was left to man. That is why we have textual critics, to put the Word of God back together the way it was 'in the originals'.

Let me make this clear.
1. God gave His Word perfectly to man. (Inspiration)
2. God then leaves His Word to the care of men to preserve. (Which men fail to do, because we are sinners, and prone to error.)
3. God then appoints more men (sinners who are prone to error) to find the errors that the other men made, (without giving them a true copy of the originals to judge what is in error), to then produce a Bible that is almost without error (because we can never be sure we have all the errors out (because we don't have a perfect template to go by)).
That is what the scholarly textual critics want us to believe.

Rules of Textual Criticism

“When the manuscripts differ, how do scholars decide which words are the original ones? There is more to it than simply choosing the readings of the oldest available manuscripts. Here are three historically important sets of rules published by some influential scholars of textual criticism: Bengel, Griesbach, and Hort.”

I am not going to post “Griesbach's Fifteen Rules”, but Griesbach, (which I am sure you will agree) was a major Textual Critic along with Bengel and Hort.

Now about this time many people are saying, “All those guys have been dead and gone for years”. Well, you are right. The question then is simple; Have the beliefs of both Semler, Eichhorn, and others continued unto this generation? It takes but a small amount of research to get our answer. I must say before I continue, I am fully aware that I will be accused of giving in to a conspiracy theory, but, what can I say? The men that we are going to look at, have passed as well, but a bit more recently. Between 1994 and 2012; hence, these men truly have had a direct influence on the Bibles we hold in our hands (unless you're holding a King James Bible).

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

Continuing the comments:

The Ben Asher text in not the Ben Chayyim text. Watch out for the Kittel family

The following excerpts come from the above site:

It is clear by the address of the site, that this is a site belong those that are “Messianic”; (I say this not against them, each person has the right to believe as they wish), I simply state that the people of this site seem to have come to some of the same understanding as I have, through much study (which is stated directly on their “Home Page”. This first excerpt comes from quite a ways down on the page, but I found it rather interesting.

“Again, my heart hurts as I convey the truth. Below, there might be some duplicate material, stay with me...
The Greek text that is used in most Bible seminaries and colleges is produced by the United Bible Societies, an organization composed of more than 100 national Bible societies.
We used the third edition when I was in school. Since then a fourth edition has appeared. In Bible school I was not told that the editors of that volume are apostates, but they are. We will consider four of the editors:
Carlo Martini, Eugene Nida, Kurt Aland, and Bruce Metzger.”

At this point the producer of this work, presents some interesting facts about these 'leaders' in the field of textual criticism. As a quick note, all of the above mentioned have passed on, as shown:
Carlo Maria Martini, S.J., (15 February 1927 – 31 August 2012)
Eugene A. Nida (November 11, 1914 – August 25, 2011)
Kurt Aland (28 March 1915 – 13 April 1994)
Bruce Manning Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007)

Observe:

“CARLO MARTINI
Jesuit cardinal Carlo Maria Martini (1927- ) is the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Milan.
Since 1967, he has been one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek
New Testament.
His diocese in Europe is the largest in the world, with two thousand priests and five million "laity." He is Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome.
He is also President of the Council of European Bishop's Conferences. Time magazine, December 26, 1994, listed him as a possible candidate in line for the papacy.
Another Time magazine article reported that Martini brought together a syncretistic convocation of over 100 religious leaders from around the world to promote a new age, one-world religion.
In addressing this meeting, Mikhail Gorbachev said, "We need to synthesize a new religion for thinking men that will universalize that religion for the world and lead us into a new age."”

Over the years, I have heard much said pertaining to the so-called 'Catholic' connection to the King James Bible, because Erasmus was a Catholic. A Catholic, I might add, that has had ALL of his written works placed on the Index of Forbidden Books to read by Catholics in 1559 by Pope Paul IV! His name was not removed until 1930. (Literature Suppressed on Religious Grounds by Margaret Bald, Pg. 270) It certainly sounds as though Erasmus was a devout Catholic! Interestingly, (as seen in the above excerpt), Martine was a Jesuit cardinal who has been one of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, since 1967; the underlying Greek text of nearly every modern Bible version, including the NIV, and the NASB. Do we really want to talk about a Catholic connection?

Let's look at another excerpt from the site above:

Regarding Bruce Metzger, the site states:

“BRUCE METZGER
Another of the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament is Bruce Manning Metzger (1914- ). Metzger is George L. CollordProfessor of New Testament Language and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary, and he serves on the board of the American Bible Society.
Metzger is the head of the continuing RSV translation committee of the apostate National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. The Revised Standard Version was soundly condemned for its modernism when it first appeared in 1952.”

It further states:

“NOTES ON GENESIS: "[Genesis] 2.4b-3.24 ... is a different tradition from that in 1.1-2,4a, as evidenced by the flowing style and the different order of events, e.g. man is created before vegetation, animals, and woman. ... 7:16b: The Lord shut him in, a note from the early tradition, which delights in anthropomorphic touches. 7:18-20: The waters covered all the high mountains, thus threatening a confluence of the upper and lower waters (1.6).
Archaeological evidence suggests that traditions of a prehistoric flood covering the whole earth are heightened versions of local inundations, e.g. in the Tigris-Euphrates basin."

NOTES ON JOB: "The ancient folktale of a patient Job (1.1-2.13; 42.7-17; Jas. 5.11) circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."

NOTES ON PSALM 22: "22:12-13: ... the meaning of the third line [they have pierced my hands and feet] is obscure." [Editor: No, it is not obscure; it is a prophecy of Christs crucifixion!]

NOTES ON ISAIAH: "Only chs. 1-39 can be assigned to Isaiahs time; it is generally accepted that chs. 40-66 come from the time of Cyrus of Persia (539 B.C.) and later, as shown by the differences in historical background, literary style, and theological emphases. ... The contents of this section [chs. 56-66] (sometimes called Third Isaiah) suggest a date between 530 and 510 B.C., perhaps contemporary with Haggai and Zechariah (520-518); chapters 60-62 may be later."

NOTES ON JONAH: "The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to a new, more consequential use."

INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT: "Jesus himself left no literary remains; information regarding his words and works comes from his immediate followers (the apostles) and their disciples.
At first this information was circulated orally.
As far as we know today, the first attempt to produce a written Gospel was made by John Mark, who according to tradition was a disciple of the Apostle Peter.

This Gospel, along with a collection of sayings of Jesus and several other special sources, formed the basis of the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke." [Editor: The Gospels, like every part of the New Testament, were written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This nonsense of trying to find the original source for the Gospels is unbelieving heresy.]”

These are just a few of the many things stated by Bruce Metager, the leading textual critic of the 20th century. It really sounds as though textual critics sincerely believe in what the Bible says, doesn't it?

Jack

 

[Jack Koons]

A quick note: The reason for providing the above information is quite simple: there is a direct connection from Johann Semler, all the way to the late Dr. Bruce Metzger. The problem began when Semler publicly denied the Divine inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Since that time, textual critics like him, have been hacking away at the Scriptures.

That is my opinion; based upon the above information, and much, much more.

Jack

 

[tall73]

Before I go through and respond to each point by you, Jack, in response to me, I want to clarify a few things about my view, and where I think you are coming from.

I believe it is quite clear that God did in fact preserve the Scriptures, in spite of what some may think, and or believe. The method and extant of this preservation is what is to be considered. While God did not choose to preserve His word in a monolithic text, we have today over 24,000 MSS in several languages bearing witness to the preservation of the Scriptures.

I agree with this above statement, and said something quite similar earlier in the thread.

I do believe God preserved the Scriptures, and have stated so earlier in the thread as well. So I do not understand why you address me as though I do not.


However, as you note, it is not a monolithic text. We do have many manuscripts, by far the most attested to book in antiquity is the NT.

Now, the problem comes in with the "not monolithic" part. That means there were variants. If all you are saying is that God preserved His word, along with other variants, well then we agree completely.

However, if you then go on to say that the KJV reproduces exactly the autographs, only in English, then I have to ask how you get that out of the manuscript evidence. And that is what I have been discussing, largely with Joe as you were not really able to commit time to the thread earlier.

Now you also said:

By the way, this doesn’t mean there is not “evidence” of a real good “paper-trail”, it just means there is no monolithic text.

And that is the point I have been trying to get you, or Joe, etc. to clarify nearly this whole discussion.

If you are claiming, as Joe claims, that the KJV is the exact word-for-word same as the original manuscripts, only in English, then where is the paper trail to establish that? Shouldn't there be manuscript copies that match the KJV in its readings across large sections of Scripture? Yet we do not see that. At least not that I am aware. So how can the paper trail support your view?

Now you have also noted the position of some Baptists of the past:

The Old Testament in Hebrew which was the native language of the people of God of old, and the New Testament in Greek which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic;

It is this last part, kept pure in all ages....that seems to be the issue.

a. First of all kept pure seems to indicate a monolithic text. If they have some other meaning you may need to clarify with their own words. I wouldn't say it was kept pure if in fact there are many variants. Though I do hold that the original readings are still in there somewhere. They just are along with other readings that are not original. So the problem is that it is hard to determine which are the pure, and which the altered.


b. They also say "in all ages". And this is the very point that I don't see in the paper trail. If they have reference to the view of Joe that the KJV is a pure example of the original manuscripts, only in English, then why do we NOT see such texts, with the same readings, "in all ages"? In fact, I am not sure we have a single manuscript across large portions of Scripture that matches all the readings of the KJV. If it was kept pure through all ages, then we ought to see examples of the pure strain of manuscripts beginning with the early church that did continue throughout each period. That though we would need to be demonstrated. And I don't see the evidence.


And that fact is not surprising, because the KJV is itself an eclectic exercise. While it drew from a smaller group of texts from the Byzantine type, it nonetheless had to decide between readings. Sometimes it even included minority readings.

And besides that the translators made reference to other English translations, etc. during the process. So why would we expect every word, every reading, to match up with any Greek text when the KJV is itself a Frankentext?

Now before you say some of the READINGS are ancient, we agree! Some could be argued to be ancient. That is different than manuscripts being ancient and the same as the readings in the KJV.

If it was preserved in this pure form at various points we should see that.

 

[tall73]

Jack, to put it another way, can you show a manuscript, that includes large sections of Scripture, that matches in every way the KJV?


If not then you are not saying God preserved His pure word "in all ages", but only that He preserved it among other false readings, and the pure word was restored only after 1611 by the KJV translators.

That would be a long gap without the pure word.

 

[tall73]

Now we have another issue.

The King James was Translated by a very diverse and knowledgeable panel of 47 scholars.

Even though as stated it is not exact in translation,it still has more contextual integrity than modern versions.

If that is your position then it is substantially different than that of Joe's, which was what I was mainly responding to here. If the King James is not exact in translation, then it is not in fact a perfect representation of the originals, except in English, which is Joe's position.

And for that matter, again, I don't hold that the KJV is a poor translation.

What is truly unique is that the great Isaiah Scroll was not used in translation.

The dead sea scrolls were found in 1947.

I believe it is not the accuracy of the King James being vindicated,but the King James is the standard to authenticate the scroll.

The scroll is an ancient manuscript. It is a witness to what someone thought the text was. And some of the text is closer to the LXX, which is also an earlier witness to the text, though in translation.

They do not need vindication by the KJV, a later translation based on the masoretic text. The question is how the Masoretic text, the LXX, and the Isaiah scroll relate, as they are the witnesses.

Does the LXX and the Isaiah scroll preserve readings from a different Hebrew text type?

 

[tall73]

The Masoretic text predates the LXX and by 3rd century the LXX or [Septuagint] was not widely accepted by Jewish scholars.

a. The Masoretes were not in existence until centuries after Christ. The LXX was translated before Christ. Now, as to whether the readings the masoretic text preserve were around before Christ, I think that is likely. However, that is part of why the Isaiah Scroll was important.

The Isaiah Scroll is older than any Masoretic manuscript, and is the oldest known copy of the book of Isaiah. It pre-dates the time of Christ. The value of the text is that it helps us understand what the text would have been like in Jesus' time. The question is whether there were changes from the time before Christ to the time of the Masoretes.

Now does this mean the text transformed slightly in that time, or does it just mean that there are two underlying Hebrew text types? That is where the debate happens.

b. Agreement with later Jewish scribes means very little to me. First because Jesus didn't agree with the Scribes of His day, so we don't really take them as authorities. However, another reason is that the Christian church the majority of the time quoted Septuagint like readings over the Masoretic like readings. So the Jewish Scribe dislike of the LXX readings may have more to do with a theological axe to grind. Especially since some of these LXX readings were taken to refer to Christ.

 

[tall73]

It was promoted by The Church of Rome,by Augustine.

There are concerns by theologians on the Alexandrian text.

Brenton 's Septuagint was completed in 1849,Codex Vaticanus being it's primary source.

This is my opinion but I would find any text to be ambiguous when it's primary source is Rome Catholic.

Not to bash anyone's religion,only seems logical not to rely on information from who we have protested.

Then don't rely on the view of Rome. Rely on the quotations made by the Christian church in the NT which the vast majority of when there were differences, followed the LXX type of reading. Which suggests that there may be LXX type readings in a Hebrew text stream if the Isaiah scroll preserves them and the NT preserves LXX like readings as well.

 

[tall73]

(quoting Metzger)
As far as we know today, the first attempt to produce a written Gospel was made by John Mark, who according to tradition was a disciple of the Apostle Peter.

This Gospel, along with a collection of sayings of Jesus and several other special sources, formed the basis of the Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke."
[Editor: The Gospels, like every part of the New Testament, were written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This nonsense of trying to find the original source for the Gospels is unbelieving heresy.]”

These are just a few of the many things stated by Bruce Metager, the leading textual critic of the 20th century.

I just want to clarify one point. There is a difference between believing for example that II Corinthians is a combination of two letters by a later redactor and the notion that a New Testament writer might have originally incorporated existing sources while writing his gospel.

For instance, Luke seems to suggest that he is aware of earlier gospel accounts:

Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

This combined with the high degree of correspondence with the synoptic gospels indicates that he may have incorporated some of the material. This would not make it any less inspired as we already believe Mark for instance is inspired. And God may have specifically directed him to use such a source.

 

[WirSindBettler]

I'm coming into this way too late, and I can't give my honest opinion as I'm not a Baptist, but I have a serious question:

Why is the KJV the best rather than the Geneva Bible?

 

[tall73]

We have known for over 150 years that Genesis 1-11 is a severely redacted collection of epic tales, sagas, myths, or legends. Jesus and some of the writers of the New Testament used the very popular stories from Genesis 1-11 to teach their message, but there is no evidence of any kind that any of them believed that the stories were an accurate account of historic events.

If you want to say they are allegorical I guess that is your call. And certainly you are not alone in that position.

However, I am not sure why you hold the position that the later biblical authors did not treat them as an historical account.


Rom_5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.


1Co_15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Why state such a thing if one does not hold that historically Adam initiated the pattern of sin, which Jesus is the solution to? If you only hold that the Adam story was a legend, and that evolution resulted in man, then why regard specifics of the fall in the account? Why compare the two?


Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Why use the phrase "as the days of Noe (Noah) were" if He thought it was a legend? Why not say as in the story of Noah? Yet He draws a lesson from the particulars of the story and the people of the time. And He says "as the days of Noe were".



Heb_11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Why speak of Noah as an example of faith and one who went before if one does not believe a literal Noah existed, or the account which is referenced?

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;


2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


Why would Peter reference the flood to give the surety of the coming destruction by fire if he did not believe that there was a flood? If it was regarded as only a legend or story, then what would be the value of using it as an example of God's willingness to pour out judgment?

 

[Jack Koons]

Before I go through and respond to each point by you, Jack, in response to me, I want to clarify a few things about my view, and where I think you are coming from.

I believe it is quite clear that God did in fact preserve the Scriptures, in spite of what some may think, and or believe. The method and extant of this preservation is what is to be considered. While God did not choose to preserve His word in a monolithic text, we have today over 24,000 MSS in several languages bearing witness to the preservation of the Scriptures.

I agree with this above statement, and said something quite similar earlier in the thread.

I do believe God preserved the Scriptures, and have stated so earlier in the thread as well. So I do not understand why you address me as though I do not.


However, as you note, it is not a monolithic text. We do have many manuscripts, by far the most attested to book in antiquity is the NT.

Now, the problem comes in with the "not monolithic" part. That means there were variants. If all you are saying is that God preserved His word, along with other variants, well then we agree completely.

However, if you then go on to say that the KJV reproduces exactly the autographs, only in English, then I have to ask how you get that out of the manuscript evidence. And that is what I have been discussing, largely with Joe as you were not really able to commit time to the thread earlier.

Now you also said:



And that is the point I have been trying to get you, or Joe, etc. to clarify nearly this whole discussion.

If you are claiming, as Joe claims, that the KJV is the exact word-for-word same as the original manuscripts, only in English, then where is the paper trail to establish that? Shouldn't there be manuscript copies that match the KJV in its readings across large sections of Scripture? Yet we do not see that. At least not that I am aware. So how can the paper trail support your view?

Now you have also noted the position of some Baptists of the past:



It is this last part, kept pure in all ages....that seems to be the issue.

a. First of all kept pure seems to indicate a monolithic text. If they have some other meaning you may need to clarify with their own words. I wouldn't say it was kept pure if in fact there are many variants. Though I do hold that the original readings are still in there somewhere. They just are along with other readings that are not original. So the problem is that it is hard to determine which are the pure, and which the altered.


b. They also say "in all ages". And this is the very point that I don't see in the paper trail. If they have reference to the view of Joe that the KJV is a pure example of the original manuscripts, only in English, then why do we NOT see such texts, with the same readings, "in all ages"? In fact, I am not sure we have a single manuscript across large portions of Scripture that matches all the readings of the KJV. If it was kept pure through all ages, then we ought to see examples of the pure strain of manuscripts beginning with the early church that did continue throughout each period. That though we would need to be demonstrated. And I don't see the evidence.


And that fact is not surprising, because the KJV is itself an eclectic exercise. While it drew from a smaller group of texts from the Byzantine type, it nonetheless had to decide between readings. Sometimes it even included minority readings.

And besides that the translators made reference to other English translations, etc. during the process. So why would we expect every word, every reading, to match up with any Greek text when the KJV is itself a Frankentext?

Now before you say some of the READINGS are ancient, we agree! Some could be argued to be ancient. That is different than manuscripts being ancient and the same as the readings in the KJV.

If it was preserved in this pure form at various points we should see that.

In addressing this post, I would like for the sake of the reading audience; to keep this dialogue at its most basic terminology. When 'technical' terms are used, I would like to supply the most basic definition possible, lest we may loose any participants that may not be familiar with the terminologies of the subject. Agreed?

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I have purposely chosen to separate this comment separately because my response will be a bit lengthier.




PrincetonGuy, did you read the Baptist Confession of 1646, and 1689? Just in case you didn’t; here it is again:

“Paragraph 8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old),14 and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.15 But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read,16 and search them,17 therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,18 that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.19
14 Rom. 3:2
15 Isa. 8:20
16 Acts 15:15
17 John 5:39
18 1 Cor. 14:6,9,11,12,24,28
19 Col. 3:16”

The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. 1

So what is the relevance here? Again, the relevance is that there were clearly Baptist in 1689 that believed the Scriptures “being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them”.

The question to be asked is, “Why do many have the ‘perspective’ you now share, while others (like myself), still believe as they did in 1689”? There is a very simple answer.

“Unlike the literature of various other religions, the Bible has always been subject to some measure of scholarly criticism and correction. This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors. It has therefore been considered legitimate for other human beings to evaluate them. They have never been regarded simply as a literature transmitted directly from heaven or as so remote from the contemporary human condition as to render them immune to critical study. This is in distinct contrast, for example, to the Islamic and Hindu scriptures (see Koran; Veda). Despite its long standing, however, the notion of critical biblical study has changed radically over the years.”

Biblical Scholarship

Notice the above words: “This criticism undoubtedly developed because Jews and Christians conceive of religion as historical, as the product of definite historical events. Even though the great majority of the Old and New Testament writings are, in fact, anonymous, they have always been ascribed to particular human authors.”

This is an absolute lie. The proof of this is in the 1689 Baptist Confession. These men in no way believed that the Scriptures were written by human authors. Now allow me to clarify a major point. God used humans to WRITE the Scriptures, but it is the Holy Spirit that gave those same humans the ‘words’ which they were to write. This is why the Bible is called the “Word of God”.
2 Timothy 3: 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
2 Peter 1: 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So why do some people now believe that the Scriptures were authored by human authors, vs. God; as is clearly shown in the Confession of 1689? A simple look at history gives us the answer.

Johann Salomo Semler | biography - German theologian | Encyclopedia Britannica

““Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.”

Please notice the following:

There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) “He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”.

Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny “divine inspiration” and thereby challenge “divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).

How did Semler arrive at his conclusion?

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) German philosopher
Wolff (1679-1754) was the most eminent German philosopher between Leibniz and Kant.
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) German philosopher
Baumgarten (1706-1757)was a follower of the philosophical teachings of Christian Wolff
Semler (1725-1791) was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten

Through the years there was a building belief among much of the intellectual philosophers that the Word of God was not the “Divine Word of God”. This belief was first made public by Johann Salomo Semler. Again I remind the reader, ““Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.”

By the end of the 1700's and into the 1800's the work of Textual Criticism was gaining a much better footing with the works of Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. The key thing to remember here is that one of the men that brought Textual Criticism through its infancy, (Johann Salomo Semler) denied not only the “inspiration of the Scriptures”, but also the “authority” of the scriptures.
Why then do we have this debate?

The simple answer is, German rationalism led to textual criticism. Textual critics do not believe in 'Providential Preservation. They insist (according to them) that because God nowhere 'promised' to preserve His Word perfectly, He did not do it. That job was left to man. That is why we have textual critics, to put the Word of God back together the way it was 'in the originals'.

Let me make this clear.
1. God gave His Word perfectly to man. (Inspiration)
2. God then leaves His Word to the care of men to preserve. (Which men fail to do, because we are sinners, and prone to error.)
3. God then appoints more men (sinners who are prone to error) to find the errors that the other men made, (without giving them a true copy of the originals to judge what is in error), to then produce a Bible that is almost without error (because we can never be sure we have all the errors out (because we don't have a perfect template to go by)).
That is what the scholarly textual critics want us to believe.

Rules of Textual Criticism

“When the manuscripts differ, how do scholars decide which words are the original ones? There is more to it than simply choosing the readings of the oldest available manuscripts. Here are three historically important sets of rules published by some influential scholars of textual criticism: Bengel, Griesbach, and Hort.”

I am not going to post “Griesbach's Fifteen Rules”, but Griesbach, (which I am sure you will agree) was a major Textual Critic along with Bengel and Hort.

Now about this time many people are saying, “All those guys have been dead and gone for years”. Well, you are right. The question then is simple; Have the beliefs of both Semler, Eichhorn, and others continued unto this generation? It takes but a small amount of research to get our answer. I must say before I continue, I am fully aware that I will be accused of giving in to a conspiracy theory, but, what can I say? The men that we are going to look at, have passed as well, but a bit more recently. Between 1994 and 2012; hence, these men truly have had a direct influence on the Bibles we hold in our hands (unless you're holding a King James Bible).

Jack

Jack,

Thank you for attempting to explain these things to me, but I still do not see any relevance in what some Baptists believed in 1689 to what has been learned about the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments since then. Neither do I see any relevance in what some Baptists believed in 1689 to the multitude of differing views held by others before and after that regarding the preservation of the Bible.

Some of the readers of this thread may find the following link helpful:

Rules of Textual Criticism

You and I disagree with each other regarding textual criticism. I am not aware of any scholars publishing today in academic journals dealing with textual criticism that believe that the Majority Text is even nearly as accurate as the Critical Text. Are you aware of any?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The first thing we must establish is, who is the “We” in the above paragraph? It certainly does not include me. Since we (any person reading this) live in the year 2015, I will presume that you have taken us back to 1865, and beyond. You are now asserting that ‘someone’ named “We” have [has] known for over 150 years that Genesis 1-11 is not “an accurate account of historic events”.
Jack

The “we” in my post are the very large majority of Old Testament scholars publishing today in academic, peer-reviewed biblical journals, and the Christians and others who agree with their views regarding the textual integrity of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11.

In Matthew 19 we read:
“3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
PrincetonGuy, it appears to me that Jesus had a different perspective than you do, and the scholars that agree with you. Remember PrincetonGuy, they also did not see that Jesus was the Messiah. There was much in the Scriptures that the religious leaders did not see. The Apostle Paul himself, even after sitting at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), did not see the truth of Scripture until becoming saved on the road to Damascus.

The easiest way to learn what the Bible teaches about divorce and remarriage is to begin with Luke’s gospel where he wrote:

Luke 16:18. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

This is the Biblical standard and teaching. There are no exceptions or complications to the teaching.

Mark is more wordy on this issue, which is uncommon for Mark who typically liked to be more brief:

Mark 10:2. Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife.
3. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”
4. They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.”
5. But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
6. “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
7. “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
8. AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
9. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
10. In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
11. And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

Notice especially vv. 11-12:

11. And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

As in Luke 16, there are no exceptions—it is cut and dried.

Luke 16:18. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”


Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, expressed the same teaching in this manner:

1 Cor. 7:10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Mark, Luke and Paul all agree—remarriage to a different spouse after divorce is adultery; there are NO exceptions.

When we read the discussion in the Matt. 19:3-12, however, we run into a problem:

Matt. 19:3. Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
4. And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5. and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
6. “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
7. They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”
8. He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10. The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”
11. But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
12. “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”

In Matt. 19:3-12, we find a group of Pharisees attempting to trap Jesus into taking sides in a theological debate and stir up strife by asking Jesus to take a side in the Hillel-Shammai dispute that was raging at the time. The very popular and theologically liberal Rabbi Hillel taught that it was lawful for a Jewish man to divorce his wife for any cause whatsoever; the far less popular and theologically conservative Rabbi Shammai taught that it was lawful for a Jewish man to divorce his wife only if she had committed adultery against him. The Pharisees knew that Jesus was very conservative in His theology and they knew that He would most likely take the side of Rabbi Shammai, and consequently become, along with Rabbi Shammai, far less popular.

If the exception clause in Matt. 19:9 is genuine scripture rather than a very early addition to the original text, we have Jesus falling right into the trap set for Him by the Pharisees and taking the side of Rabbi Shammai. In my opinion, Jesus was not so foolish as to fall into such a trap and that He replied to them,

9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.”

That this was His actual reply is confirmed by the reaction of His disciples,

10. The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”

This was not the reaction of the Jews to the teaching of Rabbi Shammai, so we can be quite certain that Jesus taught very differently, and did not include in His answer the exception for adultery that Rabbi Shammai included in his teaching. And, in His teaching elsewhere, Jesus is not quoted as including the exception for adultery having been committed.

The exception clause in Matt. 19:9 has a very large amount of early manuscript support (although with a number of variations); therefore, most New Testament translators translate from a Greek text that includes the exception clause. However, very many scholars of the synoptic gospels believe that the exception clause could not have been a part of the teaching of Jesus because it directly contradicts the teaching of Jesus, not only as found in Mark, Luke, and Paul, but also in the rest of Matthew. Indeed, if the exception clause is genuine, Matt. 19:9 cannot be harmonized with Matt. 19:8,

8. He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Whenever Jesus introduces his teaching with the words, “I say to you” (there are more than 50 occurrences in Matthew’s Gospel alone), He is introducing a new teaching that goes beyond the commonly accepted rabbinic teachings of his day. If the exception clause is genuine, in verse 9 Jesus is not introducing a new teaching; He is falling into the Pharisees’ trap by taking Shammai’s side in the debate! Therefore, the verse should read,

9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Compare Luke 16:18,

18. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

And not only that, if the exception clause is genuine, in verse 9 Jesus is contradicting what he had just said in verses 4-6.

4. And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5. and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
6. “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”


This three-word exception clause has given birth to countless thousands of theological and legal debates, but it is probably a very early addition (before the oldest known manuscripts of Mathew’s gospel were written) made to the gospel that does not belong there. It may have resulted from a scribe reading a similar phrase earlier in Matthew’s gospel and believing that it also belonged in Matt. 19:9,

Matt. 5:31. “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

We find the exception clause here in verse 32, but notice why it is included here—if a man divorces his wife he makes her commit adultery except for the cases where she has already done so.

How can we be sure that the exception clause does not belong in Matt. 19:9? We cannot be certain, but its addition to that verse totally changes the relevance of the clause and allows an adulterous marriage to take place. Further evidence that it does not belong in Matt. 19:9 is found in the immediately preceding verses and in the following verse:

Matt. 19:10. The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”

His disciples were clearly shocked by what Jesus was teaching; and they were shocked because what Jesus was teaching was totally new to them. The Jewish leaders of the day were divided over the issue—some of them arguing that divorce was allowed for any reason and others were arguing that it was allowed only in the case where the wife had committed adultery (women were not allowed to divorce their husbands)—but Jesus was teaching that husbands could not divorce their wives even if they committed adultery!

Luke 16:18. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

And, of course, if the exception clause is genuine, we have Matthew not only directly contradicting Mark, Luke, and Paul—but also what he himself had just written in vv. 3-8 of the same chapter.


We find Paul applying this Biblical truth in Romans 7:

1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.
4. Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

Just as a woman is free to remarry ONLY after the death of her husband, a potential member of the body of Christ is free to become the bride of Christ ONLY after the death of her (the church and its members are always spoken of in the feminine gender since Christ is the groom) husband, that is, “the old man,” the “old nature,” “the old self.” If her husband is still alive, and she becomes a “Christian,” she is committing adultery with Christ. The Christian’s former self was under the Law and all of its demands and penalties, but when that former self is crucified with Christ and is dead and buried (Rom. 6), that former self is no longer under the Law and the “new man” is married to Christ and is a new creation,

2 Cor. 5:17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. (NKJV)

Gal. 2:20. “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

Only upon the death of one’s spouse is one free to remarry, both in the physical realm and in the spiritual realm. In the 1950’s, the divorce rate in the United States was 5%; today it is nearly 51% with the highest divorce rate being among “evangelical Christians.” Our churches and pulpits are becoming full of “Christians” living in adulterous second, third, and fourth marriages while their first spouse and their old nature are very much alive and they are committing adultery not only against their first spouse but also against Christ!

(All Scripture quotations are from the NASB, 1995, unless otherwise noted)

 

[tall73]

In addressing this post, I would like for the sake of the reading audience; to keep this dialogue at its most basic terminology. When 'technical' terms are used, I would like to supply the most basic definition possible, lest we may loose any participants that may not be familiar with the terminologies of the subject. Agreed?

Jack

Carry on