Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[verysincere]

I think it is likely that what we have is pretty close to the originals, but it's hardly beyond reasonable doubt. I think this is certainly something that has to be considered.

Yet it has tended to be a verbotten subject, even in evangelical academia at the highest levels. The curriculum always stresses that inerrancy applies to the original autographs only---but the absence of those autographs is rarely discussed other than by that mention.

 

[46AND2]

Yet it has tended to be a verbotten subject, even in evangelical academia at the highest levels. The curriculum always stresses that inerrancy applies to the original autographs only---but the absence of those autographs is rarely discussed other than by that mention.

I agree, and this is why I am enjoying reading the debates between Bart Ehrman and other scholars, because he is finally starting to ask academia these questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet it has tended to be a verbotten subject, even in evangelical academia at the highest levels.

Speaking of academia at the highest levels ...

Psalm 62:9 Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity.

 

[Radagast]

The curriculum always stresses that inerrancy applies to the original autographs only---but the absence of those autographs is rarely discussed other than by that mention.

Of course it is discussed. And there's an acknowledgement that the text we have is 99.99% or so of the original autographs... leaving the possibility that for some disputed passages we might not know exactly which way the original autographs read.

 

[verysincere]

Of course it is discussed. And there's an acknowledgement that the text we have is 99.99% or so of the original autographs... leaving the possibility that for some disputed passages we might not know exactly which way the original autographs read.

I've served on faculties in both the UK and USA and attended AAR/SBL and ETS for many years. Yet the potential gap between the autgraphs and the earliest mss. is not often discussed in evangelical circles except for the brief reassurance that the gap is not a problem (usually using exactly the language you just used.)

Now I'm not trying to imply that there is some huge problem with that gap----but those who do dare raise that issue make the others uncomfortable. Why? Because of the possible implications for inerrancy.

I was involved in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I retired some years ago so if you are telling me that the atmosphere has radically changed since I left evangelical academia, I won't correct you. But I will remain surprised to hear it.

 

[Radagast]

I've served on faculties in both the UK and USA and attended AAR/SBL and ETS for many years. Yet the potential gap between the autgraphs and the earliest mss. is not often discussed in evangelical circles

That's really odd, because it's implicit in every single textual discussion about what the original text said.

 

[46AND2]

Of course it is discussed. And there's an acknowledgement that the text we have is 99.99% or so of the original autographs... leaving the possibility that for some disputed passages we might not know exactly which way the original autographs read.

Sorry, but you can't possibly know this. You might be able to determine that you have 99.99% of the common ancestor to the extant manuscripts, but you can't know that that common ancestor is the original autograph.

 

[verysincere]

That's really odd, because it's implicit in every single textual discussion about what the original text said.

Clearly we are talking about two different issues. You're talking the mechanics. I'm talking about the implications, especially as manifested in the ST classroom.

 

[Radagast]

Clearly we are talking about two different issues. You're talking the mechanics. I'm talking about the implications, especially as manifested in the ST classroom.

I don't really see the distinction. One implies the other.

 

[Radagast]

Sorry, but you can't possibly know this. You might be able to determine that you have 99.99% of the common ancestor to the extant manuscripts, but you can't know that that common ancestor is the original autograph.

One can't know for certain, but given the geographical spread of the various ancient manuscripts, it's most likely that the common ancestor is the original autograph.

 

[46AND2]

One can't know for certain, but given the geographical spread of the various ancient manuscripts, it's most likely that the common ancestor is the original autograph.

Sorry, but that's a pretty big assumption, considering we don't really know how they were circulated and distributed in the early years of the church.

 

[Caesars Ghost]

This would all tend to concern me back in the day when I was just a baby Platapus with not a care in the world...

Seriously though I think we could all get along, creationists, YE's, evolutionists, if we could realize that warring over how it all started, is really altering the quality of life we have here and now as we all think we have a vested interest in being absolutely right about what we will never know with absolute certainty.

"The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief" , was one of the best books I ever read. I think it would help a lot of Christians and even evolutionists to see there is no true competition to being the exclusive owners of the one truth in this matter.
When it can very easily be that creationists and evolutionists are not mutually exclusive ideologies.

 

[46AND2]

This would all tend to concern me back in the day when I was just a baby Platapus with not a care in the world...

Seriously though I think we could all get along, creationists, YE's, evolutionists, if we could realize that warring over how it all started, is really altering the quality of life we have here and now as we all think we have a vested interest in being absolutely right about what we will never know with absolute certainty.

"The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief" , was one of the best books I ever read. I think it would help a lot of Christians and even evolutionists to see there is no true competition to being the exclusive owners of the one truth in this matter.
When it can very easily be that creationists and evolutionists are not mutually exclusive ideologies.

I don't have a vested interest in being right. I don't argue these things to just to debate with people who disagree with me. I discuss these things to learn, and gather more evidence. Find out where I am wrong, and where I am right. To see as many sides of the argument as I can. Because I know that I am both right and wrong about various things.

 

[46AND2]

One can't know for certain, but given the geographical spread of the various ancient manuscripts, it's most likely that the common ancestor is the original autograph.

The problem is that we don't have nearly enough early manuscripts (nor are the ones we have old enough) to really find THE common ancestor.

For example:

Let's say that we have so far only found copies of the OT from 700 C.E. and later, like the Masoretic text. But let's say we have a lot of them, and compare them all, and find out that Goliath is 6 cubits 6 span tall in all (or at least a consensus) of the manuscripts. It's safe to assume that the common ancestor for these manuscripts ALSO said Goliath was that tall.

And this is true. Most late manuscripts have him at this height.

But, now let's say we find earlier manuscripts, like the 4QSama, Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, and the work of Josephus which say that Goliath was only 4 cubits 6 span.

Well, now we must have a new, and different, common ancestor, despite the fact that by the time the 700 C.E. texts were around, the geographical distribution is wide, and they were still able to get a consensus figure for Goliath's height which was probably wrong. It only takes the distribution of a popular, but erroneous, copy to establish this. The Latin Vulgate may have contributed to this particular event.

So...Given that the New Testament books were not even as well established as the OT was when the OT obtained a "new common ancestor," how can you know that there were not similar events between the autographs and the earliest extant manuscripts?

Keep in mind, also, that most of the earliest NT manuscripts are just fragments, and we often don't have full texts of some books until close to 300 C.E.

 

[Jamin4422]

Sorry, but that's a pretty big assumption, considering we don't really know how they were circulated and distributed in the early years of the church.

In the Book of Rev John only recognized 7 churches. They all received a copy of his letter. Jesus use to preach in the synagogues. There was no record of Him carrying the Scriptures around with him. If he wanted something read he would call for the Scrolls and they would bring it to Him so He could read what He wanted to read. If they were outside of a synagogue then they would usually quote or paraphrase from memory.

 

[Radagast]

Sorry, but that's a pretty big assumption, considering we don't really know how they were circulated and distributed in the early years of the church.

Yes, we do. We find fairly early copies in Egypt, for example, e.g. the Rylands Papyrus -- only a few decades after the autograph of John.

 

[46AND2]

In the Book of Rev John only recognized 7 churches. They all received a copy of his letter. Jesus use to preach in the synagogues. There was no record of Him carrying the Scriptures around with him. If he wanted something read he would call for the Scrolls and they would bring it to Him so He could read what He wanted to read. If they were outside of a synagogue then they would usually quote or paraphrase from memory.

Sorry, did this tie in to what I was saying somehow, or was it just anecdotal?

 

[Radagast]

Keep in mind, also, that most of the earliest NT manuscripts are just fragments, and we often don't have full texts of some books until close to 300 C.E.

But the fragments are consistent with the later manuscripts, and imply a low probability for major changes in the intervening years. Basically, the common ancestor is inferred using less mathematical versions of the methods used to infer ancestral gene sequences in biology.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, we do. We find fairly early copies in Egypt, for example, e.g. the Rylands Papyrus -- only a few decades after the autograph of John.

Sure, fragments. That hardly contributes to finding the common ancestor of the manuscripts. That one is like the size of a credit card.

 

[46AND2]

But the fragments are consistent with the later manuscripts, and imply a low probability for major changes in the intervening years. Basically, the common ancestor is inferred using less mathematical versions of the methods used to infer ancestral gene sequences in biology.

I never said anything about major changes. Interpolations were usually pretty small, but it doesn't take much to significantly change the meaning of a segment. And if that change is found in a particularly popular manuscript, it will be more likely to be passed on, while a more correct, but less popular manuscript meets a dead end.