Nonsense. We can obtain an 'average' or 'common' baseline but have no proof that they reflect the original writings to any extent.
We have noted how carefully the Jews copied their texts.
How some Palestinian Jews copied their version of the OT.
The TR differs very little between the various manuscripts (unlike the Critical text)
Nonsense. TR is not the norm, and neither is the CR. These are conjectures based on extant copies of copies, mixted with mythology and other manipulations that were applied to Christian writings.
Sure I can, I can quote Christ who stated Moses did in Mt. 8:4; Jn. 5:46; 7:19.
And you have absolutely zero proof that that is exactly what Christ said or that He even said it! You simply take it on faith, based on a copy of a copy or caopy...
In other words, you are doubting the word of God but are replacing it with the consensus of men.
Why should I trust an individual opinion and not a consensual agreement of many as better? The blasphemous claim that somehow individual believers are guided by the Holy Spirit and denying that the same is true of the whole Church has no legs to stand on. There is a much greater likelyhood that an individual will be wrong than the entire Church.
The entire Canon was accepted by the Body of Christ (the church), long before any 'official' recognition of it occurred.
Nonsense. The fathers were arguing over what is scripture and what is not. NT detero-canonicals were probably not even written before the 2nd century.
The proof is in the fruit that it produced.
Really? And what would that fruit be?
Christ attested to the complete Old Testament (minus the Apocrypha books) and by the end of the 1st century, we had the complete New Testament Books, the same books we have today and the same that your church accepts as well.
No, copies of the copies of different and differing texts, altered, manipulated and oytherwise changed by individual scribes, that are accepted as official truth tell us what Christ supposedly attested to.
We don't know who wrote them, or if they simply copied someone else, or spoke on account of a popular myth, or if they actually witnessed it. You accept it on faith what some men wrote.
Well, the only way you know of the birth, death, and Resurrection of Christ is through those Scriptures, so you have to accept them.
Yes, that is unfortunate, isn't it, for we must depend on undependable writings of men to put our entire belief in God in that. On faith alone. However, it is not the only way to know. There is circumstantial evidence to show that the turth may be somewhat different.
What you want is the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest.
Not much different that wanting the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest.
The Greek heading tell us who the author is, just as it does Hebrews.
Those are latter-day additions. You obviously know nothing about how the books were titled in 1st century AD, and are not aware of the fact that first clear refrences to authorship (even as hints) did not exist until about 150 AD. For at least 65 years or more after the Gospels were written, no one creditted any of the Apostles in quoting from the Gospels.
No, I am not concerned with those two men at all, I have a King James Bible that gives me the correct authorship, coming from the correct Greek text, with the authors name on it.
The ostrich approach works for some people, I guess.
God certainly did and used men to do so, just as He used men to get the Originals to us.
No He didn't. The Church did nothing to preserve the originals for posterity. Obviously they didn't put much value in originals. We don't have originals of any kind when it comes to the Bible. None, Zip, Zilch, Zero.
But, burying one's head in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine is an option, I suppose.
Ofcourse we can, based on the number of accurate manuscripts that we have, we can have complete confidence that we have an exact replication of the Originals in our King James Bible.
We have noted how carefully the Jews copied their texts. How some Palestinian Jews copied their version of the OT.
And they copied it very accurately as shown by the DSS discovery of Isaiah.
The TR differs very little between the various manuscripts (unlike the Critical text) Nonsense. TR is not the norm, and neither is the CR. These are conjectures based on extant copies of copies, mixted with mythology and other manipulations that were applied to Christian writings.
No, the TR is totally accurate and dependable and has been received by the church for 2000 years.
Sure I can, I can quote Christ who stated Moses did in Mt. 8:4; Jn. 5:46; 7:19. And you have absolutely zero proof that that is exactly what Christ said or that He even said it! You simply take it on faith, based on a copy of a copy or caopy...
Based on a correct copy of a copy etc.
Just like I know that He rose from the Dead from a copy of a copy of a copy.
In other words, you are doubting the word of God but are replacing it with the consensus of men. Why should I trust an individual opinion and not a consensual agreement of many as better? The blasphemous claim that somehow individual believers are guided by the Holy Spirit and denying that the same is true of the whole Church has no legs to stand on. There is a much greater likelyhood that an individual will be wrong than the entire Church.
Well, we Protestants hold to a consensus also, a consensus of the 1 and 2nd century Christians who accepted the Canon (66) and the correct Hebrew and Greek text.
The entire Canon was accepted by the Body of Christ (the church), long before any 'official' recognition of it occurred. Nonsense. The fathers were arguing over what is scripture and what is not. NT detero-canonicals were probably not even written before the 2nd century.
Nonsense, the local churches had long accepted the books long before the 'father's' got around to 'officially' recognizing them.
The proof is in the fruit that it produced. Really? And what would that fruit be?
Saved souls and changed lives.
Christ attested to the complete Old Testament (minus the Apocrypha books) and by the end of the 1st century, we had the complete New Testament Books, the same books we have today and the same that your church accepts as well. No, copies of the copies of different and differing texts, altered, manipulated and oytherwise changed by individual scribes, that are accepted as official truth tell us what Christ supposedly attested to.
No, we have the perfect words of Christ, passed down and preserved, much of it by the Byzantine church.
We don't know who wrote them, or if they simply copied someone else, or spoke on account of a popular myth, or if they actually witnessed it. You accept it on faith what some men wrote.
No, the evidence is very clear on comparing manuscripts.
We have far better accuracy in the scriptures then in the writings of Plato of Caesar.
So I guess according to you, we can't trust any ancient work, since we do not have the originals of them either.
Well, the only way you know of the birth, death, and Resurrection of Christ is through those Scriptures, so you have to accept them. Yes, that is unfortunate, isn't it, for we must depend on undependable writings of men to put our entire belief in God in that. On faith alone. However, it is not the only way to know. There is circumstantial evidence to show that the turth may be somewhat different.
No, 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God'
What you want is the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest. Not much different that wanting the 'freedom' to accept what you want and reject the rest.
No, I accept what is true based on what the Bible says to be true and the evidence that it has indeed been preserved by God led men.
The Greek heading tell us who the author is, just as it does Hebrews. Those are latter-day additions. You obviously know nothing about how the books were titled in 1st century AD, and are not aware of the fact that first clear refrences to authorship (even as hints) did not exist until about 150 AD. For at least 65 years or more after the Gospels were written, no one creditted any of the Apostles in quoting from the Gospels.
More Higher Criticism nonsense.
The headings are part of the Greek text.
There is no legimate reason to doubt that Matthew wrote it.
No, I am not concerned with those two men at all, I have a King James Bible that gives me the correct authorship, coming from the correct Greek text, with the authors name on it. The ostrich approach works for some people, I guess.
And the critical approach, rejecting truth, works for others.
God certainly did and used men to do so, just as He used men to get the Originals to us. No He didn't. The Church did nothing to preserve the originals for posterity. Obviously they didn't put much value in originals. We don't have originals of any kind when it comes to the Bible. None, Zip, Zilch, Zero.
We don't have the originals, because we don't need the originals, we have perfect copies of them.
But, burying one's head in the sand and pretending the sun doesn't shine is an option, I suppose.
And, rejecting what God says is another. (Pr.13:13)
http://www.antiochian.org/1123705782
The Bible - Greatest Monument of Mankind
There are distinguished persons and distinguished monuments which stand out in the annals of history. Their lives were full of adventure as they faced the tremendous opposition of their contemporaries as well as accepting enormous sacrifice in their own lives. One of the monuments, the greatest in the history of the world, is the Bible. It has met great challenges of its literal expression as well as its trials over its validity and accuracy. The critical scrutiny of the Bible is the most thorough effort and examination that has ever been made of a literary work from the beginning of time, an examination challenging its integrity, and meaning. Its words, thoughts and personalities have been the subject of controversial discussion and debate through the centuries, both in its original language and its translation. From approximately 12 centuries before the Christian Era through 20 centuries since (the former for the Old Testament and the latter for both the Old and New Testament), its construction, correction and restoration was achieved. The Bible is stronger today than ever before, despite the "scientific" effort to replace it with human elements of the laboratory and technology. The Bible is so different from other literary works of famous writers whose names are mentioned in the history of scientific findings that only a Superhuman Providence has kept it alive through its orbit of destiny. The Bible has been inscribed on stone, papyrus, lamb skin, in the memories of men and in the hearts of the people.
This extraordinary adventure of the Bible, a written document of historical validity, is so because its content and mission is different from all other examples of human literature, regardless of their valuable content of knowledge and human wisdom. The Bible was written by different writers over an extensive period of time, especially the Old Testament. The writers of the Old Testament began with Moses, covering 12 centuries before Christ and continuing through the writers of the historical, poetical, instructive and prophetic books, together with the writers of the New Testament, writing over a period of 50 years. They find themselves in agreement on thoughts, purpose, destination and mission. The readers of the Bible are overwhelmed and astonished to find these harmonious elements of destiny and purpose. No other literature of this kind exists. A close coherence of the Old and New Testaments, keeping their content intact their continuity in "promises" and "fulfillments", links them together so closely. The various writings of the Old and New Testaments witness one Editor with Authority that permeate their thoughts.
http://goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp