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)
And, rejecting what God says is another. (Pr.13:13)
To which I say: rubbish!. There is no love in threats. Love does not conquer by fear.
But was't the only version of the OT.
No, the TR is totally accurate and dependable and has been received by the church for 2000 years
You live in denial.
Based on a correct copy of a copy etc
You have no proof that any copy is a "correct" copy. We are talking even fragments dating decades, even centuries after the supposed 'originals.' The oldest complete Bible is mid 4th century and its Gospel of mark ends on verse 9:8 (the critical verses 9-20 were added at a later date).
Nonsense, the local churches had long accepted the books long before the 'father's' got around to 'officially' recognizing them.
Dream on. The local churches, even Rome, were reading all sorts of things that are not in the Bible today. And many local churches were not reading what is in the Bible today. For one, the oldest complete Bible (C. Sinaiticus) has two books that have been discarded since then. Constantinople did not use the revelation of John until the 9th century!
Saved souls and changed lives.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but other religions make the same claim and show the same "fruit." Get real!
No, we have the perfect words of Christ, passed down and preserved, much of it by the Byzantine church
Another sweeping myth without a shred of evidence. Nice way to "discuss," isn't it? Just make up the answer.
No, 'faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God'
Then don't read! Just listen! You may hear something.
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
You seem to accept what you want to be true, since you are not willing to admit what are glaring examples of inconsistencies in the biblical texts and other facts.
You will probably tell me that cavemen and dinosaur bones are a lie, and Genesis is not a myth but 'just the way it happened.'
So I guess according to you, we can't trust any ancient work, since we do not have the originals of them either.
Trust is one thing. Believe with all your heart in them as absolute, immutable truth is a differ requirement. I trust that many people wrote the Bible. I trust that even more people copied them, added and deleated and altered them.
The headings are part of the Greek text
No one mentions any of the authors of Gospels by name for over a century. All references to what we find in Gospels are made as "the Lord Jesus Christ said..." until Irenaeus actually (c. 200 AD) began using presumed author's names.
Ancient books, including those in the Bible, were titled by the first sentence and not by the author. Thus the Hebrew name for Genesis is Bereishyit (lit. "in the beginning"). In Exodus, in Hebrew called Shemut, it;'s the second word because the first one means 'now.' Leviticus, Vayikra in Hebrew, again, is the first word, etc.
The Gospels are anonymous. If the original Greek text had "kata" (according to ... and the name of the author) they wouldn't be anonymous, genius, would they?