Posted on 12/11/2015 2:00:41 PM PST by SeekAndFind
IF any of these things are true about the Bible, are they not also true of the Quran(Koran), The Torah, etc. ?
I think we can have a very, very high degree of confidence we have the original words as originally written.
It’s based on how many older copies there are, I think, because of this: “currently we possess more than 5,500 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek alone. No other document of antiquity even comes close.”
As for The Torah, the Scribes would have been tenacious at copying with perfectionism. Have no idea about any others, nor are they worthy.
I think the problem with most skeptics is this ... their argument is since we do not have the original autograph, we can never be sure that what we have today :
1) Has not been corrupted ( i.e. copyists ADDING things to the original that was not there, hence, bringing in new doctrine that was not in the original ).
2) Has not been transmitted erroneously
This is why it is fundamental to have one holy catholic apostolic church from the First Century until this hour.
> “We have only error-ridden copies”
Let’s see a professional third party unbiased exposition os said errors because to my knowledge the conformance of scripture is remarkably preserved, so much so that it is a testament to divine inspiration.
What is the right reading in Luke 2.14: eudokias (genitive) or eudokia (nominative)? This is the origin of the difference between the Catholic and Protestant translations. Is it "peace among human beings of good will (eudokias)" or "peace, good will among human beings (eudokia)"?
Both versions have the support of many early manuscripts as well as from quotations in the Church Fathers.
What is the right reading in Luke 2.14: eudokias (genitive) or eudokia (nominative)? This is the origin of the difference between the Catholic and Protestant translations. Is it "peace among human beings of good will (eudokias)" or "peace, good will among human beings (eudokia)"?
Both versions have the support of many early manuscripts as well as from quotations in the Church Fathers.
read
RE: This is why it is fundamental to have one holy catholic apostolic church from the First Century until this hour.
How did the holy catholic apostolic church ensure that what was copied was indeed faithful to the original seeing how far flung the Roman empire was and how many copies there were circulating out there?
Was there a CENTRAL place during the early first century that informed every Christian in the Roman Empire that THIS ONE COPY (say) is the basis by which all copies have to be based on?
And yet, the vulgate got Luke 1:28 wrong.
I would not trust Bart Erhman... at all.
RE: This article is quackery
how is the article in opposition to the arguments in the link you just provided?
...eek. Sorry did not read past first paragraph before saying that. Please let me amend my assertion: the kind of critism he is addressing is quackery.
You want the authentic Bible? The real thing? It’s the King James Bible!
+1
Meaning to offence, but God our Loving Father knew that all of this would happen: misspellings, doctrine changes etc.
So he gave it to his Son, Jesus to say: âBut the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.â John 14:26
Without the Holy Spirit, not a single word of the Holy Scriptures can ever be understood. Is there any wonder that no one can agree.
The Spirit brings the Holy Scriptures to Life
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.