Unfortunately, as we've seen from our debates here over archaeological evidence and the oldest existing written versions of Scripture, the written word can change. Without God's miraculous intervention, the written word of Scripture would most likely have been corrupted. The difference between your perspective and the Orthodox perspective seems to be that we believe that God has also miraculously intervened to preserve the other, non-written aspects of Holy Tradition from corruption as well. This is why the Orthodox are convinced that the written Scripture and the other aspects of Holy Tradition form a seamless whole. They do not conflict, any more than one book of the Bible conflicts with another. They are together preserved inviolate by God. Thus any question about what to do when one aspect of Holy Tradition "conflicts" with another in nonsensical. If there is any conflict, it is not part of Holy Tradition. Christ Bless.
The Word of God is no ordinary writing. He has promised to preserve it forever. If He hasn’t then He lied to us and He is not God.
Without God's miraculous intervention, the written word of Scripture would most likely have been corrupted.
So has it changed or hasn’t it? I believe it hasn’t.
The difference between your perspective and the Orthodox perspective seems to be that we believe that God has also miraculously intervened to preserve the other, non-written aspects of Holy Tradition from corruption as well. This is why the Orthodox are convinced that the written Scripture and the other aspects of Holy Tradition form a seamless whole. They do not conflict, any more than one book of the Bible conflicts with another. They are together preserved inviolate by God. Thus any question about what to do when one aspect of Holy Tradition "conflicts" with another in nonsensical. If there is any conflict, it is not part of Holy Tradition. Christ Bless.
So the Bible, in the Orthodox view, is in the set called Holy Tradition?
-ksen