While the books of the Bible contain references to scripture that is currently unavailable, there are also many different versions of the Bible which contain different books. It is a false notion that the Bible has been and is a fixed set of scripture. Various editors have removed and added books to their version of the Bible based on their beliefs. Further the text of the Bible has been altered by copyists over the centuries. That is purpose of the field of NT textual criticism, to create a version of the NT that is as close as possible to the original text.
A good popular book on the subject is: "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why"
mormon infatuation with atheists like Bart Ehrman when it comes to attacking the bible.
Popular among whom?
A good popular book on the subject is: “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”
- - - - - - - - - -
Actually that is completely incorrect. I know Bart and have worked with him. Sadly he is what many of us call a ‘fallen scholar’. IOW, his atheism and hatred of Christianity has had a negative effect on his scholarship and he is no longer considered to be a good or reliable source much like what happened to Hugh J. Schonfield.
Ehrman has become like the crazy aunt at the family picnic, you are polite but avoid him at all costs.
For someone to suggest Misquoting Jesus as a good or reliable source shows they don’t know much about the field. It would be the equivalent of an ‘armchair Egyptologist’ recommending E.A. Wallis Budge.
While the books of the Bible contain references to scripture that is currently unavailable, there are also many different versions of the Bible which contain different books. It is a false notion that the Bible has been and is a fixed set of scripture. Various editors have removed and added books to their version of the Bible based on their beliefs. Further the text of the Bible has been altered by copyists over the centuries.
- - - - - — - -
Typical disparagment of the Bible.
As early as the 4th century we have the full canon listed IN THE CURRENT ORDER. The ‘varients’ of the Bible are miniscule mostly involving word order or spelling variations that are easily determinable. There are less than 250 actual variants and NONE of those affect matters of faith or doctrine.
I would recommend, as introductory works, From God To Us:How We Got Our Bible - Norman Geisler (Author), William Nix (Author) and also The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.
It is a false notion that the Bible has been and is a fixed set of scripture...Further the text of the Bible has been altered by copyists over the centuries. [TheDon]
You know, I've seen Lds commercials on TV over the years offering free KJV Bibles. Now, TheDon, if your two statements above were placed in a commercial that immediately followed up those commercials, wouldn't that constitute being an "anti-Mormon free KJV Bible" commercial?
How can the Lds Church HQ marketing committee say one thing about an implied endorsement of the KJV Bible in one venue -- all the while you seemingly say something totally opposite in another venue?
Also, how can that in ANY WAY be construed as "ecumenical" -- when you are diametrically opposing implied endorsements realed off as commercials?
Now that I've asked you about endorsements & opposition, can I ask you about content issues?
You imply that we have no "standard" copies to measure that against any 3rd or 4th generational copies that may have been "altered by copyists over the centuries."
That sounds to me that you're taking a "de-evolution" type argument. The "evolution" argument about the creation of the earth is that given enough time, time will put life on earth. It seems to me that you're "de-evolution" argument you're setting forth, is that if you give enough generational time, copyists will make errors.
Now what seems to be at odds with this argument? The fact is that even not having any NT manuscript copies earlier than the 4th century, we can piece together the NT as it appeared within 150-200 years of Jesus' earthly life. How? The early church fathers. They quoted their NT in their writings. Extensively. To the degree that we can piece together the 2nd century NT -- except for a mere 11 verses -- all on the basis of their writings.
Now, some Lds claim the Bible was corrupted by the 4th century. Others claim it began to be corrupted by early 2nd century -- when the disciples were dead or almost dying off. But you know, that's an argument from silence. Where's the proof of that?
My analogy in all of this: Imagine you live in the year 3750. No original Doctrine & Covenants exists. Only copies of copies, or copies of copies of copies. But you have an extensive Mormon historical library that includes Lds writers from the 20th, 21st, and 22nd centuries. And from these writers, you can re-piece together with certainty what the "original" D&C looked like between the periods of 1835-1976...except for 11 verses.
So, TheDon, would you then claim, if the "earliest" published D&C on hand in 3750 was one copied from around 2210, that the D&C had been "altered" by republishers "over the centuries"??? (Yes? No?)
(Oh, and BTW...do you highlight in your threads & posts that we already know that the BoM has been altered by editors over the past less than 200 years?...AND that we know that Mormons don't have the original BoM???...That books are missing???...)