 |
| Recent Okanagan trip: Lake Okanagan |
My Aunt from Calgary, kindly recently sent me a thoughtful blog post. I emailed back and stated I would comment after I returned from my short trip.
Hole News August 17 2016
Cited
'Oh Weary Me Posted on August 17, 2016 by grandpalloyd'
'I’m weary of mincing words to appear theologically correct. Claiming the Bible as we have it is inerrant, free from all flaws, is a stretch.'
The scribal copies do contain errors. There are no original biblical documents extant. I view the original biblical autographs as divinely inspired and inerrant.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 English Standard Version (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God[a] may be complete, equipped for every good work.
From Religious Facts
Religious Facts
The link is no longer available, but I will source the site and then link my Satire Und Theology article where I posted material from the link.
Satire Und Theology October 31 2006
Cited from Religious Facts
'No original manuscripts of the original Greek New Testament have been found. However, a large number of ancient manuscript copies have been discovered, and modern translations of the New Testament are based on these copies. As one would expect, they contain some scribal errors. In fact, "there is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes."'
Encountering The New Testament (2013) basically agrees stating that there are copying mistakes in manuscripts (11). I would add, that it is obvious to anyone that compares different manuscript versions, in New Testament Greek, that they are not always identical. But the New Testament is the 'best-attested writing in antiquity.' (11). There are close to six thousand biblical manuscripts with at least fragments for the New Testament. (11). There is also a brief time lapse between gospel events and their documentation as originals as autographs to copies. (11).
It is true that scribal, copying errors are found, and perhaps it can be deduced some 'theologizing' and agenda is possible by scribes. Because of the vast amount of manuscripts and the closeness in time period to the originals this makes it philosophically certain that the bible is internally consistent theologically. In other words, as there are so many copies in extant and there is only a brief time lapse from originals to copies. New Testament theology has not been significantly compromised, doctrinally. It is consistent.
I am not meaning 100% certainty, but that the internal and external arguments for Scripture are better than counter arguments. I am certain that I exist, but as I do not have infinite knowledge, I am not 100% certain.
The Encountering texts states that transition was not perfect, but it was more than reliable enough for us to have little doubt in what the New Testament writers first wrote. (12). There are no grounds for any serious theological doubts. (12). The New Testament is internally consistent. It is near 100% certainty of accuracy. (12).
This would not allow for any reasonable conspiracy theory of a corruption in original theology. Revisionist theology for modern times, that contradicts biblical theology is not a reasonable approach within a biblical worldview. In the same way, although older manuscripts, the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament: '...became a cannon, authoritative collection of documents. (8). These writings were accepted as Scripture by Jesus Christ, his Apostles and disciples. (8). The Hebrew Bible as older will also not provide perfect copies of originals, but it still provides accurate historical religious history.
Cited from Hole News:
'Do you really believe two-million souls wandered the barren Sinai with their herds and flocks for 40 years? Sanitation alone defies imagining. Might an ancient editor or copyist have exaggerated a tad?'
It would be speculation to reason that a scribe or related 'exaggerated.' To make such a proposition true here in context, would require documented manuscript evidence that this is scribal exaggeration. Sanitation was primitive in ancient times and it seems to me would not indicate that this story is exaggerated, in any sense. I am not an Old Testament scholar, but this does not read as serious critique. It seems to me that primitive sanitation as opposed to modern sanitation would make sense within an ancient transient culture.
Scripture, based on divine supernatural revelation, as religious history, should be accepted in proper context. Scripture is presented as literal, non-fiction and not mythological fiction. Is as particular section of scripture written in plain literal language, such as with prose, or with figurative literal language, such as with poetry?
Cited
'The incarnation is our faith’s ultimate mystery. Is every line of Scripture historically and scientifically literal?'
The Scripture is not a scientific text, but inspiration from the infinite, perfect, God, in the original autographs would guarantee it is error free. The context of biblical literature needs to be understood. Agreed.
ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.
