The idea of an "evil cabal" manipulating and changing the canonical books of the Bible to deceive is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers. The biblical text is incredibly well-preserved due to the vast number of manuscripts spanning various geographical locations and time periods. Additionally, the early church fathers extensively quoted and referenced biblical passages in their writings.
The sheer volume of manuscripts, along with the geographical spread and diverse sources, makes it virtually impossible for any secretive group to alter the text without detection. Scholars and researchers compare these manuscripts, employing rigorous methods of textual criticism to ensure the accuracy of the biblical text. If any significant alterations had been attempted, the discrepancies would have been readily apparent in the multitude of manuscripts and early citations.
In essence, the collaborative efforts of countless scribes, the geographic distribution of manuscripts, and the vigilance of early church writers make the idea of a covert manipulation of the biblical text implausible and inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.
Consider what Bart Ehrman (an Agnostic American scholar of religious studies, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Textual Critic, and an author of several books on the New Testament and early Christianity) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:
"Essentially, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last century affect words or phrases alone; only about one per cent involve substantial differences in meaning. Many of these are easily recognized and corrected."
"In fact, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last hundred years affect words or phrases alone. Many of these variants are so minor that they have no impact whatsoever on the meaning of the text."
"The essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."
These quotes are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."
While I can appreciate your perspective, it's essential to distinguish between translation revisions and alterations to the biblical text itself. The changes you're referring to in newer editions of the KJV often involve updates to language, grammar, punctuation, and formatting for readability and clarity. However, these revisions do not affect the underlying meaning or content of the biblical message.
When Biblical scholars discuss the preservation of the biblical text, they focus on the accuracy and integrity of the original manuscripts and their faithful transmission over time, rather than changes made in subsequent translations or editions for linguistic or stylistic reasons.
Again, wrong. You should do a self-project and do as I offered: find an old Bible, then a new. Plenty has been changed to dilute, convolute, or outright change the context/meaning.
If that's too much for you, because it is quite the time consuming ordeal, I know there are a couple channels on YouTube that covers this as well...and they're spot on.
My, fren. I have done extensive study in this arena. I have also studied textual critics (one of which I quoted for you from his book, which you clearly haven't read) who study the transmission of the Biblical manuscripts and copies. It is painfully clear that you really aren't familiar with how Bibliographic manuscript evidence is studied and scrutinized.
is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers.
Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:
Every single one of the creators of the resultant doctrine was acting in earnest without any ulterior motives but The Truth.
The result of their efforts is The Truth, i.e., the assumption is that they got it all correct (regardless of intent)
The people who came to different conclusions than the "Church Fathers," of which there were many, were absolutely incorrect wherever they disagreed with said "Church Fathers"
That all records of what the people had to say of importance still exist today.
There are some criticisms of these assumptions:
There is substantial evidence of ulterior motives in The Church that was created as a result of their efforts .For example, the design of The Church at the end (which we call the Catholic Church today) was to control the populace and unite the Roman Empire under a god-emperor. This end result doesn't prove ulterior motives for all people through all time during the entire creation of the resultant doctrine, but it does show that ulterior motives exist for some of the people involved. There are more examples than this.
There is no way to know what the Truth is, but it is taken "on faith" that what these people created represents that Truth, even though that much was left out is not controversial. The justification for the removal of certain works is that the Church Fathers believed that evidence belonged in "the bad box." So here we rely on their assessment as "experts," not our own investigation or consideration.
Like 2, this relies on faith in the same people, not on the process of reason. Those that disagreed were silenced by the Church Fathers "expertise" and "correctness." They were also silenced by provable destruction of their work, by laws and on penalty of death.
Four is easily shown false. We have no doubts that many writings were destroyed. It is commonly justified similarly to the other assumptions, that they had good reason to destroy the "heresy." There are likely entire categories of things destroyed by The Church of which we will never know. The Vatican is notorious for control of all information regarding these things. We rely on the information we have. We know that information is controlled and has been destroyed by the same entity that gave us the bulk of today's official doctrine. This is important information in any effort to reason the truth about this development.
inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.
Two things:
This suggests you have seen enough of the evidence to glean the truth, yet you have admitted that some evidence isn't worth consideration because it has been placed in "the bad box" (Gnostic e.g.).
This assumes that enough of the evidence has survived the purge that we know happened to make reasonable determinations.
Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.
Consider what Bart Ehrman (an Agnostic American scholar of religious studies, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Textual Critic, and an author of several books on the New Testament and early Christianity - and Critic of Christianity) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:
"Essentially, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last century affect words or phrases alone; only about one per cent involve substantial differences in meaning. Many of these are easily recognized and corrected."
"In fact, most of the changes found in the manuscripts discovered in the last hundred years affect words or phrases alone. Many of these variants are so minor that they have no impact whatsoever on the meaning of the text."
"The essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."
These quotes are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."
What is this intended to be evidence of? None of this addresses a single thing I said, indeed, it is a restatement of the same assumptions.
Also, the post you are responding to had some formatting errors which erased some of the points. I fixed them if you want to see what I actually said, though I don't think you are reading what I'm saying in full since you aren't addressing what I'm saying directly, so it may not matter.
I am reading your posts, Slyver. Im responding to the specific point the first commenter is making while responding to you in general.
The example of Bart Ehrman presents an intriguing perspective, particularly given your cautious approach to historical narratives and the history of the Bible.
Ehrman, renowned as both a textual scholar and a critic of Christianity, reaches the conclusion that our modern Biblical text is fundamentally accurate, despite variations and changes over time. His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment, as he lacks any motivation to deceive or misrepresent the truth regarding the transmission of the Bible.
Ehrman's dual role as a scholar and a critic adds depth to his analysis and underscores the robustness of his conclusions about the reliability of the biblical text.
Since you thought I wasn't being thorough enough in my previous response, I'll take another stab:
Ulterior Motives: While I think it's valid to acknowledge the potential influence of various motives among historical actors, it's important not to generalize these motives across all individuals involved in the transmission and canonization of biblical texts. While some may have had ulterior motives, it doesn't negate the sincerity and integrity of others who genuinely sought to preserve and transmit the teachings they believed to be true.
The existence of diverse motives does not invalidate the textual integrity of the Bible, especially when corroborated by extensive manuscript evidence and early citations.
Assumption of Absolute Truth: You rightly point out the complexities involved in determining absolute truth, yet this acknowledgment applies to all historical inquiry, not solely to the formation of biblical canon.
However, the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired. The consistency and coherence of the biblical narrative across multiple manuscripts and early citations provide compelling evidence for the reliability of its core teachings.
Silencing Dissent: While dissenting voices existed within early Christianity, the canonical process was not solely a matter of suppressing alternative viewpoints. Instead, it involved discerning which writings were most widely accepted, consistent with apostolic tradition, and in harmony with orthodox beliefs.
The inclusion of diverse perspectives within the New Testament, such as the Synoptic Gospels and Pauline Epistles, demonstrates a degree of theological diversity within early Christianity while maintaining essential doctrinal unity.
Selective Preservation of Evidence: While it's true that the historical record reflects selective preservation and occasional destruction of texts, it's essential to consider the robustness of manuscript evidence and early citations supporting the biblical texts.
The vast number of extant manuscripts, spanning diverse geographical regions and dating back to antiquity, attests to the widespread transmission and preservation of biblical writings. The consistent textual fidelity across these manuscripts provides strong support for the reliability and authenticity of the biblical text.
In summary, while acknowledging the complexities and challenges of historical inquiry, as you aptly do - including potential biases and motives among historical actors, it's crucial to approach the study of biblical texts with a balanced and critical perspective. The wealth of manuscript evidence, early citations, and textual consistency supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical texts, affirming their status as authoritative sources for understanding the Christian faith.
The idea of an "evil cabal" manipulating and changing the canonical books of the Bible to deceive is not supported by the extensive manuscript evidence and quotations from early church fathers. The biblical text is incredibly well-preserved due to the vast number of manuscripts spanning various geographical locations and time periods. Additionally, the early church fathers extensively quoted and referenced biblical passages in their writings.
The sheer volume of manuscripts, along with the geographical spread and diverse sources, makes it virtually impossible for any secretive group to alter the text without detection. Scholars and researchers compare these manuscripts, employing rigorous methods of textual criticism to ensure the accuracy of the biblical text. If any significant alterations had been attempted, the discrepancies would have been readily apparent in the multitude of manuscripts and early citations.
In essence, the collaborative efforts of countless scribes, the geographic distribution of manuscripts, and the vigilance of early church writers make the idea of a covert manipulation of the biblical text implausible and inconsistent with the robust historical evidence we possess.
Consider what Bart Ehrman (an Agnostic American scholar of religious studies, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Textual Critic, and an author of several books on the New Testament and early Christianity) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:
These quotes are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."
Thank you!
Welcome, fren.
Well, thanks for the essay, but it's wrong. Take any KJV bible from just 50 yrs ago and take notes.. lots of changes.
Go back another 50 and you'll see more but the most have been in the last 50.
'Twould appear you are indeed "Late To The Show".🤷♂️
Wow. 3 paragraphs are an "essay" now, huh?
While I can appreciate your perspective, it's essential to distinguish between translation revisions and alterations to the biblical text itself. The changes you're referring to in newer editions of the KJV often involve updates to language, grammar, punctuation, and formatting for readability and clarity. However, these revisions do not affect the underlying meaning or content of the biblical message.
When Biblical scholars discuss the preservation of the biblical text, they focus on the accuracy and integrity of the original manuscripts and their faithful transmission over time, rather than changes made in subsequent translations or editions for linguistic or stylistic reasons.
Again, wrong. You should do a self-project and do as I offered: find an old Bible, then a new. Plenty has been changed to dilute, convolute, or outright change the context/meaning.
If that's too much for you, because it is quite the time consuming ordeal, I know there are a couple channels on YouTube that covers this as well...and they're spot on.
My, fren. I have done extensive study in this arena. I have also studied textual critics (one of which I quoted for you from his book, which you clearly haven't read) who study the transmission of the Biblical manuscripts and copies. It is painfully clear that you really aren't familiar with how Bibliographic manuscript evidence is studied and scrutinized.
Enough of the "wAtCH a yOuTubE vIdEo!"
Contained within this statement are the following assumptions:
There are some criticisms of these assumptions:
Two things:
Your entire argument rests on "we have enough provable history that the conclusions must be correct." This argument is provably false for certain other broadly adopted conclusions (The Empire of Scythia/Tartary e.g.), yet you assume it can't be false for this one.
Consider what Bart Ehrman (an Agnostic American scholar of religious studies, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a Textual Critic, and an author of several books on the New Testament and early Christianity - and Critic of Christianity) said regarding the accuracy of our modern biblical text:
These quotes are from Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."
What is this intended to be evidence of? None of this addresses a single thing I said, indeed, it is a restatement of the same assumptions.
Also, the post you are responding to had some formatting errors which erased some of the points. I fixed them if you want to see what I actually said, though I don't think you are reading what I'm saying in full since you aren't addressing what I'm saying directly, so it may not matter.
I am reading your posts, Slyver. Im responding to the specific point the first commenter is making while responding to you in general.
The example of Bart Ehrman presents an intriguing perspective, particularly given your cautious approach to historical narratives and the history of the Bible.
Ehrman, renowned as both a textual scholar and a critic of Christianity, reaches the conclusion that our modern Biblical text is fundamentally accurate, despite variations and changes over time. His unique position underscores the credibility of his assessment, as he lacks any motivation to deceive or misrepresent the truth regarding the transmission of the Bible.
Ehrman's dual role as a scholar and a critic adds depth to his analysis and underscores the robustness of his conclusions about the reliability of the biblical text.
Since you thought I wasn't being thorough enough in my previous response, I'll take another stab:
The existence of diverse motives does not invalidate the textual integrity of the Bible, especially when corroborated by extensive manuscript evidence and early citations.
However, the process of canonization involved rigorous criteria aimed at preserving texts considered to be authoritative and divinely inspired. The consistency and coherence of the biblical narrative across multiple manuscripts and early citations provide compelling evidence for the reliability of its core teachings.
The inclusion of diverse perspectives within the New Testament, such as the Synoptic Gospels and Pauline Epistles, demonstrates a degree of theological diversity within early Christianity while maintaining essential doctrinal unity.
The vast number of extant manuscripts, spanning diverse geographical regions and dating back to antiquity, attests to the widespread transmission and preservation of biblical writings. The consistent textual fidelity across these manuscripts provides strong support for the reliability and authenticity of the biblical text.
In summary, while acknowledging the complexities and challenges of historical inquiry, as you aptly do - including potential biases and motives among historical actors, it's crucial to approach the study of biblical texts with a balanced and critical perspective. The wealth of manuscript evidence, early citations, and textual consistency supports the authenticity and reliability of the biblical texts, affirming their status as authoritative sources for understanding the Christian faith.