tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3679778960436230744..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Letter boardsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65637769038507035602016-04-11T23:21:40.152-04:002016-04-11T23:21:40.152-04:00http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9978#...http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/9978#more-9978Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597410735412554920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38400778733156145002016-04-10T12:52:27.139-04:002016-04-10T12:52:27.139-04:00By the same token, God could predestine readers to...By the same token, God could predestine readers to never misinterpret Scripture. But God preferred a world with a different history. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21107705318435037532016-04-10T01:19:54.151-04:002016-04-10T01:19:54.151-04:00Correction! We have 99.6% of Greek manuscripts and...Correction! We have 99.6% of Greek manuscripts and Ehrman himself admits that they don't affect any doctrine (again him wandering into theology is like walking into a mine shaft without a torch). <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5800411855449184822016-04-10T00:53:36.456-04:002016-04-10T00:53:36.456-04:00I have had a question myself as Calvinists couldn&...I have had a question myself as Calvinists couldn't God have predestined the scribes not to have made any mistakes?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22328816365909096622016-04-09T21:22:31.523-04:002016-04-09T21:22:31.523-04:00Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if there...Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if there actually was a similar early Uthmanic-like redaction of the NT (minus the killing of course) since it's likely some OT books were redacted (e.g. the Torah and the Psalms). There's just no good evidence for it regarding the NT. Though, the way the NT text was ACTUALLY preserved is preferable since it does give us confidence of reconstruction. The major problem I have with the Qur'anic redaction is that some Muslims CLAIM there are no variants. While other Muslims claim the variants are not true variants but are a result of different ways The Qur'an was recited by different Arabic dialects at the time (and other similar explanations). However, that's patently false based on the variants we do have and the actual history as recorded in the various Hadith. The point is that the very same arguments they use to attack the Christian Holy Book backfires on their own Holy Book with a vengeance.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46777107195988593712016-04-09T20:42:44.989-04:002016-04-09T20:42:44.989-04:00The Targumim were paraphrases and not even transla...The Targumim were paraphrases and not even translations, yet the Jews believed they were sufficiently accurate to teach God's people God's truth. The Apostles (who themselves were Jews) knew this. They weren't obsessed with a specific Hebrew traditional text (i.e. a 1st century equivalent to KJV Onlyism). They knew there were differences between the Hebrew texts and yet were willing to also use the LXX. Sometimes they favored one of the Hebrew readingS, sometimes one of the Greek readingS.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76101983984429155152016-04-09T20:25:55.554-04:002016-04-09T20:25:55.554-04:00The apostles themselves surely knew there were dis...The apostles themselves surely knew there were discrepancies between the Hebrew texts and various translations and paraphrases into other languages like Greek, Aramaic etc., yet that didn't seem to bother them. Even the Septuagint had differences since there was no THE Septuagint (cf. Peter J. Williams' <a href="https://youtu.be/vmA2oQmr4wQ" rel="nofollow">Why I Don't Believe in The Septuagint</a>).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69275464505889133882016-04-09T20:11:15.664-04:002016-04-09T20:11:15.664-04:00Conservative scholars usually argue that the corre...Conservative scholars usually argue that the correct authentic reading remains somewhere in the various textual variants that have come down to us. Ehrman argues that we can't really know that. Assuming for the sake of argument that the correct reading is completely lost and (additionally) that there was tampering with the texts early on that we can't now detect it, so what? With a strong and high view of providence God could have preserved the texts sufficiently enough to get the essentials of the Gospel message across down through time. In fact, with a high view of providence, God could have used a a major alteration of the text for His various purposes. Though, I'm not saying that happened. None of those possibilities necessarily falsifies Christianity, makes Christianity suspect, or provides a reason to reject Christianity's claims. What's important is that the general and essential aspects of the message of the Gospel (Good News) is reliably passed down till Christ returns. So long as people could/can still get saved and God could/can still be glorified by the message that's passed on, then it doesn't really matter.<br /><br />The doctrine that the God of Israel is one of meticulous providence doesn't hinge on one specific verse or passage or book in either the OT or NT. It's clearly taught directly, indirectly and repeatedly throughout both Testaments. The OT and NT were inspired and written with enough redundancies that the general message couldn't be destroyed by tampering or deletion of any particular passage or passages. That's why Ehrman didn't (and couldn't) reject Christianity for textual reasons, but existential reasons (e.g. the problem of evil and alleged disparate theodicies).<br /><br />Ehrman is right that God could have preserved the Biblical texts so that all of the manuscripts agreed 100%. But why think God needed or wanted to do that? That's a theological question and Ehrman himself seems to say(regarding the resurrection, at least) that the domain of theology and history should be separate. I don't think they should be separated, but I do think they should be distinguished. Either way, Ehrman can't consistently complain that if God exists He SHOULD have made all manuscripts free of errors and variants (that being a theological and ethical claim).<br /><br />The question of what the texts of the autographa originally contained is an academic question. For apologetical purposes it's sufficient point out that we have no positive reason to believe the texts were seriously tampered with and reason to believe that we can reconstruct the autographs with a high degree of confidence (approx. 98%). The doctrine of inspiration doesn't apply to the distant apographa but to those editions approved by the original inspired authors.<br /><br />In fact, the textual differences gives us reason to hope that we can reconstruct the autographs with some confidence whereas the modern Qur'anic text that's free of variants gives us reason to suspect what in fact Islamic history itself records. That there was a major redaction imposed on the text and on Muslim believers (by the caliph Uthman).ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com