Featured How can there be A "Correct greek text" Since We have No originals?

I appreciate the encouagement brother. :wavey:

 

JOJ keeps digging!

Here we have the old shuck and jive. Did Jon refer just to "Greek mss" in his first post? Or was the absurd claim that "all the other Greek Witnesses" had a corrupted ending!

So JOJ ignores that I was accurately addressing the absurd claim, and supported it by citing the NET footnote.

 

Bottom line, we have a very accurate version of the original Greek New Testament, that presents a clear message from God concerning salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. There was no orthodox conspiracy to alter the text according to some cultist doctrine, but simply corruptions due to copist error and efforts to be helpful in making God's message seem more consistent.

The long ending of Mark can be found appended to other gospel books among the early witnesses. There is little doubt the LEM originated mid second century, but was left out or marked as questionable in several early witnesses.

Therefore the argument against the validity of our New Testament based on the controversy over the ending of Mark is absurd.

 

If we proclaim that you are right and everyone else is wrong while crossing our fingers will you be happy?

 

Why do you think everyone else is wrong. Is D. Wallace wrong? Nope. Is B. Metzger wrong? Nope. Are those of us who believe the Bible is reliable, trustworthy and the final authority for faith and practice wrong? Nope. Those that are wrong of those who offer absurd arguments for the invalidity of the bible.

 

Hi Van and Everyone,

I guess technically a Greek "witness" may refer not only to Greek manuscripts but also to fathers who wrote in Greek. John must have read my mind, because what I meant was Greek manuscripts in this case. Sorry for the confusion!

In Mark 16:9-20 we have a place where all surviving Greek manuscripts but two contain 170+ Greek words interpolated into the middle of them. Let us assume that these words are fabricated. This means that most churches which received what was handed down to them in the original language of the NT had very faulty safeguards -- in fact none at all -- to prevent rampant fabrications from overtaking the very deposit of holy writ. They also handed down these falsifications to the churches that followed them. The only two Greek manuscripts that got it right in this place (ℵ/01 and B/03) themselves descend from a very faulty source which inserts 13 words between Matt 27:49 and 27:50 to make it say that Jesus dies from the result of a stab wound to his chest. Therefore the text based on the Greek NT, in fact the text of our Bibles, even whenever all or most all manuscripts agree, cannot be trusted to be a reliable source of information.

I still haven't seen any good rebuttal of the fundamental logic of this argument. I think there are good rebuttals, and I also think I'm not the only one who can think of them.

John, your argument is okay, but what if those who risk life and limb to translate and share the gospel are just happily deceived, you know, like the Mormons.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Borland

 

That was my rebuttal, and to say it is not a "good" rebuttal does not tell us why not? The "safeguard" is that copies were made and passed to numerous groups of believers. Therefore when we look at all the divergent copies looking for commonality we find they agree extensively. And if we did this in the fourth century, the LEM would not have been part of the commonly accepted text.

Therefore, the argument that because some corruptions have occurred calls into question the validity of the entire text is absurd, the fact is the identification of the corruptions bolsters the argument that we can have high confidence in the message in spite of the copyist corruptions.

 

The comparison with the Mormons is interesting. The truth is, I've never heard of Mormons trying to reach tribal peoples or third world countries for Christ. No Mormons ever smuggled the Bible into Communist or Muslim countries. The following list shows no Mormons trying to reach tribal peoples in New Guinea or Indonesia, and there are none in Muslim countries, or in China other than Hong Kong: http://www.mission.net/cgi-bin/mission_index.cgi?action=show_all. So all of those young Mormon missionaries avoid danger and hardship, and don't translate the Word of God or the Book of Mormon into tribal languages.

A more apt comparison might be Islam, since it makes much of the Quran. However, Islam teaches that you can only understand the Quran in the original, so they don't have any program of Quran translation, nor do they seek to reach tribal peoples for Christ.

Thus I think it can be said that these two religions, both strong missionary religions, are simply spreading their religions, not the truth. However, the fact that so many Christians are willing to do unnnatural things to spread the Word of God--braving hardship and persecution, risking death--speaks to prove that the God of the universe is behind their efforts.