Bible Corruptions?

[volgadon]

99% is a common or popular idea. That would make the parts of the NT still in question to be only three pages. Famed textual critics Wescott and Hort said that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part." [Hunt.IntNT Hunter, Archibald M. Introducing the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1945 (that would make up about 1/3 of a page).

Westcott and Hort worked in the 1880s. That was 130 years ago. Much has changed.

"The words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the New Testament."

I find it interesting that you did not quote the very next sentence in Hunter's book.

"Hort probably underestimated the element of uncertainty. There still remain quite a few places where the experts disagree about the true reading." Hunter then proceeds to provide several examples.

Neither he, nor Wescott and Hort were talking about having 99% of the original text! These quotes are about understanding the meaning of the words.

In all faiirness, Hunter does claim that anyone using the RSV or NEB is as close to the original 'autographs' as "makes no material difference."

He doesn't back up that statement.

Scholars range from less ringing endorsements all the way up to "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text." [Comf.TNT Comfort, Philip Wesley. The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament.

And which manuuscripts would those be?

and "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" [Fran.EvJ France, R. T. The Evidence for Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP, 1986.].

France is not exactly a textual critic, but he is a very conservative scholar. Many would disagree with his conclusion above.

Certainly there are thousands of thousands of variant readings in the New Testament manuscript tradition, but of those, 95% are unintentional copyist errors - confusion of similar letters, repetition of words and sentences, etc. [Patz.MNT Patzia, Arthur G. The Making of the New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP.]. The remaining 5% including intentional spelling and grammar improvements, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties and doctrinal changes. I have already made mention of a few of those in the Johannine Comma, the long ending of Mark and the story of the woman taken in adultery; there are others. It is through the discipline of textual that we know of such changes.

No direct quote on the 95%?

The evidence that we know the original text is much much stronger than any evidence that we don’t know the original text.

You have failed to show that.

That’s why those that argue corruption do so by waving their hand and making vague references to mysterious alterations - they can’t say what but are oh so certain that it’s true, much like conspiracy nuts who believe that aliens are secretly meddling in the private affairs of midwestern dairy farmers - never mind that there is no evidence, why the very lack of evidence is evidence of a coverup. On the other hand, textual critics have a methodology and can demonstrate it, are peer reviewed, build upon each other’s work, find flaws in their methods, revise their findings to match the reality, etc.

Except I certainly am not arguing any sort of conspiracy theory. There are corruptions in the text, there are corruptions in most any ancient text.

Textual critics have a methodology but it is far from perfect. They also don't make the claim that they know most of what there is to be known.

If one is going to argue corruption, the burden is on the one making the claim. I am not going to state categorically that there isn’t corruption (I have elsewhere argued that there is some) but drop the appeals to mystery (and naiveté) and provide evidence for your claims.

Again, there is corruption in the texts, that really is all that is needed. If I have a specific instance in mind, then I should provide further documentation and arguments. You are the one expecting us to defend a vague position. Perhaps if you cited something specific, then we could get somewhere.

Nobody has appealed to mystery.

[Yekcidmij]

Are you aware that that from the manuscript history textual critics are able to determine the original text with about 99% accuracy?

Someone keeps asking for a source from Snow. Tought I would help. Here is an article by Dan Wallace:

Second, Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.”13 Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000.14 That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation, is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.15 The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews16—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,17 a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces

The Gospel according to Bart | Bible.org; NET Bible, Bible Study

And a book with Wallace as a co-author (see chs 4-8):

Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary ... - Google Books

[WillowTheWhisp]

How can anyone make any claim at all about the accuracy of the Bible when none of us have access to the original when many are/were oral traditions? We can only go back so far. We do not have first hand accounts.

Suppose you had a documented history of a specific event - even written by someone who was there at the time - how accurate is it? It will only be as accurate as the writer was able to make it and anyone who has heard eyewitness statements at a trial will know that for every person who saw a black car there will be another person who saw a dark blue one. If the eye-witness wrote their account later then we also have the problem of how accurate their memory is. My husband will swear blind he has filed a receipt for something he bought but then I later find it in the glove compartment of the car - and yet he can remember filing it with the accounts. We are all subject to these unintentional errors.

Also, history is written by people who have an agenda. When I was a child English history taught that Richard III was an evil hunchbacked cripple who murdered most of his family in order to gain the throne and that he was a tyrant king. I had a teacher who taught me not to believe everything you are taught and to question traditional 'evidence' - I chose to investigate Richard III and discovered contemporary accountswhich described him as athletic and a skilled swordsman - hardly the twisted hunchbacked cripple of popular myth. He was also highly respected and encouraged education, hardly the tyrant ruler. So where does the popular image come from? Mainly from Shakespeare who was an Elizabethan playwrite - Elizabeth a Tudor queen, descended from Henry Tudor who defeated Richard III at Bosworth. Currying favour with the monarch of the day? Did Richard kill the two ypung princes? I have no idea because the evidence is inconclusive but to me it seems far more likely that he didn't.

In judging the accuracy of the Bible we can only go back as far as the earliest known evidence - we cannot go back to the actual source. However, despite that we still claim it to be the word of God and yet have to make allowances for human error whether intentional or not. Someone may havemade a 100% accurate translation of the earliest known document but that will only be asaccurate as that document which itself could have contained errors. We can debate about this till the cows come home but not even the most worthy scholar can actually prove anything.

Look how mangled a simple translation can become.Take this sentence:

"In judging the accuracy of the Bible we can only go back as far as the earliest known evidence - we cannot go back to the actual source."

Now let's translate that into French:

"En jugeant l'exactitude de la bible nous pouvons seulement retourner jusque l'évidence connue la plus tôt - nous ne pouvons pas retourner au source."

Sound reasonable? How about we now translate that French into English:

" By judging the exactitude of the bible we can only turn over until the known obviousness earliest - we cannot turn over to the source."

It sort of means the same but not quite - now if that can happen in such a simple sentence with a currently living pair of languages how much confusion can we get when translating ancient manuscripts?

This is why I put my faith in diving revelation and why Nephi wrote in a language which had not been corrupted.

[rameumptom]

I don't think Moroni is saying there are errors in what's being said. The Book of Mormon writers make the point to say they know the record is true. Any mistakes are the result of language difference or just plain man's mistakes. The same applies to the Bible. The original writers didn't tell false stories.

God sharply warns anyone who mocks or doesn't believe because of any error that is supposed or found.

We know through revelation that errors were introduced into the Bible. But, considering how much of the Bible is revealed in the Book of Mormon, I'd say much of it is still pretty accurate.

Every writer writes according to his understanding/perceptions/ignorance/prejudices.

The early Nephite writers described the Lamanites as naked savages. Yet, when Ammon and his brethren go there on a mission, they find a more civilized people, living in structured society. There obviously ARE misconceptions in the Nephite record.

What isn't at error is their teachings on the gospel of Christ. But even their record is often incomplete, which is why we have continuing revelation.

Finally, the translation process always brings out imperfections, simply due to the fact that different languages have different focuses on speech and customs.

[rameumptom]

BTW, I'm reminding everyone to be civil in the discussion. This is a DISCUSSION, not a World Wrestling Forum debate. Be civil, or I'll close down the thread.

[Yekcidmij]

How can anyone make any claim at all about the accuracy of the Bible when none of us have access to the original when many are/were oral traditions? We can only go back so far. We do not have first hand accounts.

.......

Also, history is written by people who have an agenda.because the evidence is inconclusive but to me it seems far more likely that he didn't.

.........

In judging the accuracy of the Bible we can only go back as far as the earliest known evidence - we cannot go back to the actual source.

.........

It sort of means the same but not quite - now if that can happen in such a simple sentence with a currently living pair of languages how much confusion can we get when translating ancient manuscripts?

.........

This is why I put my faith in diving revelation and why Nephi wrote in a language which had not been corrupted.

Do you see any double standards here? Any special pleading?

Also, I don't think you understand the discipline of textual criticism, which is different from historical criticism/higher criticism. In your post, you have bunched higher and lower criticism together and treated them as if they are the same. And you don't distinguish between textual criticism and higher criticism of the NT, which is different from textual criticism and higher criticism of the OT. And higher and lower criticism are different from translating from one language into another, though all of these disciplines interrelate to one another in some fashion.

Textual criticism takes the available evidence in the form of various manuscripts and reconstructs the probable original. This doesn't mean that 100% certain accuracy has been achieved. But requiring that sort of thing before knowledge can be achieved is pretty unrealistic. The evidence available, for the NT at least, is very conclusive and we shouldn't argue from silence about the text by appealing to possible, but undiscovered manuscripts that would overturn the critical consensus. Sure, there may be a document that turns up tomorrow that overturns our thinking on everything related to the NT. Maybe someone will discover a long lost manuscript and it will just shock the living mess out of everyong. But until such reason appears, there is no reason to believe it. Until then, the NT uber-text has been reconstructed from the available manuscripts with great accuracy by textual critics. I guess that can't stop anyone from simply dismissing the textual critics, but I think that would be unwise.

Lower-textual criticism is different from higher criticism which attempts to discover the origins of the text itself. Higher criticism on the NT will say things about Matthew and Luke using Mark, the plausible settings for the composition of the gospels, authorship of documents, and the dates of the various documents. Higher criticism is inherently more speculative, but it does appearently have it's uses as was proven with discoveres of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I have a real bug about double standards as well. If you are going to appeal to textual critics for evidence of the bible transmissional changes, scribal changes, composition, etc.., then we should apply the same standards to the BoM, PoGP, D&C and JST. If you want to say that doing so is somehow out of bounds because those sources are divinely inspired, then just realize that it's fair when Protestant Joe comes by and says the same thing about the biblical text.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Well Jimmie you defeat me with your knowledge of the different types of criticism. I'm sorry if I appear to have double standards. I don't understand where. Perhaps I'm just too dense to realise it. All I can say is that we do not know what the original accounts were because we do not have them. Therefore how can we claim any percentage of accuracy? If everything we have emanates from one near original source who is to say that source is reliable? It may be the only account which survived but it may not be accurate. Any subsequent accounts/translations may be accurate in relation to that one - but if that 'near original' account is not accurate where does that leave us?

[ozzy]

So I had a personal experience which could potentially exhibit why it is that the Bible may have errors that hold varying levels of impact. I recently got a parking ticket. Really. Anyway, the written ticket says I drive a green 2 door sedan. When you go to the proper website, the electronic ticket says I drive a teal 4 door sedan. These two instances exhibit to me 2 widely varying accounts, one should have been based on the other, and both took no more than 10 minutes to process. The number of doors my car has (4) should be obvious to anyone there to see. The color not so much (actually 3 depending on where you look - teal, blue, and red).

Like I said. Ten minutes of direct observation, and the entire thing is messed up. If I called in and reported my car stolen and said it was a 2 door green sedan, the cops would never find it.

likewise, if any similar misrepresentation is present in the bible, we are in trouble. The biggest differences are that the ticket is a 6 inch receipt with less than a line of legal size text. The bible is over 1.5 thousand pages of small print. The other big difference is time frame. It took ten minutes or less to accidentally skew my ticket. The Bible has been around for 2 to 6 thousand years depending on which part you look at.

I dunno about you guys, but I see this as a pretty outstanding example. I mean sure, my ticket isn't the Bible, or anything similar to the word of God, but it is still subject to human error.

Just another thought.

[Yekcidmij]

I'm sorry if I appear to have double standards. I don't understand where.

The double standard is your application of methods to the biblical text which you probably do not apply to the BoM, PoGP, D/C, and JST.

Perhaps I'm just too dense to realise it.

We're all dense to some extent. :)

All I can say is that we do not know what the original accounts were because we do not have them.

Nobody is saying we have the original documents. In any case, how would you be able to tell if a document was THE original? Would you have to depend on tradition? Would you have to depend on the text critic? The enterpriese of textual criticism is to reconstruct the original from the available manuscripts. This needs to be done for the very reason that we don't have the original manscripts.

Therefore how can we claim any percentage of accuracy?

Look at the available manuscripts.

If everything we have emanates from one near original source who is to say that source is reliable?

We can play the arbitrary-doubt game till we turn blue (just ask Decartes). Who's to say the original writer is himself reliable? And what is meant by "reliable"? Are we demanding that all writers throughout history adhere to our standards today? Should all ancient writers write like modern historians? Should they act like moden journalists (ok, that may not be much better anyway)? What if, say, Matthew doesn't want to simply report history? What if Matthew wants to report theology too? What if the Priestly writer isn't interested in bland facts without proper interpretation?

Let's take a test case in the Lords Prayer in Matthew. Specifics are usually easier to work with than generalities. Reciting from memory at the moment the Lords Prayer as I was taught growing up goes like this:

Our Father who art in Heaven

Hallowed by thy Name

Thy Kingdom come

Thy will be done

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread

and forgive us our treaspasses

as we forgive those who trespass against us

And lead us not into temptation, but deliever us from evil

For thine is the Kingdom, Power, and Glory forever. Amen.

This is the tradition that was handed down to me through church. Where did this come from? Well, it's found verbatim in the Textus Receptus that was translated into the KJV in Matthew 6. But if I apply text critical methods I discover that I haven't been reciting the original version, but an expanded version. How can I know this? By looking at various manuscripts. I discover a parallel version in Luke:

(NKJV Luke 11)

Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us day by day our daily bread.

And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.

And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one."

Already I notice something is afoot. It doesn't have "for yours is the kingdom power and glory forever. Amen". Luckily, there are numerous other manuscripts besides the TR and KJV that attest to the Lord's Prayer in both Matthew and Luke. If I picked up, for example, Codex Sinaiticus, I would disover that in Matthew the doxology of the prayer is not there. In fact, in most of the oldest manuscripts the doxology is "missing". Then there are some old manuscripts that have only part of the doxology. For example, several Syriac manuscripts only have "for yours is the power forever". A couple of old manuscripts only have "amen" in the doxology. Some have "because yours is the kingdom and glory forever. Amen". In fact, you can trace the expansion of just the doxology of the Matthew-Lord's Prayer until a late manuscript in AD 1122 reads "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen". It winds up in a Trinitarian expansion!

Also interesting is that over the centuries the version in Luke is expanded until it reads, strangely enough, like Matthew's version. Without the centuries worth of expansion, Luke's version (ch 11) reads like this:

Father,

may your name be honored;

may your kingdom come.

Give us each day our daily bread,

and forgive us our sins,

for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.

And do not lead us into temptation

It sufficies to say that we are looking at two different, early traditions of the Lord's Prayer. Matthew's audience knew of one version and Luke's audience knew of another version. This doesn't really take away anything from the Prayer though. They are both communicating the same message. It's probably likely that Jesus Himself taught the prayer on different occasions in slightly different fashions just as it is likely that Matthew and Luke tailored it to their audiences. But, here we have two different strands of tradition of the same prayer and both appear in our canon as authoritative. It's most probable then that Jesus uttered something extremely similiar and probably did so on multiple occassions. It may be that the disciples were largely illiterate as well which would even necessitate Jesus' repetition of His various teachings as a good Rabbi would do.

But with textual criticism scholars are able to reconstruct what Matthew and Luke looked like before those expansions. In fact, it's established with pretty good accuracy so that it's fair to say this is what Matthew and Luke's versions of the Prayer looked like when it was originally penned down in their respective gospels.

And perhaps this makes some people feel good to see these sorts of differences between Matthew and Luke. How can we ever know what Jesus originally said if Matthew and Luke are reporting things so differently? The mistake here is to assume that Matthew and Luke are trying to write something akin to a scientific, historical, or doctrinal paper for us or that Matthew and Luke are trying to report "just the facts". In fact, they weren't writing for US at all and neither of them are historians like we think of historians. Both are also theologians. Luke is writing for Theophilus. Matthew is writing to someone else. Luke is writing to Theophilus for a particular purpose (see ch 1) that is not the exact same as Matthew's purpose to his audience. Both of them are passing on teachings of Jesus, but they seem more interested in their audiences getting the gist of things and taking away a few specific emphases than they are interested in us (or them) geting every minute detail. Matthew's Lords Prayer sounds very liturgical as if it is meant to be repeated on multiple occassions. Luke's doesn't have that flavor to me. Maybe some will claim that these sorts of differences are proof that we need further revelation to sort it out. Well, I am comfortable with saying that both versions are just fine the way they are. I'm even comfortable with the expansions. We have 2 versions are textual criticism demonstrates it. Both versions are canonical and authoritative and inspired. Big deal. It's adequate to me to say that Jesus probably uttered something very similiar to both of these versions which might explain why there are 2 versions. It's adequate to me to say that Matthew and Luke are passing on traditions as they received them whether they be from Jesus Himself or from somone who knew Jesus.

But here is where I think a double standard comes in for a lot of people. Because here we have another version of the Lords Prayer:

3 Nephi 13:9 After this manner therefore pray ye:

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

And alead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

The underlines portions are distinctly Matthean, not Lukan. This version has dropped out "may your kingdom come" which appears in both Matthew and Luke and was a central feature of Jesus' teachings. Morever, the red-highlighted portion is the full doxology that was added by later Christian scribes. So not only does Nephi have a Matthean ring to it, meaning Nephi would be written no earlier than AD 60 by someone familiar with Matthean traditions, and not only would it be problematic to figure out how Matthew's words wound up across the Atlantic, but it must be dated even later to no earlier than around the 5th century due to the scribal interpolation. And then we are faced with the problem of figuring out how 5th century Christian scribal interpolations are winding up in writings across the Atlantic and why Nephi is giving authority to the Heretics. But now maybe textual criticism isn't so fun.

Edited January 11, 2010 by JimmieD1
spelling/grammar

[WillowTheWhisp]

So, are you actually claiming that Nephi was not written at the time the BOM claims it to have been written?

[Yekcidmij]

So, are you actually claiming that Nephi was not written at the time the BOM claims it to have been written?

The only conclusions that needs to be drawn from that is that regarding the Lord's Prayer, the author of Nephi left out a feature of both Matthew and Luke's version of hte prayer, he knew of Matthean traditions/Matthew's wording, and he included the full expanded doxolgy that doesn't show up in NT manuscripts until the 5th century (Codex Washingtonianus). The logical conclusion is that this portion of 3 Nephi is written no earlier than the 5th century. And this leaves open the quesiton on how such a thing got across the Atlantic.

[volgadon]

And that is why textual criticism on its own is not sufficient for seeing the entire picture (so to speak).

[ozzy]

The only conclusions that needs to be drawn from that is that regarding the Lord's Prayer, the author of Nephi left out a feature of both Matthew and Luke's version of hte prayer, he knew of Matthean traditions/Matthew's wording, and he included the full expanded doxolgy that doesn't show up in NT manuscripts until the 5th century (Codex Washingtonianus). The logical conclusion is that this portion of 3 Nephi is written no earlier than the 5th century. And this leaves open the quesiton on how such a thing got across the Atlantic.

I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the author of 3 Nephi had read Matthew? Or did I miss something?

Thing is, as far as members are concerned, no one in the Book of Mormon knew of Matthew, Luke, or anyone specifically in the NT except Christ. Christ visited those in the BOM. If there are differences in the prayer, it is because he didn't quote himself, which actually follows his teaching about vain repetitions.

If I missed something though, please let me know. :)

[Jenn1960]

wow reading all this and being new to the Gospel, can be very confusing. So basically what is the bottom line? Cause now you've got my mind wondering, and I just don't want to have any doubts about what I'm doing, and if it's the right thing. Please help! I can't afford to get this wrong, God knows, I've made enough wrong decisions.

[Justice]

Every writer writes according to his understanding/perceptions/ignorance/prejudices.

Point taken.

The early Nephite writers described the Lamanites as naked savages. Yet, when Ammon and his brethren go there on a mission, they find a more civilized people, living in structured society. There obviously ARE misconceptions in the Nephite record.

Well, the Nephites did say the Lamanites wore nothing but a loin cloth, painted their skin, and were overheard plotting to kill them. I don't necessarily think that means they were always this way throughout their history. But, my impression is Nephi nailed it.

What isn't at error is their teachings on the gospel of Christ. But even their record is often incomplete, which is why we have continuing revelation.

Yes.

Finally, the translation process always brings out imperfections, simply due to the fact that different languages have different focuses on speech and customs.

Yes. But, I believe the translation process was through revelation and not through man's learning... in the case of the Book of Mormon.

[HiJolly]

Textual criticsm is a secular tool of analysis. It will NEVER include in its methodology or viewpoint the possibility of revelation or visions or angels. At either end of the process (ie, Mormon or Joseph Smith).

Please keep that in mind.

[Justice]

wow reading all this and being new to the Gospel, can be very confusing. So basically what is the bottom line? Cause now you've got my mind wondering, and I just don't want to have any doubts about what I'm doing, and if it's the right thing. Please help! I can't afford to get this wrong, God knows, I've made enough wrong decisions.

What exactly are you asking, Jenn?

Your answers are going to come from the confirming voice of the spirit as you read the Book of Mormon, not from the discussions on this forum. But, I'd be glad to help if there's something I can help with.

Nothing on this forum should ever shake your faith in Jesus Christ and His message as delivered in the Book of Mormon.

[HiJolly]

wow reading all this and being new to the Gospel, can be very confusing. So basically what is the bottom line? Cause now you've got my mind wondering, and I just don't want to have any doubts about what I'm doing, and if it's the right thing. Please help! I can't afford to get this wrong, God knows, I've made enough wrong decisions.

Hang in there, Jenn1960. Different people have differing preferences in terms of how we investigate or study things.

One viewpoint is "trust God's (insert 'church' 'prophet' leaders' etc.) and to hell with science and/or scholarly research". Obviously, this approach is not very healthy.

Another viewpoint is "trust science and scholars and to hell with namby-pamby wishful-thinking no-proof blind faith". Again, that's another unhealthy viewpoint.

First and foremost, I trust God. His prophets, not as much but yeah, I do trust them. His scriptures, not as much but yeah, I trust them. His Church the same.

Trust, but verify. It's a part of the biblical "seeing through a glass, darkly" thing. Anytime we toss out reason and our thinking faculties, we risk being deceived. conversely, anytime we toss out spirituality and faith, we risk losing our understanding of God and of His plan for us.

A balanced blend is best. I have been a member of the LDS Church for my whole life (I'm 49 years old) and while I have found that some of our beliefs are taught as absolute truth when maybe they shouldn't be, nevertheless my belief and faith in the leaders of the Church, both prophets and bishops, has resulted in a lot of good choices in my life.

Belief should be tested by our own living experience, though. And we should be always looking for the 'truth' in things, regardless of the source.

If you are faithful in the LDS Church, you will not be led astray, I testify that this is true.

HiJolly

Edited January 11, 2010 by HiJolly

[WillowTheWhisp]

I think now might be a good time to bring up this link

The Bible | Mormon Beliefs

[Yekcidmij]

I just want to make sure that I understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that the author of 3 Nephi had read Matthew? Or did I miss something?

I’m simply pointing at the evidence as it stands.

Thing is, as far as members are concerned, no one in the Book of Mormon knew of Matthew,

Then there is a conflict with the evidence in the Lord’s Prayer. I’m not saying you have to buy into textual criticism, but if you are going to apply it at least apply it consistently.

If there are differences in the prayer, it is because he didn't quote himself,

Nope, I agree. It appears He was just quoting version of Matthew’s Lords Prayer from around the 5th century.

Textual criticsm is a secular tool of analysis.

I would almost buy that, but Christian translators have used it before and continue to do so today. The church fathers will make textual comments. And today, there are Protestants and Catholics alike who are involved in textual criticism. It's not all secular nor does it necessarily preclude revelation. So it's a misnomer to say it's all secular. Perhaps it's just that the one most popularly known (Ehrman) from the Barnes n Noble and Books a Million bookshelves happens to be a secular agnostic. There is even a blog where evangelical textual critics discuss issues with each other; their discussions are usually pretty interesting if you‘re into this stuff:

Evangelical Textual Criticism

[ozzy]

Nope, I agree. It appears He was just quoting version of Matthew’s Lords Prayer from around the 5th century.

Evangelical Textual Criticism

Just to clarify, we are both talking about Christ quoting himself right? I am talking about Christ reoffering the Lord's prayer during his visit to the Nephites. Please correct my if I am wrong, but it seems as though you are talking about an external author quoting Christ from Matthew.

I think that the two accounts will be mostly the same because they are both quotes from Christ. I just don't think they would be quite the same because of the distinct needs of the Nephites verses the Jews.

If I am right about how we are separately viewing this, let me know. I understand a lot better where you are coming from if this is the case.

[ozzy]

wow reading all this and being new to the Gospel, can be very confusing. So basically what is the bottom line? Cause now you've got my mind wondering, and I just don't want to have any doubts about what I'm doing, and if it's the right thing. Please help! I can't afford to get this wrong, God knows, I've made enough wrong decisions.

Hey Jenn, first and foremost, regardless of what goes on in this website, do what God tells you to. Much of what is said, particularly in this thread is speculation anyway. Listen to the prophets, study the scriptures, and if you act on what is said in these places, you'll do fine.

Keep it up sister. :)

[Snow]

wow reading all this and being new to the Gospel, can be very confusing. So basically what is the bottom line? Cause now you've got my mind wondering, and I just don't want to have any doubts about what I'm doing, and if it's the right thing. Please help! I can't afford to get this wrong, God knows, I've made enough wrong decisions.

Here's the bottom line of this thread - just to keep things in perspective: I, Snow, get annoyed when people make up claims that they can't and won't support... for example when, in the course of some debate, they toss out that scripture has been corrupted but refuse to say how. Certainly there is corruption (which simply means changes to the original but lost text) but there is no known corruption of any great importance. We can be comfortably be assured that the original text is known, through textual criticism, in the vast majority of the New Testament.

Of course nothing is simple when it comes to ancient scripture so it all depends on what you believe to be "original text." Scholars believe that the Gospel of John had 3 separate authors writing and adding to the book spread of many years and some of the Epistles of Paul were actually not written by Paul.

But the bottom, bottom line? All this debating back and forth is just a way to share ideas and stimulate learning... at least it is for me.

[mnn727]

I'll tell you the scary part... there's at least one poster who agrees with your laughably mindless assertion.

I wonder if - and I know you can't, so this is a rhetorical point, you have evidence to support your implied theory - that somewhere between the autograph manuscripts and the 3rd or 4th generation, significant corruptions occurred and then the uncorrupted or less corrupted manuscripts were all completely annihilated, while only the corrupted versions were preserved. I'd ask for names, dates, changes, etc but we all know that you can't and won't provide squat - you are fabricating the entire thing.

You needn't answer because, unlike the scientific and scholarly approach with systematic discipline and methodology, you really are just making it up, perpetuating a myth that educated interested parties abandoned long ago... and, btw, I am curious how or where you get your perspective. Can you name a handful of the books you've researched or read matter?

Its really too bad laughs are not enabled on this thread cause you'd have gotten a bunch for the above post. You ask me to prove something was changed knowing full well my claim is we can't possibly know what/if something was changed because at best we have 4th generation documents, yet you make a baseless claim that nothing was changed knowing for a fact there are no originals to compare to. Edited January 12, 2010 by mnn727

[mnn727]

The point was, and this was all explained earlier, through the application of textual criticism, scholars are able to say with confidence that they can arrive at the original text in the overwhelmingly vast majority of the text.

When you start with your conclusion and work your way backwards, you can "prove" anything.