Can We Trust the New Testament We Have?

I remember being quite surprised to read books like those by Josh McDowell that were quick to dismiss charges that the New Testament was so old that the versions we have these days simply cannot be accurate. As I remember it, McDowell and those like him said we had thousands of very early manuscripts and the differences between them were minimal. This, it seemed to me at the time, was sufficient for me to place my faith in the accuracy of my KJV and NIV. After some of my own research, having left the fundy fold, I realised I was just a bit too hasty in accepting McDowell's arguments.

The following tidbits of information are the bits that McDowell left out and come from the course notes of The History of the Bible: The Making of the New Testament Canon, a non-accredited university level course offered by The Teaching Company. The lecturer is one of my new heroes, Professor Bart Ehrman.

So Just What Do We Have?
  • We do not have the originals of any of the letters of Paul, the Gospels,or the Apocalypse - indeed, of any early Christian text. What we have are copies, the vast majority of them produced centuries after the originals from copies that were also centuries removed from the originals and that had themselves been made from earlier copies.
  • Dating back to AD 125-140, the earliest manuscript in existence is written on papyrus in codex form (like a book); it is called P52 because it is the 52nd papyrus that has been catalogued. (Of note is that this is a two-sided piece only about the size of a credit card. - Troy)
  • We don't have complete books of the New Testament (NT) on any surviving manuscripts until about the end of the 3rd century.
  • We don't have complete copies of the NT until the 4th century. 300 years after the books themselves were written.
  • Of the thousands of copies of the NT that now that survive, most are from the Middle Ages, and no two are exactly alike in all their wording (with the exception of the smallest surviving fragments).
  • Today we have well over 5,000 manuscripts available.
  • As a result we don't know how many variant readings survive; no one has been able to count them all. Perhaps it is easiest to put the number in comparative terms. We know of more variants in our manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

Changes and Variations
  • Some variants in the manuscripts appear to have been made by accident: others, intentionally (by scribes wanting to modify the texts).
  • Accidental changes would include such relatively innocent differences as changes in spelling, the omission of a word or line, or the accidental rearrangement of words.
  • Intentional changes would include places where scribes modified the text because they thought it contained an error or a reading that was problematic.
  • Some of the variants - especially the intentional ones - are significant for understanding the meaning of the text. For example: The woman caught in adultery (John 8); the last 12 verses of Mark; Jesus' prayer for his executioners in Luke; Jesus' reaction to the leper (some texts read 'angry' and others 'compassionate') in Mark 1.

56 comments:

Anonymous said...


Soooooo? Is there a point you are trying to make?

Lok said...

Jose,

I think Troy's point is that it is "a bit too hasty in accepting McDowell's arguments" that it "was sufficient for [him] to place [his] faith in the accuracy of my KJV and NIV;because there are "tidbits of information...that McDowell left out."

He then, in a organized fashion and with sources, presented these information. To see them, just scroll up, or you want me to copy and paste what Troy wrote in here too?

What else can I help you with?

Anonymous said...


He found some additional “tidbits of information.” I’m sorry, I thought he might be trying to make some more sweeping and significant point. I wouldn’t put too much faith in the absolute and perfect accuracy of the Bible either. Emil Brunner wrote someplace something to the effect that the Bible should be appreciated like an old 78 rpm gramaphone record in which there is a lot of static but through which the exquisite voice of Galli Curci can still fill you with joy.

The problem with the recovering fundamentalists is that they are so quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Anonymous said...

Emil Brunner wrote someplace something to the effect that the Bible should be appreciated like an old 78 rpm gramaphone record in which there is a lot of static but through which the exquisite voice of Galli Curci can still fill you with joy.

The difference, Jose, is that we can validate and prove the existance of Galli-Curci, and what she sounds like when she sings, by way of all her performances for which there are certainly still eye witnesses - enough so, that we can make a safe assumption that it is in in fact her voice amongst the static.

There is no existing proof of validity for the source of the Bible's writings, supernatural or otherwise - and no eyewitnesses to attest to any of it (the stories were written in hindsight).

Ronin

Anonymous said...

Is that the same Erman that Wlilliam Lane craig recently debated?

Anonymous said...


I am sorry Anonymous but with your literal, pharisaic thinking you missed the point completely.

Anonymous said...

What point would that be, Jose? That we should form our worldview based on faulty records of super-natural claims made by pre-scientific people from thousands of years ago? How silly of us to ask for proof.

Anonymous said...

**The problem with the recovering fundamentalists is that they are so quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater.** I've never been a fundamentalist, so I could be wrong about this. But the fundamentalist viewpoint seems very black/white, us vs. them. The Bible is either all literally inerrent, or none of it can be trusted. If leaving that viewpoint, it would be very hard to read the Bible as a metaphor. That, and there'd no doubt be an extreme distaste of the Bible, given how fundamentalists use it to justify their actions.

Lok said...

Jose wrote, "...the Bible should be appreciated like an old 78 rpm gramaphone record in which there is a lot of static but through which the exquisite voice of Galli Curci can still fill you with joy."

Wow, couldn't agree more. Every time I read the Bible I am amazed by how imaginative the authors were, just like how I am amazed by Galli-Curci's ability to create beautiful sounds.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry Anonymous but with your literal, pharisaic thinking you missed the point completely.

Hey Jose...actually, I didn't miss your point, I just thought you referenced a faulty analogy, and decided to address that.

In regards to the point you were making, you analogize that you can find joy in the Bible, even when not taken literally, by apparently cherry-picking the good and ignoring the bad.

But just because you can find joy with the good bits of the Bible while disregarding the nasty bits doesn't make any of it true.

Ronin

Anonymous said...


Lok, your understanding is actually much closer to Brunner's point than that of Anonymous and Benny who miss it altogether.

And Heather, you are right on top of the essence of that recovering fundamentalist complex. Agreed! Dare I say more?

Anonymous said...


You are getting a little warmer Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

You are getting a little warmer Anonymous.

You're right, I completely overlooked the obvious...maybe it's just been a long day. Please, do clarify your point.

Ronin

Lok said...

Wow Jose, I am completely astonished by your authority to judge the accuracies of other people's interpretations on an ambiguous analogy. *applaud*

Why I Don't Believe said...

Reply to Jose...

Soooooo? Is there a point you are trying to make?

Just reminding us all of the actual state of affairs regarding the ancient manuscripts. These points speak for themselves. Verdicts demanded concerning this evidence can be left to the readers.

Jose, you are showing yourself to be a petty bitch. Stop picking fights and deliver your material and comments with manners and respect. You're starting to smell like a troll to me.

DagoodS said...

Jose Solano: The problem with the recovering fundamentalists is that they are so quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

What is the baby and what is the bathwater? After extensive study, and comparison, it became clear to me that the Bible has no more claim to being a divine work than any other human effort.

It holds myth, and analogy and poetry and interesting stories and not-so interesting stories, and correct facts, and incorrect facts and contradictions, and copies and outrageous claims, and insignificant claims and all sorts of things that are all very human.

After carefully swishing my hands through the entire tub, I found no evidence of any baby within the bathwater.

So—what method do you use to make the determination as to whether a particular writing is divine (in some way) or solely human? And how did the Bible fair under this methodology?

Anonymous said...

**So—what method do you use to make the determination as to whether a particular writing is divine (in some way) or solely human? **

I remember in reading a debate between William Lane Craig and Dominic Cross. In it, Dr. Craig said that he knew the Bible was true because of the evidence he found, and because he "walked with Jesus every day of [his] life."

And therein lies the problem. Any Christian, any religious person, you talk to, will have to fall back on personal experience. If you're not seeing an active presence of whatever Deity you worship in your life, why worship?

Religious books, or religions, aren't something one can prove like a math problem. Dr. Craig's statement of walking with Jesus is part of his proof. But what does that show someone who doesn't believe in Jesus? Or God? Nothing. Because religions, in today's times, aren't designed to be proved 100% like a math problem. Part of their proof relies on an internal basis, and for someone who goes by only external, the internal proof is useless. Which is why I've never understood why religious people get so flabbergasted that someone else isn't following their religion.

Anonymous said...

Part of their proof relies on an internal basis, and for someone who goes by only external, the internal proof is useless. Which is why I've never understood why religious people get so flabbergasted that someone else isn't following their religion.

In addition to what you said Heather, it is worth noting that although people claim to have religious personal experiences, that in no way proves anything in regards to the supernatural beliefs to which they hold.

Outside of a religious context, there are people who have personal experiences for which they can't provide proof. People claim they can see dead people, or claim they can talk to trees...if their beliefs and associated actions are extreme, society labels them as insane and they are committed.

As humans, we have active imaginations, and we are capable of imagining a great many complex, supposedly impossible things - consider dreams. Most of us have them, sometimes they seem very real, but we don't wake up thinking what we were dreaming about actually happened (at least I don't).

For some reason, when these experiences occur within a religious context, they are priveleged as being a revelation of the supernatural.

Ronin

Anonymous said...


Lok, I do not really know what you are talking about or why you should be so astonished but I do not think it is that important for you to explain.

Troy, you are starting to get nasty. Not a good way to have a conversation.

Brunner's analogy is about the "voice" on the record and the "Word" in Scripture. In spite of flaws both can bring joy. It rejects the idea that because there may be flaws the voice/word is therefore completely inaudible or incomprehensible, or of no value. Of course there is the prerequisite that one has "ears to hear." John Loftus was earlier able to make the comparison of reading the Bible as he reads Homer. Well, that is really saying a lot. Many people have made the comparison with other great works of literature and there are college courses on the Bible as literature. This is a beginning. It is a focus on the esthetics aspect but may be limited by ignoring other significant aspects of biblical study, e.g. anthropology, jurisprudence, history, psychology, etc.

The atheist and/or recovering fundamentalist should delve into these disciplines via the Bible if he/she has interest in this book so that he/she comes to appreciate that there is a "baby" in this book that should not be thrown out. Of course, for the Christian and religious Jew the "baby" is something far greater.

When we pose a question such as, "Can we trust the New Testament we have?" we need to complete the thought with, "Trust it for what?" Can I trust the NT to teach me to play the harp? Can I trust the NT to teach me some Middle Eastern geography? Can I trust the NT to inform me about ancient Hebrew culture? Can I trust the NT to give me important moral teaching about how people should relate to each other?

To find out we must study the NT and many other things. When you study these subjects carefully some will discover in what ways the Bible is trustworthy and in what ways it is not. The more you objectively study, well, the more you find out.

I offer these questions and approach so as to deflect the outpouring of negativity towards the NT from the recovering fundamentalists who might imagine the NT valueless. Not only might we study what in the NT might be trustworthy but we can ask to what extent is it trustworthy?

As time permits I’ll try to address some of the thoughts of Bart Ehrman, the darling of recovering fundamentalists.

Thank you Troy for providing a fine introductory list of things to consider that are of interest to you and others.

I’ll take a crack at your statements on originals. From my understanding I would say that what you state appears to be basically correct. I won’t quibble on minor points. I just would add that the way diverse documents from varied periods and locations corroborate each other is amazing and a testimony to the rigor and fidelity of the scribes.

I must prepare for a church building committee meeting working on the construction of a new church that I had the joy of designing and that will also serve as our town’s performing arts center. Lots of fun.

Peace.

Why I Don't Believe said...

Jose,

Troy, you are starting to get nasty. Not a good way to have a conversation.

Did you just say the adult equivalent of "I know you are but what am I" or "Nuh uh, you are"?

Just be nice Jose.

Anonymous said...


It is clear to me that many of the bloggers here have become so vulgar, crass and infantile that it is no longer worth my time to carrying on a conversation with them.

Adios.

Lok said...

Jose,

Come on now. Who is nasty here? You downplayed Troy's post by intentionally missing his point, and then, after I showed his point by directly quoting him, you again dismissed it as "insignificant" without explaining why while making various ambiguous claims. Moreover, you dismissed any criticism without even explaining what the heck you meant. Now you call Troy, who simply points out what you are doing, nasty? Who is "vulgar, crass and infantile" here? It seems to be that 's you.

No one is saying that "there may be flaws the voice/word is therefore completely inaudible or incomprehensible, or of no value." No one is saying that the Bible is incomprehensible; no one is even denying that the Bible cannot bring joy to people artistically, but the artistic value is not the problem here, which is why the analogy with music is a false one, as Ronin pointed out.

Jeez, you talk just like my pastor. Troy is right; it does feel like church here with you.

Anonymous said...

What about the hundreds of pages of evidence that wasn't left out?

Anonymous said...

Give me a list of contradictions so I can look them up.
I think all theese things have possible solutions to them.Don't they?

Anonymous said...

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Anonymous said...

**John Loftus was earlier able to make the comparison of reading the Bible as he reads Homer** When John used that comparison, he was saying that quoting the Bible to say that the Bible is true carries the same weight as quoting Homer to prove Homer true.

**When we pose a question such as, "Can we trust the New Testament we have?" we need to complete the thought with, "Trust it for what?" ** Considering this is a website for addressing evangelical Christianity, wouldn't the answer logically be, "Can we trust the New Testament" to be without error and infallible, as many fundamentalists claim?

**The atheist and/or recovering fundamentalist should delve into these disciplines via the Bible if he/she has interest in this book ** But the reason why a lot of ex-fundamentalists don't seem to want to have anything to do with the Bible is that they've been very scarred by their religion. That viewpoint promotes a vengeful God gleefully eager to throw people in hell -- and that attitude is carried by the people who follow that viewpoint. When they see the Bible used to justify so much hatred, then they don't want anything to do with the Bible because of what it's associated with.

DagoodS said...

Jose Solano,

I agree with you. We should delve into the Tanakh, and the New Testament, and the other early Christian writings. We should study. And I also agree with the attempt, as humanly possible, to be as objective as we can.

Within my study, I find that the question, “What method do we use to determine whether a writing is divine or not?” is an effective tool for studying, as well as approaching objectivity.

I was disappointed that you chose to not answer that question, and instead focused on the personality exchanges that are happening. Although, admittedly, I was not surprised. I ask that question of a lot of Christians. Evangelicals, fundamentalists, Calvinists, Baptists, Liberals—you name it.

I ask it and I ask it and I ask it. Most simply ignore it. The few that attempt to do so discover rather quickly that it is a matter of subjectivity (as Heather pointed out) OR create such an after-the-fact methodology that it is obvious they are making it up solely to fit the Bible.

I’ll ask again. Perhaps you missed it:

What method do we use to determine whether a writing is divine (in some way) or solely human? And, when applying this method to the Bible, how does it fare?

Anonymous said...

DagoodS:
An excellent question, but I want to take it a little further. We speak of THE Bible as if it is one book, but it isn't. It is many books by many different authors. Furthermore, it is a selection from a much larger assortment of books that claimed canonical status -- a selection we did not make, but which was made many years ago.
(And once that selection was made, the other 'competitors' were, for the most part, destroyed -- we only know of some of them from the writings of the early Church fathers against their authenticity. We accept that selection because we have no other choice. We can't go to a shelf with all the books and make our own selection, moving some to the "Divine" shelf and some to the "Human." And the people who made the selection had their own reason for the choices, which are not ours, nor did they have the scholarly apparatus we have. (Thus they accepted as Pauline several Epistles that are obviously later. At the same time they rejected books such as Clement I and II and the Sheperd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas that had, earlier, been included in some lists as Canonical. I won't even take time to discuss the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" which are in yet another category.)

(In doing some fact-checking, I discover that Luther and Calvin would have excluded as canonical several books we accept, including Hebrews, Jude, and most ironically, Revelations.)

With the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, things are no less settled. Even today different translations of the Bible -- in some cases even different editions of the same translation -- handle books such as Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, and the Maccabees differently.

Given this, your question is even more relevant.

I have a further question as well, but the cats are demanding to be fed, so I will put it in another post.

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Anonymous said...

http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp

"What is an Internet Troll/ Forum troll?
An "Internet troll" or "Forum Troll" is a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Forum Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums. A troll is someone who inspires flaming rhetoric, someone who is purposely provoking and pulling people into flaming discussion. Flaming discussions usually end with name calling and a flame war.

A classic CureZone troll is trying to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. Troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them.

While he tries to present himself as a skeptic looking for truth ... his messages usually sound as if it is the responsibility of other forum members to provide evidence that what forum is all about is legitimate science."

Imo, Jose is not a troll or a petty bitch. Just b/c his views are opposite of your views doesn't mean that he hasn't added value here.

Ooc, why do you guys spend time and effort into inciting and slandering a group of people who are different than you? Atheist claim to seize the day... wouldn't that require one to live and let live? Atheist equate YHWH with santa... why not spend your efforts telling all the misguided children out there that there is no santa? You can prove there is no santa long before you will ever prove there is no Creator.

Anonymous said...

Cats are fed, now to get to my second question, one which I have never seen asked - which of course may be a statement of the limitations of my knowledge.

Let us, for a moment, imagine we are God, and that we have a Message to deliver to humanity, a message encapsulated in the Incarnation, Preaching, Death and Ressurection. We know the coming upheavals, the chaos of the Jewish Wars, the Barbarian invasions, etc. We know of the weakness of mankind, and the limitations of copying by hand. We can send this Message at any time, obviously.

Why do we pick the time we do? Why do we not wait until communication technology has developed enough that this message won't be lost or mangled throughout the centuries?

Or let's say we HAVE to pick then, while the Temple is still standing, before the Diaspora, etc. That's certainly a credible assumption. Okay, why do we LEAVE the communication technology the way it was?

Block printing was certainly within the potential of Roman technology. Even movable type could have been managed. (The first examples in China used clay and then wood. Even without the metallurgical advances of later times, the Romans could have used these materials as easily as the Chinese did.)

If God could 'inspire' long books that would include this message, why could he not have, as easily, 'inspired' some inventor to come up with a way that would have preserved this message less arguably corrupted than it is now?

It didn't need to have been done by an Israelite, a Roman could have done it, just so it was available. And it needn't have required a full-scale production, a fiery angel appearing before the inventor in all his glory saying "Gaius Marcellus, the Great Lord of the Universe commands that you investigate this technology!" Send an angel disguised as a traveler, telling Gaius that, in some far away place, he understands they are trying out this idea, and let Gaius do the rest. Or just 'inspire' him in the sense that any inventor or artist is 'inspired.'

That way, the message would have been preserved, if not perfectly, much better than it was. How can we possibly argue that a God who had such an important message would not make sure it was preserved, would not even make sure that the original manuscripts would continue to exist, would not have, in some way, shown the world which of the numerous translators of the message into different languages would GET IT RIGHT.

(Of course, Christians are better off than Muslims, who also claim their sacred text was from God -- only not 'inspired' but directly dictated to Mohammed. Again, the Arabian Desert might not have been the best place to deliver THIS message, but if it were from God, and again, was the most important message ever sent, don't you think that the Angel might have suggested to Mohammed that he should have his followers write it down?
(Instead, it was decades after his death when one of his successors realized "Hey, the people who heard these sermons are dying off. Don't you think we better have somebody go around and get all the words people remember and get it written? And this happened so late that instead of putting it in a sequential text, the only choice they had was to assemble the Suras as best they could and arrange them in order of LENGTH?!?!.
(And even devout Muslims will admit that they got things out of order, including some verses in the wrong Suras -- while at the same time insisting that the Qur'an, as it currently exists, is an EXACT duplicate of a manuscript that exists in Paradise.)

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Anonymous said...

Pat:
Thank you for giving me a chance to make one of my favorite points.

Let us assume for the moment that the existence of a Creator can and has been demonstrated irrefutably. Even granting this, we have several 'claimants' all claiming that "I'm The Creator." Tell me how you pick from the following group, even assuming we throw out the Greek, Roman, Hindu, and Norse Gods, the Polynesian, etc. to simplify things:

The Hebrew YHWH
The Christian "God the Father" (who Christians claim is the same, but Jews would deny this)
The Muslim Allah (who Muslims claim is also the same as the other two, but Jews and Christians alike would deny this)
The Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda
The Deist "Great Watchmaker" (who puts things in motion and then sits back and watches what happens)
or
A Diety whose purpose for Creation was to create beings living on some distant star, who has Revealed Himself to Them, and who has either no concern with the people on this planet called Earth, or who expects his missionaries to get here eventually and reveal the Real Truth
or
A diety who will communicate with Mankind directly, but hasn't gotten around to it yet?

THIS is, in fact, the fallacy of "Intelligent Design." Even were it provable, it in no way establishes that The Designer is in any way the same as any Diety that is currently worshipped.

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Anonymous said...

I don't have a New Testament any longer. I used it to start a fire in my wood stove. You can trust it for kindling. Burns nicely.

Anonymous said...

Hello Jim,

I'm not sure how any of my questions were addressed in your response to me. I'm curious as to what drives the intolerance against a group of people different than you and what do you hope to achieve?

Why I Don't Believe said...

Reply to Pat...

Atheist equate YHWH with santa... why not spend your efforts telling all the misguided children out there that there is no santa? You can prove there is no santa long before you will ever prove there is no Creator.

What a silly thing to say Pat.

What makes all the difference is not our attitude to the Chrisitian imaginary friend, but the attitudes of those who believe in and follow him. Those who beleve in Santa may put out milk and cookies for him on Xmas Eve, but they don't build buildings, hold offices in the White House, tell people how to vote or what to do with their bodies. Assuming you are a Christian, I'm sure you don't equate Allah or Buddha with Santa and all are imaginary to you right? It just isn't the same now is it?

Anonymous said...

Troy,

Reading through all your verbiage... Christians should not be allowed to build buildings, hold offices in the white house, or vote against the murder of the innocent(btw- there are christians who aren't anti-abortion)? It seems like you actually believe that our current president is a christian... am I correct? As far as allah and budha goes, I wouldn't necessarily say they don't exist... do I believe they are The Creator? No and that's my right to feel so.

Ronin said...

Pat, you mentioned:

As far as allah and budha goes, I wouldn't necessarily say they don't exist... do I believe they are The Creator? No and that's my right to feel so.

You have the right to believe what you want - but what makes you feel you are so right and the hundreds of millions of buddhists and muslims are wrong?

They think you are wrong, and buddah and allah have just as many followers as the Christian god - do you lose sleep over whether they could be right? If not, why not?

Ronin

Anonymous said...

Ronin,

I don't have a blog and books that attacks buddhists and muslims. I also believe that they have the right to vote, build buildings, and hold political office. As far as losing sleep... no, He knows who are His.

Anonymous said...

Good morning, Pat:
Let me answer your two questions directly, then.
First, as far as 'intolerance' goes, I am not intolerant of your views, I disagree with them. (If I agreed with them, the question of 'tolerance' would not arise. Thus I am not 'tolerant' of atheists, because I am one. I am not 'tolerant' of homosexuals, because I am, myself, bisexual.)
Tolerance refers first to your holding a belief -- and I am 100% tolerant of that. I may attempt to convince you to change your mind, as you may -- and are, presumably -- attempt to convince me, equally that I am wrong. But doing so is not infringing on your right to hold it.
Second, it refers to your right to convince others of your beliefs, to 'preach.' Again, in the 'public forum' (in the political sense) this is absolute. In other circumstances, while I would tend to accept your right in most circumstances, it would depend on the specifics. If I (*shudder*) owned a business, I would not accept your right to set up a table inside it to preach to whoever entered, for obvious reasons. I would not accept your right, if you were a public school teacher, to preach during class hours -- but if you wanted to set up a club in school, I'd support you in most cases.
(In fact, I have requested an internet friend of mine who is an evangelical Christian and a graduate student of theology at Tubingen to join this debate so that the Christian point of view is well represented.)
Third, it refers to actions. Again, the presumption is in your favor, but it is a matter of specific circumstances. The question is how it infringes on others' rights, or on your own duties. I'm running late, so I'll skip examples for now. You, I'm sure, are intelligent enough to come up with some on your own.

"What am I trying to achieve?" First, in Darrow's wonderful phrase, to get you (and everyone, including myself) to 'think about what you think about.' Of course, from my point of view, I would be glad if, in the process of thinking, you changed your beliefs, because I know how much happier you would be, but that IS secondary.
And also to give people some facts they might not have known before -- and to learn some myself. Thus, until yesterday, I had not known that both Calvin and Luther considered Revelations to be apocryphal.

And one final question, dating back to the previous post. You talk about 'inciting' and 'slandering' people. I hope I do incite people, but to think, not to anger. I do not believe I have ever 'slandered' anyone in my life. If I have, show me, and I will apologize. I was once, in the strictly literal sense, slandered, it almost got me kicked out of college, and would have, if a Dean had not been willing to investigate and challenge the -- somewhat prominent -- person who made the charge. So, I'm very sensitive on the subject.

Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Anonymous said...

Pat:
I do not agree with what Troy wrote, though I believe that he expressed himself badly rather than held the opinions that came out. But it is up to him to correct this. For me, of course Christians should vote and hold office. Every citizen should do the first and have the right to try to do the second. I do object to office holders who go against the Constitution, and attempt to favor Christians over other groups -- see the discussions on how the 'faith-based initiative' was put into practice. I oppose authentic 'Dominionists' who attempt to replace our secular society with a Biblically-based one, and I will argue vehemently with those who believe that the country was founded on "Christian principles.'
(Unlike many atheists, I even support a limited tax exemption for religious purposes -- I wonder if this is what Troy meant by 'build buildings.')

(and HOORAY, I finally figured out how to use my name in the opening. I can be very dense about some things -- though not religious ones, I'd argue)

Unknown said...

Hi Troy,

Yeah, I think that sometimes those Bible evidence books can be misleading, on the other hand I do not think that the facts that you posted are very significant. I would say that a significant piece of evidence would be an old manuscript with significantly different ideas and wording than the ones we currently have would be significant. The changes of a few words here and there really does not change the book very much at all.

Are you trying to show that the New Testament is not valid, or are you trying to point out the dangers of accepting a viewpoint without realizing what the logical conclusion of the viewpoint is?

Cheers,

M.R.

Anonymous said...

I strongly suggest Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus" to those who think that the only differences in the ancient Biblical texts are minor errors. Prof. Ehrman provides an excellent layman's text that documents not only different ancient texts with significant doctrinal differences, but also how the most popular translations today are based on texts known to be be unreliable and flawed. It is an excellent primer on textual criticism, and a fascinating read for those interested in Biblical history.

My conclusion from my (limited) academic exposure to textual criticism is that the original manuscripts are unrecoverable, and that the changes that have been passed down to us (some unintentional, but many intentional and fairly drastic) render the current translations unreliable. Even if I were to believe that the original manuscripts were the flawless and divinely inspired Word of God, I would have no faith that the current Bible faithfully represented the ideas in the original manuscript.

Anonymous said...

Hello Jim,

Thankyou for addressing my questions. I agree with you on several of the political points you made with a few exceptions. I'm actually not real hip on the whole 501C-3 churches. As with evolution vs. creation, I don't see a problem with presenting both to students since neither can be absolutly proven, I don't think the proven science(not psuedo) of today has to be devoid of a Creator.

I don't feel that you have slandered anyone, you are one of the very few atheist here that have managed to stay even-toned and without slander. The type of inciting I was refering to was the negative type... the type with broad-sweeping generalizations and name-calling. I don't think that is effective incitement and can actually hurts one's cause. I have seen a lot of people(christians) called "ignorant, useless, stupid asses, petty bitches,trolls, etc." around here. If the name-callers here have the same goals as you then they are only shooting themselves in the foot if they keep it up. They claim to be humanist but turn around and back-bite their fellow human... I'm just trying to understand.

Anonymous said...

Btw Jim, you mentioned convincing me and others into becoming nonbelievers... well I've been there already and I personally prefer things from this end. ;-)

Peace

SocietyVs said...

Sooner or later people that claim faith in Christ and people that call themselves Atheists will come to a concensus on something. Until then I will keep on reading and checking in.

Why I Don't Believe said...

Reply to Pat...

Reading through all your verbiage... Christians should not be allowed to build buildings, hold offices in the white house, or vote against the murder of the innocent(btw- there are christians who aren't anti-abortion)?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't saying what you thought I was. Rather I was comparing those with a faith in Santa to those with a faith in Jesus. Those with a faith in Jesus are more called to far more and are way more active in the demonstration of their faith than those with a faith in Santa. I was not trying to asset those with a Xian faith should be stripped of their rights.

It seems like you actually believe that our current president is a christian... am I correct?

Yes. It appears he had a 'born again' experience and claims a 'personal relationship with Jesus'. There is an excellent PBS documentary on this.

As far as allah and budha goes, I wouldn't necessarily say they don't exist... do I believe they are The Creator? No and that's my right to feel so.

Of course it is, and let me say I would defend your right to believe this. But again, I was comparing a belief in these religious figures with a belief in Santa. They are simply not the same or at the very least they are not of the same degree. The impact on society by those of a religous tradition is not the same as that of those with a faith in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

I hope this clears things up.

Why I Don't Believe said...

Reply to mrieder...

I do not think that the facts that you posted are very significant.

Well, 'interpretation' is in the eye of the beholder. ;P

While this may not sway you away from a belief in the accuracy of the Bible, it is certainly enough to make an enquirer after the faith stop and think. I think my point really here was to show that the 'case' for accuracy is not as water-tight as some would have us believe.

I would say that a significant piece of evidence would be an old manuscript with significantly different ideas and wording than the ones we currently have would be significant.

I agree. And while I know this is not quite what you meant, isn't the existence noncanonical gospels something worth contemplating?

The changes of a few words here and there really does not change the book very much at all.

But it isn't just a few changes in a few words (see the last point in my post regarding major variants).

Are you trying to show that the New Testament is not valid, or are you trying to point out the dangers of accepting a viewpoint without realizing what the logical conclusion of the viewpoint is?

I am trying to show that the arguments for the accuracy of the NT are not as clean as some Evangelicals would have us believe. As I have said before, this is not the final word on the matter but it most cetainly a piece of the puzzle.

Unknown said...

Reply to Troy Waller,

I like discussing with you troy.

I agree. And while I know this is not quite what you meant, isn't the existence noncanonical gospels something worth contemplating?

Absolutely. One is not wise to simply gloss over such things. I personally found the apocryphal gospels which I read to be very unconvincing. Furthermore I am not aware that any of the early church fathers placed any stock in them either.


But it isn't just a few changes in a few words (see the last point in my post regarding major variants).


I was not referring to non-canonical texts, I was referring to diversity of substance within differing copies of the canonical texts. For example, if there were radical differences between differing copies of the book of John then I would wonder. Of course there is always the uncertainty over the passage in John chapter 8, but it is widely understood among those who are brave enough to search that the story is not found in certain early manuscripts. I am fine with that, the exclusion of that one story alters the meaning of the gospel very little. Of the manuscripts available of the canonical gospels, all evidence indicates that there has been very little change whatsoever. Therefore I am comfortable that what we have now is an accurate representation of what witnesses wrote about Jesus. What is important is whether they were being truthful! That is what matters!

I am trying to show that the arguments for the accuracy of the NT are not as clean as some Evangelicals would have us believe. As I have said before, this is not the final word on the matter but it most cetainly a piece of the puzzle.

You are right on here. It is very scary for people to question the basis of their faith. So many pastors say things like "if there is one mistake in the Bible, we might as well throw it all out". Statements like that are just not warranted. What if there was a mistake in the Bible somewhere? Does that invalidate the whole thing? What if the book of I kings has a mistake in a chronology? Does that invalidate the observations of the authors of the gospel who wrote hundreds of years later in a different place and a different language? I do not see how that follows. When I read a non-fiction book, I review the things that are said in my mind. The things that make sense, I keep, the things which are contradictory or obviously wrong, I discard. When I find an error in a non-fiction book, I do not automatically assume everything in there is false, just the parts that are obviously wrong, or do not make sense. Anyway, this is what I think. As you can tell, I am not hung up on Biblical inerrancy. To me it is a non-issue. The parts of the Bible which are applicable to my life have proven themselves to be trustworthy through firsthand experience. This is much stronger evidence to me than any sort of literary or archaeological evidence. I think that people often get stuck on little details like what the roof was made of when the friends lowered the paralytic through, and miss the really important things like: love people, forgive people, be humble, be meek, seek God, have faith. These are the teachings of Jesus. These are the words that transform. I think that many people have become lost in the details.

Thank you for your post and sincere replies. I find you to be a very sympathetic and thoughtful person and I appreciate that. It speaks well of your character.

Cheers,

Matt

Anonymous said...

Matt,

**As you can tell, I am not hung up on Biblical inerrancy. To me it is a non-issue. The parts of the Bible which are applicable to my life have proven themselves to be trustworthy through firsthand experience. **

Agreed. To say that if there's one mistake in the Bible, it should be thrown completely discounts personal experience. People follow the Bible's teachings because they've seen God work in their life -- the Spirit is supposed to work something internally. Paul, Peter, James -- they didn't just follow Jesus because of what the Old Testament said, but because of how what he did transformed their lives. How they saw God transform their lives. Otherwise, it's just an empty tradition.

Anonymous said...

The parts of the Bible which are applicable to my life have proven themselves to be trustworthy through firsthand experience.

Yes, but the same is true of any book. If this were the only claim Christians made about the Bible, I would have no more problem with them than I would Objectivists (considerably less so, in fact). But, Christians (or at least many of them) insist that their book is a conduit to the mind of God. If that is the case, then isn't it essential to know exactly what information you receive through that conduit is signal, and what part is noise? If you just use your own judgement to decide what is good and what is bad, then aren't you making it the Word of Matt, rather than the Word of God? Why should the wisdom of God seem obviously correct to you, when God frustrates the intelligence of the intelligent, etc. How do you separate the divinely inspired Word of God that you should base your entire life and belief structure upon from the earthly wisdom of some 3rd (or 13th) century scribe who thought that this particular passage needed beefing up, or that that couldn't be what God REALLY meant?

I have no disagreement with those who utilize the Bible the same way one would utilize Aesop's Fables. As a non-believer, I do that myself sometimes--some of Jesus' parables teach lessons that I find useful for acheiving happiness. But the same is true of many fiction books. But I would never dedicate my life to following the teachings of Aesop, and I certainly wouldn't believe that he was a supernatural being just because some good, useful stories have been attributed to him.

To say that if there's one mistake in the Bible, it should be thrown completely discounts personal experience.

Ah, but your personal experience is countered by the personal experiences of multitudes of people who are NOT Christian, and yet still feel the same feelings worshipping their own deities. If you are looking for truth, why should your subjective feelings about an exclusive religion (i.e. none may come to the Father save through me) weigh more than others' similar subjective experiences about their religion? You can't both be right.

Why I Don't Believe said...

Reply to Matt

Absolutely. One is not wise to simply gloss over such things. I personally found the apocryphal gospels which I read to be very unconvincing.

But you did read them having already been told that these are noncanonical texts, so you were free to be more critical of them than canonical texts. What I mean is, problems, mistakes, etc in a noncanonical text can be quickly labelled as such. In canonical texts however, believers will be far more ready to deidcate time and mental energy to overcome and explain similar problems. It's a question of bias.

Furthermore I am not aware that any of the early church fathers placed any stock in them either.

Well, you have some reading to do then. ;p A formal list of the canonical texts as we have it today does not appear in Church documents until the 4th century. Yes, you read that right, THE 4TH CENTURY. Atahanasius gave a list in 367 AD and Jerome gave one in 386 AD. The Third Council of Carthage gave a list in 397 AD. Up until then the lists we have are missing books or have what would now be seen as noncanonical additions. A search online will give you these early lists.

I was not referring to non-canonical texts, I was referring to diversity of substance within differing copies of the canonical texts.

I realise that.

For example, if there were radical differences between differing copies of the book of John then I would wonder.

Sure. And perhaps a little research on your part as to what the differences are...at least the major variants.

Of course there is always the uncertainty over the passage in John chapter 8, but it is widely understood among those who are brave enough to search that the story is not found in certain early manuscripts. I am fine with that, the exclusion of that one story alters the meaning of the gospel very little.

Well this is perhaps one of THE MOST compassionate acts of Jesus with a sinner. But it doesn't effect anything doctrinally I agree.

Of the manuscripts available of the canonical gospels, all evidence indicates that there has been very little change whatsoever.

Well, yes and no. I mean, the variants between the manuscripts out number the words in the NT. This is not a minor issue.

Therefore I am comfortable that what we have now is an accurate representation of what witnesses wrote about Jesus. What is important is whether they were being truthful! That is what matters!

See, I am gonna have to stop you there. What 'evidence' do we have that the gospels were written by eye witnesses? The names attributed to the gospels are not contained in the texts themselves. These were later additions and a matter of tradition. And to think that 1st century Aramaic speaking Jews wrote or even dictated the gospels is a HUGE stretch. Not only would they have likely been illiterate, but for them to have utilised and the literary devices they do would have meant high levels of education in Greek and literature. We have no indication that the Apostles possessed such (except maybe Paul and he was not a Gospel author). More likely is that the Gospels were written by highly educated Greek speaking Christians familiar with oral traditions, the Q document, other collections of Jesus' saings and Mark's Gospel (for the later 2 synoptics). The dating of the gospels is ALSO certainly up for debate between historians and Evangelicals.

As you can tell, I am not hung up on Biblical inerrancy. To me it is a non-issue.

Well, for me too of course, but mainly because I come from a perspective of non-faith. But the question of accuracy and thus authority must matter to you, even if you feel it has been settled.

The parts of the Bible which are applicable to my life have proven themselves to be trustworthy through firsthand experience.

Sure, and that is a matter of personal faith. That is something that cannot be debated here as it is subjective (I don't use that term to mean 'not real') and personal. Once we step into the 'realm of faith' then all arguments stop really.

I think that many people have become lost in the details.

Perhaps they have Matt. But perhaps they have learned that the good things about Christianity, like virtue and such, are not monopolised by it and can be found, explored and lived in other wordviews.

The final straw for me was the failed prophecies of Jesus and his disciples about Jesus' return. Once I realised this, it was all over.

TROY

Anonymous said...

**Ah, but your personal experience is countered by the personal experiences of multitudes of people who are NOT Christian, and yet still feel the same feelings worshipping their own deities**

But I'm not discounting other religions. I do find errors in the Bible. But I also look at the Bible as a whole. And I'm not saying that my personal experiences matter more than a Jew or a Muslim. I'm saying that they support the 'whole' that I see in the Bible. Too often, I see the fundamentalists of any religion get caught up in the details and dogma, when most great religious leaders kept it very, very simple: Love your neighbor as yourself. That's what I follow, and I see the Bible providing me the best path for that. No, not the hellfire and brimstone method, but how Jesus portrayed God.

I mostly say that because you see in all religious texts people claiming that there is something that is just 'known' on an internal matter, it can't just be based on what a book says. Otherwise, you're falling back on blind belief/just following orders. And that viewpoint chills me because so many times, atrocities are committed because people are just "following orders."

Anonymous said...

And I'm not saying that my personal experiences matter more than a Jew or a Muslim. I'm saying that they support the 'whole' that I see in the Bible.

But then, aren't you taking what is supposedly the Word of God and picking and choosing what parts to accept, and what parts to ignore (or actively renounce)? Doesn't that make it the Word of Heather rather than the Word of God? Couldn't someone take important life lessons from any book (or any communication or life event in general) in just such a fashion, keeping what appeals to them and ignoring the rest? Does the fact that your personal preference to take these lessons from old fiction make your beliefs "religion" while if an Objectivist takes lessons from the writings of Ayn Rand, he is then a "philosopher"? Why?

It seems to me that you are not a religious Christian, but rather a Jeffersonian Christian. I think that's great, but I'm not sure if that's how you see yourself.

Unknown said...

Hi Troy,

I suppose you may be more acquainted with textual criticism of the NT, since I have never heard it suggested that there were widely variant versions of the Book of John excepting the passage already mentioned.

You make a good point that it is hard to prove that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. I carefully chose the word witnesses because I felt it could include a larger group of people who could have access through secondhand sources.

But, to say that because there is no evidence that eyewitnesses wrote it that it could not be accurate is a stretch, much like a "God of the Gaps" in debating evolution. I don't think this is actually what you are doing. So why did I write that, I don't know.

You are also right that Jesus is not the only person who said to be good, although his approach seems somewhat unique among religions today.

Regarding Jesus' return, I know what you mean. Jesus says some difficult things. I am somewhat more moderate and tend to give the benefit of the doubt, so when something doesn't add up, I am slow to cast it aside. I certainly understand your decision though.

Thanks for your response.

All the best,

M.R.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Shygetz.

Some would say (and I think you're one of them?) that I pick and choose. Truthfully, I think everyone picks and chooses from whatever religious text they follow. For instance, how many fundamentalists turn the other cheek or actively love the enemy? Rather, they focus on verses that support the judgement side of God rather than the loving side.

I also have issues with calling the Bible the Word of God the way fundamentalists do. First, because the Christ was the Word -- a living example. Second, saying all scripture is inspired by God or God-breathed does not make it literally true. Because I do see contradictions in the Bible. There's a verse in Matthew, where the writer says it's what Jeremiah said when actually, the verse comes from Zechariah (sp?). Paul and Jesus both seem to be speaking as though the second coming would happen in their lifetime. The two creation stories don't match. There's 1 John 5: 7-8, where 'in heave, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghos: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,' which many say isn't in Greek Texts.. With all the information I find, I cannot interpret the Bible as literally true.

There's also the matter what Paul says test the spirits to see if it comes from God, and the fruit of the Spirit is peace, joy, love, and so on. Writers do say Jesus fufills scripture, but they also call on the readers to display common sense and not blindly follow something. God should also be a personal experience, as well. The Bible, to me, demonstrates that people's understanding of God evolved from a tribal element into something much greater.

I see myself as following the example Jesus provided the best I can. :) But, yes, there will be some that say I'm following my own way, rather than God's. But that will always be a matter of interpreation. Take Jesus saying, I'm the way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me." I believe that. But I interpret that sentence in that Jesus is the 'new man.' If one follows the old man, or Adam, and lives according to greed, lust, hatred -- you don't get to God that way. So do you literally go 'through' Jesus? Because if so, it doesn't make sense to me. We're told that we have spiritual life after death, only most of us have that life in hell. But our souls are still alive. Then why did Jesus describe himself as 'life?'

Or, is it used in the fashion, "Through him, we learned the truth." "Through him, we reached the end of the book."

**Couldn't someone take important life lessons from any book (or any communication or life event in general) in just such a fashion, keeping what appeals to them and ignoring the rest?**

Yes. But again, it's the internal element, like intiution.

**Does the fact that your personal preference to take these lessons from old fiction make your beliefs "religion" while if an Objectivist takes lessons from the writings of Ayn Rand, he is then a "philosopher"? Why?**

It's probably referred to as 'religion' because there's some sort of Deity/worship involved.

Anonymous said...

Heather,

That seems eminently reasonable to me. You have taken the lessons that you find to be useful from a book, and applied it to your life, disregarding that which is not useful. People like you are why I dislike the use of the label "freethinker" for atheists and agnostics--it doesn't give enough credit to non-dogmatic theists. Since you make no claims to evidence of your correctness to the exclusion of all others, I have no problem with your beliefs, and wish you the best of luck with them.

Anonymous said...

**disregarding that which is not useful** Such as stoning children who are disrespectful to parents. Faith in a God should not mean blind obedience -- that borders on, "I was just following orders" which has been used to excuse too many horrible acts.

**Since you make no claims to evidence of your correctness to the exclusion of all others,** I don't. I can completely understand someone wanting proof for a religion that comes from outside of the religious text. For instance, the miracles -- Jesus used the miracles as proof for his claims. Why is it suddenly unreasonable if people today want the same?

I do believe in an infinite Truth/God, and that you can't reach it/Him however you want to. However, we are also finite beings with subjective viewpoints, and that God would have to make allowances for that, and if His understanding is all-knowing, then He understands why some people can't follow a certain religion compared to another one, and why some don't follow a religion at all. An infinite 'one way to God' could be so far beyond our finite understand. And probably is.