EvC Forum: Bible inerrancy is well supported

kendemyer

Inactive Member

Message 16 of 61 (78492)
01-14-2004 7:38 PM

re: Bible inerrancy

Dear Readers:

Here is the rationale I have heard regarding the importance that the original documents of the Bible were inerrant (copyist errors, etc. I do realize that there is no body of ancient literature that has been better preserved than the New Testament and that the Massorites did a incredible job of preserving the Old Testament as evidenced by the Dead Sea scrolls):

Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much (Luke 16:10). A gentleman who wrote an article to defend the Bible said if we cannot trust the Bible in mundane small and verifiable points then its bigger more untestable claims could be argued to be suspect. I would argue that the Bible has been faithful in little and in much.

I realize that scientists can build upon the partial mistakes of others but I would argue that in a very large amount of cases the Bible has proved to be true in the long run and the consensus of scientists (social scientists included) has been proven wrong. Here are just a few of the examples:

I would also argue that although Christians are in no way under the Mosaic Law as per Paul in Galations(dietary laws, sanitation laws)I would argue that the Mosaic law was way ahead of its time as can be seen in these links which would certainly support the doctrine of Bible inerrancy:

http://www.godstruth.org/chap08

Forbidden

Much has been written about scientific foreknowledge and the Bible. Here is one example I will give you:

ADSL, ADSL2+, Broadband plans, Internet, Telephone, VOIP, SIM | Internet Service | Adam Australia | Internet Service | Adam Australia

Lastly, I would remind the Bible's critics that modern science and the scientific method did not originate during the skeptical periods of Greek philosophy but it occured in Christianized Europe which had a worldview conduscive to science. Here is a site which gives the details:

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

Here is an excellent article:

Bible - How it came to be
A detailed look at how the Bible was preserved

AN OVERVIEW FROM AN OLD
ARTICLE

Before we explore the difficult area of translating the
Hebrew OT from Hebrew into the English language(which part 7
contains), I think it would be good to give you some excerpts
from an article written that was part of a publication by the
Worldwide Church of God back in 1980. The publication was called
"The Authority of the Bible" and the article within it that I
will quote from was called "Has the Bible Been Preserved
Accurately?" and its author was Neil Earle.

All large capital letter emphasis is mine - Keith Hunt.

Quote:

Could a collection of writings scattered over 1,500 years of
composition, spanning 60 generations and authored by 40-plus
writers in THREE languages survive such a journey? Jesus Christ said YES. The skeptics DISAGREE........

Critical doubts and scholarly questions do not constitute
refutation......The document gets the benefit of any doubt. The
burden of proof lies with the skeptic!

A nation of priests

The evidence for the integrity and authenticity of the
documents underlying the biblical text makes a fascinating story.
It begins with the Eternal God's selection of an entire
nation as a "kingdom of priests" (Ex.19:6). The CARE and
PRESERVATION of Israel's lively oracles was ultimately to become
a solemn duty of PROFESSIONALS called scribes.

How easy was it to palm off forgeries on the SPECIALLY
CHOSEN teachers of the tribe of LEVI (Deut.33:10)? How did later
educated Jews feel about the authenticity of the documents they
VENERATED as the "holy scriptures" (2 Tim.3:15)?
Let JOSEPHUS, a Jewish historian of the first century,
answer:

' From Artaxerxes (Malachi's time) until our time everything
has been recorded but has not been deemed worthy of like credit
with what has preceded, because the exact succession of prophets
ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is
evident by our conduct; FOR though so long a time has now passed,
NO ONE HAS DARED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THEM, OR ALTER ANYTHING IN
THEM' (Contra Apion, Whiston's Josephus, p.609).

Often overlooked is that the law, prophets, and writings,
which were accepted by Jesus (Luke 24:44), formed the BASIS FOR
THE LEGAL PRACTICES of the Jewish nation. These religious
writings had NATIONAL IMPACT equal to Britain's Magna Carta...or
America's Plymouth Rock Covenant and Declaration of
Independence....Animosity was, paradoxically, a powerful force in
PRESERVING the unimpeachability of Scripture. The appeal to the
text was the common arbiter in theological debate (Matt.19:7).
The Scriptures were known at the grass-roots level as well (Luke
4:16-20). UNOFFICIAL DELETIONS, INSERTIONS OR CORRUPTIONS would
have triggered an OUTCRY among the faithful in a nation ZEALOUS
FOR THE LAW (Acts 22:3).

TAMPER with the OFFICIAL Hebrew text? One may as well
consider EDITING the Declaration of Independence, DELETING a
sentence in a NEW copy of the Gettysburg Address......VITAL
literary production of NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE are too WELL KNOWN
to be PRIVATELY tampered with among the faithful. There were, of
course, enemies who tried to do so - and still do!

Today thousands of people have committed the TEN
COMMANDMENTS TO MEMORY. Imagine the PROTEST if a NEW Bible
translation INSERTED AN EXTRA commandment!.......

The Thread of Conveyance

Scripture itself speaks of a systematic, ORGANIZED
PRESERVATION of the law, prophets and writings.

Moses entrusted the law to the Levites guarding the ark,
center-piece of Israel's religion (Deut.31:24-26). Joshua 1:8
comments upon "this book of the law" that Moses' successor read
to the entire nation (Josh.8:32-35).

Literate, proficient scholars functioned even through the
chaotic Judges period (Judg.5:14, 1 Sam.1:3,9). Under Samuel
and David and Solomon, during Israel's Golden Age, inspired
writers laid the basis for the historical narratives in Samuel,
Kings and Chronicles. David revered the sacred writings
(Ps.119:97), and he and Solomon contributed and collected many
psalms and proverbs.

These writings formed the basis for successive national
revivals and reforms (2 Chron.17:7-9; 2 Kings 22:8). Later on
Isaiah and Hezekiah updated the text (Prov.25:1; Isa.8:16). In
this way "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit" (2 Pet.1:21). The writings of the prophets were accepted
- often after the death of the prophets - because of God's
evident approval and inspiration, shown through dramatic
fulfilment (Isa.38:4-7).

Even during the babylonian captivity Daniel had access to
the Scriptures (Dan.9:2), and the return to Jerusalem was greatly
influenced by Ezra, a "ready scribe" and guardian of the text
(Ezra 7:6,10). According to Jewish tradition, Ezra officially
updated and clarified the text in certain places(e.g.,Deut.34:5).
Shortly after his time the book of Malachi, the last OT prophet,
was written.

Ancient computers

How responsible was the transmission of the text? We can get
a good insight by surveying TWO PERIODS OF TRANSCRIPTION: from
the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 to about A.D. 500, and from A.D.
500 to A.D. 916.

In the first five centuries a group known as the TALMUDISTS
guarded and copied the text. A supreme effort to safeguard the
OT accompanied the scattering of the Jewish people after A.D. 70.
"A great rabbi - Yochanan ben Zakkia by name (reconstituted)
the SANHEDRIN AT JANNIA, between Joppa and Azotus. They
considered whether canonical recognition should be accorded to
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs and Esther......the
upshot was the firm acknowledgement of all these books as Holy
Scripture" (F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p.97).....

TRANSCRIPTION WAS LETTER BY LETTER, WORD BY WORD, OR PHRASE
BY PHRASE! DILIGENCE, VENERATION, PROFESSIONALISM. THE HALL
MARKS OF THE TALMUDIST TRADITION!

The MASORETES (Hebrew Masorah, meaning "to deliver something
in to the hands of another") safeguarded the text from about A.D.
500 to A.D. 916. These dedicated scholars based in Tiberias
produced the Masoretic texts used today; they are the basis for
our English OT of 1611. "The Masorah is called 'a fence to the
scriptures' because it locked all words and letters in their
places. It records the number of times the several letters occur
in the Bible; the number of words and the middle word; the number
of verses and the middle verse, etc., for the set purpose of
preventing the loss or misplacement of a single letter or word"
(Bullinger, Companion Bible, Appendix 30).

Designating the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the
middle letter and verse of each book as well as the entire OT was
not enough for these technicians. Phrases were counted,
enumerated, distinguished. "House of Israel" was computed
separately from "sons of Israel" and the number of times each
occurred was well noted. The expression "sins of Jeroboam" is
noted separately from "the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat."
thus the Jewish zeal for God was turned to good use (Romans
10:2).

So confident were the Talmudists and Masoretes that the
older documents were discarded. In the words of Sir Frederick
Kenyon, late curator of the British Museum, "Age gave no
advantage to a manuscript." Understanding the PRECISION and
SKILL of the Jewish scribes explains why. Who has ever counted
the letters of Shakespear, the words of Herodotus, the phrases of
Homer?

(Note: An interesting paragraph from the Companion Bible,
Appendix 30, that was not quoted by Earle is this:

" The Text itself had been fixed before the Massorites were
put in charge of it. This had been the work of the Sopherim [from
saphar, to count, or number]. Their work, under Ezra and
Nehemiah, was to set the Text in order after the return from
Babylon; and we read of it in Neh.8:8 [cp Ezra 7:6,11]. The men
of 'the Great Synagogue' completed the work. This work lasted
about 110 years, from Nehemiah to Simon the first, 410-300 B.C."
- Keith Hunt).

The Dead Sea Scrolls

............Then came 1947. One of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls
found was the COMPLETE Isaiah manuscript. Its date?
Approximately 125 B.C. This is a thousand years earlier than the
Masoretic tests. HOW DID IT COMPARE? Norman L. Geisler and
William E. Nix report:

"In one chapter of 166 words (Isa, 53) there is only ONE
WORD (three letters) in question after a thousand years of
transmission - and this word does not significantly change the
meaning of the passage" (General Introduction to the Bible,
p.263).

Minor stylistic and spelling variations PALE before the FACT
that the Isaiah scroll "proved to be WORD FOR WORD IDENTICAL with
our STANDARD HEBREW BIBLE in more than 95 percent of the text"
(Archer, A Survey of the OT, p.19).

In the words of Mr. Geisler and Mr. Nix, "the King James
Bible is 98.33 percent pure" when compared with the Dead Sea
Scrolls.

Yet, as the accuracy of the Talmudists and Masoretes SHOULD
DEMONSTRATE, the Dead Sea Scrolls NEED TO BE EVALUATED BY THE
OFFICIAL MASORETIC TEXT, NOT VICE VERSA.................

End of quotes from Neil Earle's article.

In our next study in this series we will look at the difficulties
of translating the OT Hebrew into English.

Here is the webpage this material was taken from:
http://www.keithhunt.com/Bible6.html

Here is some more excellent material:

Re: VARIANTS IN OLD TESTAMENT COPIES AND OTHER RELIABLITY ISSUES

Just the Facts, Ma’am

The question of authenticity is not really a religious concern at all; it’s an academic one. It can be answered in an academic way totally unrelated to spiritual convictions by a simple appeal to facts, an apologetic technique I call "Just the Facts, Ma’am."

The objection at first glance is compelling. When we try to conceptualize how to reconstruct an original after 2000 years of copying, translating, and copying some more, the task appears impossible. The skepticism, though, is based on two misconceptions about the transmission of ancient documents like the New Testament.

The first assumption is that the transmission is more or less linear, as in the telephone example—one person communicating to a second who communicates with a third, etc. In a linear paradigm people are left with one message and many generations between it and the original. Second, the telephone game example depends on oral transmission which is more easily distorted and misconstrued than something written.

Neither assumption applies to the written text of the New Testament. First, the transmission was not linear, but geometric—e.g., one letter birthed five copies which became 25 which became 200 and so on. Secondly, the transmission in question was done in writing, and written manuscripts can be tested in a way that oral communications cannot be tested.

Reconstructing Aunt Sally’s Letter

Let me illustrate how such a test can be made. It will help you to see how scholars can confidently reconstruct the text from existing manuscript copies even though the copies themselves have differences and are much older than the autograph (i.e., the original).

Pretend your Aunt Sally has a dream in which she learns the recipe for an elixir that would continuously maintain her youth. When she wakes up, she scribbles the directions on a scrap of paper, then runs into the kitchen to make up her first glass. In a few days her appearance is transformed. Sally is a picture of radiant youth because of her daily dose of what comes to be known as "Aunt Sally’s Secret Sauce."

Sally is so excited she sends hand-written instructions to her three bridge partners (Aunt Sally is still in the technological dark ages—no photocopier or email) giving detailed instructions on how to make the sauce. They, in turn, make copies and send them to ten of their own friends.

All is going well until one day Aunt Sally’s pet schnauzer eats the original copy of the recipe. Sally is beside herself. In a panic she contacts her three friends who have mysteriously suffered similar mishaps. Their copies are gone, too, so the alarm goes out to their friends in attempt to recover the original wording.

They finally round up all the surviving hand-written copies, twenty-six in all. When they spread them out on the kitchen table, they immediately notice some differences. Twenty-three of the copies are exactly the same. Of the remaining three, though, one has some misspelled words, another has two phrases inverted ("mix then chop" instead of "chop then mix") and one includes an ingredient that none of the others has on its list.

Here is the critical question: Do you think Aunt Sally can accurately reconstruct her original recipe from this evidence? Of course she could. The misspellings are obvious errors, and the single inverted phrase stands out and can easily be repaired. Sally would then simply strike the extra ingredient reasoning it’s more plausible one person would add an item by mistake than 25 people would accidentally omit it.

Even if the variations were more numerous or more diverse, the original could still be reconstructed with a high level of confidence if we had enough copies.

Once you understand how this works, it’s easy to see how even sixth-graders can get it right. Write two to four verses on the board, then tell the students to each make an exact copy on a sheet of paper, reminding them that their grade depends on accuracy.

When they’re finished, erase the board, destroying the "original." Collect the papers, redistribute them, and tell the students to copy the text a second time using the first copies as a guide. This produces a third generation manuscript.

Collect the second generation copies and trash them, along with half of the third generation manuscripts. Now invite the students to reproduce the originals from what remains.

Even if some knucklehead messes up, the rest of the students will be able to repair the breach because they have the documentation needed to make the correction.

This, in simplified form, is how the science of textual criticism works. Textual critics are academics who reconstruct a missing original from existing manuscripts that are generations removed from the autograph. According to New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce, "Its object [is] to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question."[2]

The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity—not just religious texts—including historical and literary writings. It’s not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it’s a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.

How Many and How Old?

The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?

If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he’s pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.

The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century—four centuries after they were written.[3] Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.[4] Thucydides’ History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.[5]

Bruce’s comments put the discussion in perspective: "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals."[6]

For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with a high degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.

see this URL for details:

Status

ALSO HERE IS SOME MORE USEFUL INFORMATION:

The Old Testament faced an entirely different situation than the New Testament. They had one chief worship center.

The scribes would specialize in copying the scriptures when they were worn. The scribes were extraordinarily careful in copying these texts. They would count the letters going each way. If they found one mistake, they would destroy that page. They did make occasional mistakes like the reversing of letters, but they did not dare tamper with God's Word. They preserved the integrity of the holy texts by burning the old ones with defects.

What happened as a result was that our latest copies (manuscripts) of the Old Testament scriptures were more than one or two thousand years from the time that they were written in some cases. People started wondering whether they were true.

Until recently, our most ancient copies (manuscripts) of the Old Testament were from the 10th century. They could of course check its message with the Septuagint which was written several hundred years before Christ. This was the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was in use in Jesus' day.

More recent archaeological findings, however, have swept this suspicion into the Mediterranean. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s have shown that the Hebrew (Masoretic) text was accurately preserved. These scrolls were written 100 to 200 years before Jesus' time. So passages that clearly describe Jesus such as Isaiah 53 could no longer be said to be inserted after Jesus' time.

see this link for details: http://www.foundationsforfreedom.ne...eliability.html

HERE IS A VERY KEY POINT:

Of the passages in which textual variants occur, the vast majority involve minor differences in spelling or grammar which leave the meaning of the texts unaffected. Those passages in which potentially significant variations do occur are usually listed in footnotes in the better English translations and editions of the Bible, so any reader can know exactly where they appear. And it is fair to conclude that no point of Christian doctrine relies solely on disputed textual variants.

see this webpage for details: Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions

KEY ISSUE REGARDING COPYISTS ERRORS:

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_IHI.html

Here is some information by the Bible Scholar FF Bruce: