.

Dear OzSpen,

.

Commenting on my statement : “the notion of original documents or “original text” of the New Testament, poses another problem”, you wrote :

« No problem if the original documents are not available … The earliest Homer MSS is 300BC when it was written 400 years earlier. We don’t have originals but would you throw out the Odyssey because of this? »
.

As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Homer’s manuscripts are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts – nor that anybody should believe that they are. Whereas Church doctrine commands that the 2.4 billion Christians around the world believe that the 27 books of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts.

You wrote in your post on the bottom of page 20 of this thread :

« Thus, Christians are justified in supporting the view that the original documents are breathed out by the God who is perfect (Psalm 18:30). This does not mean that the manuscripts that have reached us do not have variants/typos or changes in them »

That’s fine, but one may ask just how much of the “breathing” has been done by the hypothetical god and how much by multiple scribe copyists down the ages – the original texts having long disappeared ?

In the absence of the original texts, diverse and numerous copies of the New Testament were canonised (officially adopted and declared authentic and authoritative) by the various Christian denominations.

The canonisation process was extremely complex and lasted several centuries.

It is therefore incorrect to refer to the “original texts” of the New Testament as these have long been lost and forgotten. It is more than likely that most – if not all – of the texts we have today are fairly substantially different from the original autographs (manuscripts in the authors’ own handwriting or as dictated by him).

That said, OzSpen, I agree with you that it is of no importance – but it does raise serious questions about the factualness and truthfulness of the New Testament authors in their evangelistic pursuits.

.

Banjo,

<<As far as I know, nobody has ever suggested that Homer’s manuscripts are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts – nor that anybody should believe that they are. Whereas Church doctrine commands that the 2.4 billion Christians around the world believe that the 27 books of the New Testament are inerrant, “divinely inspired”, sacred texts.>>

That wasn't the issue to which I responded. It was whether we can depend on the copies when we don't have the originals. For the NT, the answer is 'Yes', just as it is for Homer's The Odyssey.

In those NT documents for which we have reliable evidence for their historical authenticity, we read that those documents were 'breathed out by God' who is perfect (2 Tim 3:16; Num 23:19).

You don't seem to want to accept this evidence but run off with what you want to talk about - biblical inspiration. I've given you answers for this, but you're not listening.

Dear OzSpen,

That you pray to God in your sufferings is excellent, but completely avoids my question. Have you truly no weakness whatsoever of selfishly preferring to not have pain? If so then you are a saint!

Pain is real only to the extent that the world is real. That the world is an illusion and God's truth is the only reality is planted securely in scripture, the Upanishads.

The Upanishads delve into the nature of God, His perceived "with-qualities" (saguna Brahman) and the final Truth of their absence (nirguna Brahman). There is much theological material online, but you would find most of it difficult due to the use of Sanskrit terms. I found this excellent and deep discussion here that uses only minimal Sanskrit: http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.com/2008/05/god-as-both-nirguna-brahman-and-saguna.html

An excerpt:

Since we cannot form in our mind any clear and accurate concept of infinity, whatever our mind imagines God to be is not the absolute truth about him. All his divine qualities or attributes, such as his omnipresence, his omnipotence, his omniscience, and his omnibenevolence or all-embracing love, are perfectly true from the limited perspective of our mind, but none of them really define his absolute and infinite reality. His infinite reality transcends all qualities and attributes, and everything that our mind can possibly conceive.

Yuyutsu,

<<Pain is real only to the extent that the world is real. That the world is an illusion and God's truth is the only reality is planted securely in scripture, the Upanishads.>>

That's a sad statement about the irrelevance and lack of truthfunless of the Upanishads.

By following the text of the Upanishads, you are jumping off the cliff of reality into unreality.

No matter which way you try to persuade me, the fact remains that the world in which you and I live can be seen, felt, touched, smelt and digested. It is NOT an illusion. It is real and the Upanishads have a message that doesn't match reality.

If I were in your presence, both of us would see real persons - not an illusion. Why can't you admit you've been sold a lie?

To Banjo Paterson.

In your replies to OzSpen, you made this point:

<<That’s fine, but one may ask just how much of the “breathing” has been done by the hypothetical god and how much by multiple scribe copyists down the ages – the original texts having long disappeared ?

In the absence of the original texts, diverse and numerous copies of the New Testament were canonised (officially adopted and declared authentic and authoritative) by the various Christian denominations.>>

The point is a hypothetical for you because God is a hypothetical to you. But hear my point anyways even if you have to treat it as a hypothetical.

If God exists, and is not hypothetical. Then that changes everything as we understand it, because that means God has a say in what happens in the world. If God is real and intreasted enough in us to communicate to us through prophets, history, miracles, Angels, religous costoms, prays and visions, then that changes the dynamic of the if God exists but is not active in our lives or our world, to God being active and part of it.

Continue on the thought that God is real, and active towards us and our lives. Now move to the big issue that your point brings up. How powerful is God. And can His words, His communication to us, last theoughout the ages.

If God is real, active and even slightly as powerful as is recorded in the bible, then He is also able to protect His words and preserve them throughout time. And if He can do that, then there's little reason to count the bible being flawed by not being the origional manuscripts. Then if the bible is accurate, then the point of God's authority and power is also supported.

I understand this is will be a hypothetical for you. But in order to consider if God is real, (even hypothetically). It's worth it to consider the scope of what that includes.

Banjo,

<< how much of the “breathing” has been done by the hypothetical god and how much by multiple scribe copyists down the ages – the original texts having long disappeared ?>>

Your presuppositions about God are speaking. The NT has many more MSS or partial MSS to compare to ensure highly reliable documents are produced.

If you chuck out the NT, you also need to disregard the writings of Homer, Aristotle and Plato. The NT documents are more numerous and closer to the originals than any other documents from history.

Homer's Iliad was written in 900 BC and the earliest MSS found dates to 400 BC, leaving a gap of 500 years. There are 643 MSS or partial MSS, providing ca. 95% accuracy. Would you chuck out Homer's writings because we don't have the originals?

For the NT, there are 5,600 MSS or partial MSS, written between ca. AD 50-100. The earliest NT MSS is p52, John Rylands Fragment of John 18:31-33, 37-38. That's a time span from the original of ca. 29 years. With the NT, has ca. 99.5% accuracy.

Therefore, your statement is incorrect: <<It is more than likely that most – if not all – of the texts we have today are fairly substantially different from the original autographs (manuscripts in the authors’ own handwriting or as dictated by him).>>

That's not what the research finds, but it is what your presuppositions decide.

<<In the absence of the original texts, diverse and numerous copies of the New Testament were canonised (officially adopted and declared authentic and authoritative) by the various Christian denominations.>>

False! There were no official denominations at the time of the Council of Carthage in AD 397 when the NT was canonised. This Council decreed: "that aside from the canonical Scriptures nothing is to be read in church under the name of Divine Scriptures." It gave a list of the books of the NT.

<<it does raise serious questions about the factualness and truthfulness of the New Testament authors in their evangelistic pursuits.>>

I have countered that in a previous post.