What Is The New Testament Definition Of "Christian"

[djholmess]

As I understand it, the NT is not a 'document of ancient antiquity' but rather a compilation of documents, different in age (though all 'antique' by our standards), the vast majority of which stem from translations created centuries after Christ lived.

I have to ask, what, in your view, is the difference between something being 'breathed out by God' and something being 'preserved' by God?

Where are you getting these percentages?

If the people doing the translation were always 'people of God' then I can see where you are coming from. I don't personally believe that that can be guaranteed down through the centuries however. It seems obvious, given the journey the bible has taken down through the centuries, that such wouldn't always be the case (though I certainly believe that God never abandoned the bible but protected it's over all message, and also that His people through the centuries sacrificed much to preserve it as well as they did).

The LDS belief concerning the bible is, as JS stated-"the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.”

Interesting.

Are you under the impression that the greek and hebrew manuscripts available to us today are the originals? Being able to read Greek and Hebrew is of course extremely helpful, but even then, it's not the original greek and hebrew, but a copy of a copy of a copy (etc. in some cases) of the originals.

Biblical scholar Ehrman claims "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament."

Even though we have a ton of NT manuscripts, they aren't the originals. As I understand it (and i'm not bible scholar), the earliest pieces of manuscript that we have are from 125 AD and those are copies of pieces of the book of John.

Since we have no originals, how is this determined?

Good questions, I'll get back to you tomorrow-i'm certainly not a Textual Critique (someone who specialises in examining the over 5500+ Greek NT manuscripts we have) but I'll answer you as fully as I can.

[bluebell]

Good questions, I'll get back to you tomorrow-i'm certainly not a Textual Critique (someone who specialises in examining the over 5500+ Greek NT manuscripts we have) but I'll answer you as fully as I can.

[Vance]

So just to be clear Romans 4:5 says:

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on HIM THAT JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY, his faith is counted for righteousness.

And your intrepretation is:

What part of "believeth on HIM" don't you understand? If you believe on Jesus Christ you will believe what he taught (NOT WHAT YOU MISUNDERSTAND ABOUT WHAT PAUL TAUGHT!!!!)

If you believe on Jesus Christ, you will repent of your sins, get baptized (by the proper authority) and continue in His word, and BE His disciple. If you are His disciple, you are NO LONGER "ungodly" but are forgiven of your sins and your faith is counted as if you were ALWAYS righteous.

The whole rest of the NT teaches the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming this verse means.

THANK GOD!!! Joseph Smith made the correction to this verse.

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

Since I am a biblical scholar by training (specializing in New Testament studies), perhaps I might shed some light on your questions and comments. You wrote:

As I understand it, the NT is not a 'document of ancient antiquity' but rather a compilation of documents, different in age (though all 'antique' by our standards), the vast majority of which stem from translations created centuries after Christ lived.

According to mainstream biblical scholars (not just evangelicals), all 27 of the NT documents were composed in the second half of the first century (ca. AD 50-100). Christ died and rose from the dead in either AD 30 or 33. Therefore, all of the NT books were composed within 70 years or less of Christ's resurrection.

These NT books were copied numerous times and the copies circulated throughout the Mediterranean world, so that by the middle of the second century or so people in many of the larger cities from Rome to Jerusalem had access to many if not all of the NT books in their locality. The books of the NT were being translated into Coptic, Syriac, and Latin by the end of the second century and into other languages in the centuries that followed. However, they continued to be copied into Greek in every century and indeed in every generation, as Greek was the lingua franca of the era, spoken by people throughout that part of the world. At no time were people dependent on translations of the NT alone; copies of the original-language, Greek texts of the NT books continued to be produced and circulated.

So it is not accurate to say that any of the NT books "stem from translations created centuries after Christ lived." All of them originated within far less than a century after Christ lived.

D.J. had written: "Sure there may be the odd word or phrase where it is not immediately clear what the original would have said but for 99% of the words of the NT it is, for the other 1% some study would be required." You asked:

Where are you getting these percentages?

I can help you there. There are several ways of approaching the matter, all of which lead to about the same conclusion.

1. The NT in the KJV has about 7,957 verses (to do the math easily, we can round this up to 8,000). Of these nearly 8,000 verses, NT textual critics have identified no more than about 40 verses that are widely regarded as later additions to the text. (These include Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11; and a little more than a dozen isolated verses, mostly in the Synoptic Gospels where scribes added a verse to one Gospel that was known from a parallel passage in another Gospel.) This means that only about one-half of one per cent of the verses in the KJV were determined to be scribal additions (40 divided by 8,000 is 0.005).

2. When the KJV was translated 401 years ago, the Greek manuscripts on which it was primarily based were only a small handful of manuscripts dating from a thousand years or more after the NT was written. Since the KJV, thousands of manuscripts have been discovered, including small and large manuscript fragments dating from the second and third centuries, copies of whole books of the NT from about the end of the second or the early third century (ca. 200), and whole copies of the NT dating from the fourth century and every century thereafter. If text had been lost or taken out of the NT books, these earlier and numerous manuscripts should have revealed this fact. That has not happened. Not one sentence has been found in any of the early manuscripts that was not in the KJV and that NT scholars have recognized as authentic. Not one sentence! If the question is how much of the original text of the 27 books of the NT is missing, the answer is clearly nothing.

3. As everyone has heard, there are many variants, or differences, in the existing manuscripts of the NT. This is really an indirect testimony to two important facts: how many manuscripts are available, and the freedom with which scribes copied the NT books. If we had only ten manuscripts, we would have far fewer variants but also far less evidence on which to base a fine-grained knowledge of the precise wording of the original. With approaching six thousand Greek manuscripts, thousands of extant manuscripts in Coptic, Syriac, and other languages (over 10,000 in Latin alone!), there are naturally many, many more variants, but also much more manuscript evidence with which to compare different readings and determine which ones are correct. The nature of the variants is also important. By far the vast majority of them are spelling mistakes (Bart Ehrman has guessed that they may account for as much as seven-eighths of the variants). Most of the remaining variants either do not affect how we would translate the text, or are too unlikely to be taken seriously. What remains, the variants that need to be taken seriously and that would affect the translation or understanding of the text, are about one per cent of the variants (there are no exact figures for any of this, by the way). That's one per cent of the variants, not one per cent of the words in the text.

You wrote:

If the people doing the translation were always 'people of God' then I can see where you are coming from. I don't personally believe that that can be guaranteed down through the centuries however. It seems obvious, given the journey the bible has taken down through the centuries, that such wouldn't always be the case (though I certainly believe that God never abandoned the bible but protected it's over all message, and also that His people through the centuries sacrificed much to preserve it as well as they did).

It really doesn't matter whether translators during any particular period were faithful to God or not, because, as I have explained above, translators never replaced the earlier Greek text with their new translations. The Greek text continued to be copied at the same time that translations were produced in various languages. This means that when translators took inappropriate liberties with the text scholars can tell by comparing the translations with earlier manuscripts in the original language. Generally speaking, they find that most translations were done very conscientiously and did not drop out large parts of the NT books or rewrite things to suit their beliefs.

You wrote:

Are you under the impression that the greek and hebrew manuscripts available to us today are the originals? Being able to read Greek and Hebrew is of course extremely helpful, but even then, it's not the original greek and hebrew, but a copy of a copy of a copy (etc. in some cases) of the originals.

The manuscripts that exist today are not the original documents from the authors' hands (or the hands of their secretaries), but they are copies produced in the same languages as the originals. Because numerous copies were made by different people in different places and circulated all over the known world, the mistakes and errors of one manuscript can be compared with other manuscripts and the correct reading determined in the vast majority of cases.

You wrote:

Biblical scholar Ehrman claims "It is true, of course, that the New Testament is abundantly attested in the manuscripts produced through the ages, but most of these manuscripts are many centuries removed from the originals, and none of them perfectly accurate. They all contain mistakes - altogether many thousands of mistakes. It is not an easy task to reconstruct the original words of the New Testament."

That's correct, but it doesn't mean the original words remain largely unknown to us. Ehrman has also written, "I don’t want to mislead you into thinking that scholars believe that we can never have any idea what Luke—or any of our other New Testament authors—wrote. For most passages, most sentences, most words, scholars are reasonably confident that we can know—even if there are other passages that remain in doubt" (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 26).

You wrote:

Even though we have a ton of NT manuscripts, they aren't the originals. As I understand it (and i'm not bible scholar), the earliest pieces of manuscript that we have are from 125 AD and those are copies of pieces of the book of John.

That's correct, but it's far from being a problem. To the contrary, the manuscript evidence for the NT is a hundred times better than for any other ancient literary work. For example, the best-attested work of ancient literature from the Greco-Roman world outside the NT is Homer's Iliad, but the earliest fragments date from five centuries after it was written and complete copies date from nearly two millennia after it was written! Compare those numbers with the NT books, for which we have over a dozen fragments from the second century, complete copies of some of the NT books from about AD 200 or so (100-150 years after they were written), and complete copies of the whole NT from about AD 325-350 (225-275 years after they were written).

[Vance]

According to mainstream biblical scholars (not just evangelicals), all 27 of the NT documents were composed in the second half of the first century (ca. AD 50-100).

This, of course, ASSUMES that there were ONLY 27 documents worthy of inclusion in "the book of the Lamb of God" in the first place. It is, therefore IMPOSSIBLE for you to demonstrate that the statement in the Book of Mormon "that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God" is inaccurate or untrue.

The manuscripts that exist today are not the original documents from the authors' hands (or the hands of their secretaries), but they are copies produced in the same languages as the originals.

However, there is a gap in time between the creation of oldest manuscripts available to us and the autographs. Time in which all sorts of unknown mischief could have occurred.

That's correct, but it doesn't mean the original words remain largely unknown to us.

Again, ASSUMING no mischief came to the "original" documents after they were created and before the coping started.

To the contrary, the manuscript evidence for the NT is a hundred times better than for any other ancient literary work.

This is, of course, a GROSS exaggeration.

For example, the best-attested work of ancient literature from the Greco-Roman world outside the NT is Homer's Iliad, but the earliest fragments date from five centuries after it was written and complete copies date from nearly two millennia after it was written! Compare those numbers with the NT books, for which we have over a dozen fragments from the second century, complete copies of some of the NT books from about AD 200 or so (100-150 years after they were written), and complete copies of the whole NT from about AD 325-350 (225-275 years after they were written).

Ok, so 5 centuries, compared to 1 century. That would be 5 times better, NOT 100 times better. But, I guess for some, math is hard.

[Zakuska]

So just to be clear Romans 4:5 says:

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on HIM THAT JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY, his faith is counted for righteousness.

And your intrepretation is:

How exactly do you square Romans 4:5 with?

Psalms 1:5

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

[Vance]

How exactly do you square Romans 4:5 with?

Psalms 1:5

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

Jesus quoted Psalms, but NOT Romans.

Just saying.

Edited to add,

By my count He quoted Psalms eight different times. Romans, NOT SO MUCH.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Vance

[bluebell]

bluebell,

So it is not accurate to say that any of the NT books "stem from translations created centuries after Christ lived." All of them originated within far less than a century after Christ lived.

I actually meant to say 'stem from copies created centuries after Christ lived'. Sorry for the confusion.

2. When the KJV was translated 401 years ago, the Greek manuscripts on which it was primarily based were only a small handful of manuscripts dating from a thousand years or more after the NT was written. Since the KJV, thousands of manuscripts have been discovered, including small and large manuscript fragments dating from the second and third centuries, copies of whole books of the NT from about the end of the second or the early third century (ca. 200), and whole copies of the NT dating from the fourth century and every century thereafter. If text had been lost or taken out of the NT books, these earlier and numerous manuscripts should have revealed this fact. That has not happened. Not one sentence has been found in any of the early manuscripts that was not in the KJV and that NT scholars have recognized as authentic. Not one sentence! If the question is how much of the original text of the 27 books of the NT is missing, the answer is clearly nothing.

3. As everyone has heard, there are many variants, or differences, in the existing manuscripts of the NT. This is really an indirect testimony to two important facts: how many manuscripts are available, and the freedom with which scribes copied the NT books. If we had only ten manuscripts, we would have far fewer variants but also far less evidence on which to base a fine-grained knowledge of the precise wording of the original. With approaching six thousand Greek manuscripts, thousands of extant manuscripts in Coptic, Syriac, and other languages (over 10,000 in Latin alone!), there are naturally many, many more variants, but also much more manuscript evidence with which to compare different readings and determine which ones are correct. The nature of the variants is also important. By far the vast majority of them are spelling mistakes (Bart Ehrman has guessed that they may account for as much as seven-eighths of the variants). Most of the remaining variants either do not affect how we would translate the text, or are too unlikely to be taken seriously. What remains, the variants that need to be taken seriously and that would affect the translation or understanding of the text, are about one per cent of the variants (there are no exact figures for any of this, by the way). That's one per cent of the variants, not one per cent of the words in the text.

Not having the originals, i'm still not sure how anyone can come up with those numbers. Especially considereing the oldest manuscripts available for all the books in the NT are fragments, except for three.

I can understand using this information to know how much each of the available copies agree with each other, but i don't understand how this shows what the originals said?

It really doesn't matter whether translators during any particular period were faithful to God or not, because, as I have explained above, translators never replaced the earlier Greek text with their new translations. The Greek text continued to be copied at the same time that translations were produced in various languages. This means that when translators took inappropriate liberties with the text scholars can tell by comparing the translations with earlier manuscripts in the original language. Generally speaking, they find that most translations were done very conscientiously and did not drop out large parts of the NT books or rewrite things to suit their beliefs.

I'm sorry, i did it again. I meant to speak about copies, not translations. I apologize.

Still though, i'm having trouble following what you are saying here, when I know that there are biblical scholars who believe that six of Paul's epistles were likely written by someone other than Paul. And that other books, like Mark, and 1 Corinthians (and i think there was one more) had passages which are believed to have been added by scribes centuries later.

Its' one thing to say that the copies of the copies match, but I don't know how you can declare that these copies match the originals when there are no originals left, and the closest we have to the originals are manuscripts decades to centuries after the fact, and sometimes are only a paragraph or two.

When you can't even prove that all the books were written by authentic Apostles, how can you prove that 99% of the bible matches what the original writers said?

To the contrary, the manuscript evidence for the NT is a hundred times better than for any other ancient literary work. For example, the best-attested work of ancient literature from the Greco-Roman world outside the NT is Homer's Iliad, but the earliest fragments date from five centuries after it was written and complete copies date from nearly two millennia after it was written! Compare those numbers with the NT books, for which we have over a dozen fragments from the second century, complete copies of some of the NT books from about AD 200 or so (100-150 years after they were written), and complete copies of the whole NT from about AD 325-350 (225-275 years after they were written).

I'm definitely not a bible scholar, but i do have a degree in History and have studied Homer somewhat extensively.

Since most scholars agree (though not all of course) that Homer's work is a work of fiction, i'm not sure why it matters how old that manuscript is (or any other manuscript of a manmade story) in comparison to those from the bible.

No one is trying to use the manuscripts to prove that Apollo let Troy fall and favored the Greeks for example, so whether or not they match what Homer originally wrote seems to be a small matter when compared with these issues and the bible.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bluebell

[Duncan]

I would say that we LDS believe that the doctrines were corrupted before the NT was even written, assuming that the originals were indeed written from 50-100 AD-which they may have I have no idea I wasn't involved.

[Gervin]

This, of course, ASSUMES that there were ONLY 27 documents worthy of inclusion in "the book of the Lamb of God" in the first place. It is, therefore IMPOSSIBLE for you to demonstrate that the statement in the Book of Mormon "that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God" is inaccurate or untrue.

I assume these missing books ... provided what, exactly?

Edited August 9, 2012 by Gervin

[Vance]

I assume these missing books ... provided what, exactly?

You mean besides many plain and precious things?

They are missing, so no one knows what they said or how many there were. We do have reason to believe that at least 4 epistles of Paul are among them.

The first Epistle to Corinth reference in 1 Cor 5:9.

The third Epistle to Corinth called Severe Letter referenced in 2 Cor 2:4 & 7:8-9.

The earlier Epistle to the Ephesians referenced in Eph 3:3-4.

The Epistle to the Laodiceans referenced in Col 4:16.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Vance

[Vance]

How exactly do you square Romans 4:5 with?

Psalms 1:5

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

And just to add some context,

Psalms 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

bluebell,

Hi. You wrote:

I actually meant to say 'stem from copies created centuries after Christ lived'. Sorry for the confusion.... I'm sorry, i did it again. I meant to speak about copies, not translations. I apologize.

No apology needed. No problem.

You wrote:

Not having the originals, i'm still not sure how anyone can come up with those numbers. Especially considereing the oldest manuscripts available for all the books in the NT are fragments, except for three.

It's a lot more than three, but in any case the real issue here is the methodological principles involved. Kurt and Barbara Aland, two of the most renowned scholars in textual criticism, offered a memorable analogy to explain the reasoning here:

“If a fragment preserves a passage where there is any variation in the tradition, it is quite sufficient to signal the textual character of the whole manuscript. There is no need to consume a while jar of jelly to identify the quality of its contents—a spoonful or two is quite adequate!” The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 58.

To give you some idea how respected these two scholars are, Kurt Aland is the "Aland" of the standard Greek New Testament edition known as Nestle-Aland, currently in its 27th edition, used by the United Bible Societies.

The point is that a manuscript "fragment" can provide enough information about the character of the manuscript as a whole that one can be reasonably confident what the rest of the manuscript would look like (not every word, of course). This is why scholars can generally classify manuscript fragments from the second century as belonging in a particular "family" of manuscripts for which fourth-century codices are the principal representatives. It works because scholars have been able to examine thousands of manuscripts of all kinds of lengths, from scraps containing only a few words to books containing every book of the Bible, and everything between those two extremes, and have learned enough about scribal practices and tendencies that they can draw reasonably reliable conclusions even from partial evidence. The same sort of reasoning is used in forensic sciences all the time.

You asked:

I can understand using this information to know how much each of the available copies agree with each other, but i don't understand how this shows what the originals said?

Think of the extant manuscripts in Greek as well as in other languages translated from Greek as arranged in a tree with the latest medieval manuscripts at the very top of the tree, the great codices of the fourth and fifth centuries as the large branches close to the trunk, and the earliest fragments as pieces of bark from areas of the tree close to where the trunk branches out. Scholars can trace the development of the text backwards in time, or downward on the "tree," and see what has happened. The evidence has reached the point where scholars now generally agree that most of the significant variants (i.e., other than spelling mistakes, though a lot of those too) originated in the second century. That means we are actually looking at the lowest branches of the tree and pieces of the bark close to the trunk when we examine those earliest fragments and codices. It's not difficult to complete the tracing of the development of the text down a bit further into the "trunk," or the original text.

You wrote:

Still though, i'm having trouble following what you are saying here, when I know that there are biblical scholars who believe that six of Paul's epistles were likely written by someone other than Paul. And that other books, like Mark, and 1 Corinthians (and i think there was one more) had passages which are believed to have been added by scribes centuries later.

These are entirely different issues. The biblical scholars who think that three to six of Paul's letters were written by someone other than Paul are engaged in a different type of study than textual criticism. They are not trying to establish the earliest or original text of 1 Timothy, for example, but are rather arguing that Paul didn't write it at all.

Virtually all biblical scholars agree that Mark 16:9-20 in the KJV was added to Mark by someone in the second century or so. This is one of the two passages I mentioned in my previous post. The other one was John 7:53-8:11 (about the woman caught in adultery). Each of these two passages happens to be twelve verses long. No other text in the NT thought by scholars to be a later addition is longer than a single sentence or so (most of them are one verse in length; a couple are one and a half verses). There are no such passages in 1 Corinthians. Occasionally some scholars will argue that a verse or two that appears in all of the extant manuscripts was added to the text within a few years or so of the original writing. The basis for these claims is the scholar's opinion that the verse in question doesn't seem to flow or fit well in the passage. The technical term for these alleged intrusions into the text found in all extant copies is interpolations. These are scholars' speculations, not facts based on any solid evidence.

You wrote:

Its' one thing to say that the copies of the copies match, but I don't know how you can declare that these copies match the originals when there are no originals left, and the closest we have to the originals are manuscripts decades to centuries after the fact, and sometimes are only a paragraph or two.

Hopefully I've shed a little light for you on this question. Where all of the manuscripts agree on the wording of the text, there's no basis for suspecting that all of them are wrong. No one thinks John 3:16 didn't originally say "For God so loved the world...." There's no chance it said anything like "For Athena hated the world." If the copying process really had radically altered the text of the NT books, we should have discovered some evidence of this as our earliest copies and fragments became earlier and earlier. That has not happened. We now have enough evidence to conclude with a high degree of confidence that it is extremely unlikely that such radical alterations occurred and left no traces in the extant copies.

A key point here is that Christianity in the second and third centuries was not organized well enough even to try to produce a uniform text for all churches throughout the Mediterranean world. Christians were generally poor, politically powerless, and lacked the necessary ecclesiastical structure and controls to impose uniformity on the biblical writings. In fact, the historical evidence of the extant manuscripts shows that European Christianity did not develop anything like a uniform text until about a thousand years after Christ. So whatever changes were made in specific manuscripts in the second and third centuries, no specific change would be made in all of the manuscripts, and no specific change would be passed down to all of the copies that have survived. That means that the correct reading of any passage in the NT is almost certainly going to be available in some of the manuscripts that are extant today. It's simply a matter of studying the variants and using good reasoning skills and information about the manuscripts to reach educated conclusions as to what the originals most likely said.

You wrote:

Read more here: http://www.newsobser...l#storylink=cpy

Yep, I'm well aware of Ehrman's position on the authorship of the NT writings. Again, this is an entirely different question than whether what we have in the NT is what the authors, whoever they were, originally wrote.

You wrote:

I'm definitely not a bible scholar, but i do have a degree in History and have studied Homer somewhat extensively.

That's great.

You wrote:

Since most scholars agree (though not all of course) that Homer's work is a work of fiction, i'm not sure why it matters how old that manuscript is (or any other manuscript) in comparison to those from the bible.

No one is trying to use it to prove that Apollo really exists.

The comparison is relevant only to the question of whether we can know what the book in question originally said, not whether what it said is true. I have not tried in these posts to argue that the NT is true, only that we can know to a very high degree of accuracy what the NT books originally said. This ought to be enough for our purposes, since the LDS position is that the NT as originally written was true and is the word of God insofar as what we have accurately reflects what it originally said.

[djholmess]

Jesus quoted Psalms, but NOT Romans.

Just saying.

Edited to add,

By my count He quoted Psalms eight different times. Romans, NOT SO MUCH.

So your argument is Jesus failed to quote a book that haden't been written yet so that book is less important?

[Vance]

So your argument is Jesus failed to quote a book that haden't been written yet so that book is less important?

I guess you missed the sarcasm in there.

Your problem still remains. The WHOLE rest of the Bible contradicts YOUR interpretation/understanding of Rom 4:5. The JST rendition of that verse does NOT.

[djholmess]

How exactly do you square Romans 4:5 with?

Psalms 1:5

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

That is exactly why Jesus died. He suffered the punishment of the ungodly and lived the perfect righteous life in the place of his people. God can justify the ungodly because their sins are punished in Christ and the righteousness of God in counted to them.

Isaiah 53

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;

    he has put him to grief;[g]

when his soul makes[h] an offering for guilt...

    

11 by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,

     make many to be ACCOUNTED righteous,

     and he shall bear their iniquity

Romans 4:5-6

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works

The belief of a Christian must be belief in a God who justifies the ungodly by counting that person righteous apart from works. Where does this righteousness come from? If you read Romans 1:16-17 and Romans 3:21 you will find that Paul is talking about the righteousness of God not the righteousness of man. It can't be mans because he is ungodly and without any good works.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

This, of course, ASSUMES that there were ONLY 27 documents worthy of inclusion in "the book of the Lamb of God" in the first place. It is, therefore IMPOSSIBLE for you to demonstrate that the statement in the Book of Mormon "that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God" is inaccurate or untrue.

Is it your position that this statement in the Book of Mormon refers only to the issue of what books were included in the canon and not alleged changes to the texts of the books that are in the canon?

You wrote:

However, there is a gap in time between the creation of oldest manuscripts available to us and the autographs. Time in which all sorts of unknown mischief could have occurred.... Again, ASSUMING no mischief came to the "original" documents after they were created and before the coping started.

You seem to be suggesting that this "mischief" might have taken place while the apostles were still alive. Is that right? If so, what evidence can you possibly present for this hypothesis?

You wrote:

This is, of course, a GROSS exaggeration.... Ok, so 5 centuries, compared to 1 century. That would be 5 times better, NOT 100 times better. But, I guess for some, math is hard.

Your attempt to correct my math is amusing. The problem is that you are thinking in an oversimplistic fashion. The reliability of the manuscript evidence depends on several factors, not just the one factor of the gap between the earliest fragments for the two works being compared. To get a handle on the disparity between the textual evidence for the Iliad and that for the NT you would need to multiply the different factors together. We have 2 and 1/2 times as many total Greek manuscripts for the NT as we do for the Iliad; the earliest manuscripts of the NT are 5 times closer to the original than the earliest for the Iliad; the earliest complete copies of the NT are almost 10 times closer to the time of composition than the earliest complete copies of the Iliad. Multiplying these factors together would give a disparity of 100, not 10.

Furthermore, the disparities with those time gaps should not be compared in a simplistically linear fashion (one century as compared to five centuries = five times better). Milk left sitting in the car for ten minutes is not just five times fresher than milk left there for fifty minutes. The difference is likely between milk that is still drinkable and milk that is spoiled.

But if you want to run the numbers your way, that's fine. The point stands that the NT is far better attested than even the second-best attested work of antiquity.

[Vance]

“If a fragment preserves a passage where there is any variation in the tradition, it is quite sufficient to signal the textual character of the whole manuscript. There is no need to consume a while jar of jelly to identify the quality of its contents—a spoonful or two is quite adequate!” The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 58.

To give you some idea how respected these two scholars are, Kurt Aland is the "Aland" of the standard Greek New Testament edition known as Nestle-Aland, currently in its 27th edition, used by the United Bible Societies.

The point is that a manuscript "fragment" can provide enough information about the character of the manuscript as a whole that one can be reasonably confident what the rest of the manuscript would look like (not every word, of course).

In other words, we "know" that a missing manuscript wasn't corrupted because, as far as we can tell, the fragment we do have isn't corrupted. (As if those that wanted to corrupt a doctrine would automatically corrupt the entire document.) Besides, we don't want the manuscript to be corrupted, so we will look for any excuse to believe they are not and ignore the possibility that they are.

Such a convincing approach. Well almost.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

In general, even Bart Ehrman, who is an agnostic and is hostile to the evangelical view of the Bible, agrees with such text-critical scholars as the Alands. I'm happy to explain the principles of textual criticism as best I can for those who sincerely want to learn. My original post in this thread was simply explaining how the evangelical view of the Bible does differ significantly from the usual LDS view.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Is it your position that this statement in the Book of Mormon refers only to the issue of what books were included in the canon and not alleged changes to the texts of the books that are in the canon?

No. As I have explained previously.

You seem to be suggesting that this "mischief" might have taken place while the apostles were still alive. Is that right?

There was a LOT of mischief going on while the Apostles were alive. THAT is what most of the epistles were to address.

If so, what evidence can you possibly present for this hypothesis?

You missed my whole point.

Your attempt to correct my math is amusing.

Your exaggeration was also amusing.

The problem is that you are thinking in an oversimplistic fashion.

No, the problem is that you are attempting to complicate the issue so you can exaggerate.

The reliability of the manuscript evidence depends on several factors, not just the one factor of the gap between the earliest fragments for the two works being compared.

Ok, so even if we throw in a factor of 5 to cover those other factors that only gets you to 25, NOT your exaggerated 100.

To get a handle on the disparity between the textual evidence for the Iliad and that for the NT you would need to multiply the different factors together. We have 2 and 1/2 times as many total Greek manuscripts for the NT as we do for the Iliad; the earliest manuscripts of the NT are 5 times closer to the original than the earliest for the Iliad; the earliest complete copies of the NT are almost 10 times closer to the time of composition than the earliest complete copies of the Iliad. Multiplying these factors together would give a disparity of 100, not 10.

Talk about DOUBLE dipping. You can either use the 5X for "earliest manuscripts" or 10X for "complete copies" but not both.

Furthermore, the disparities with those time gaps should not be compared in a simplistically linear fashion (one century as compared to five centuries = five times better). Milk left sitting in the car for ten minutes is not just five times fresher than milk left there for fifty minutes. The difference is likely between milk that is still drinkable and milk that is spoiled.

Well, if you are going to exaggerate why didn't you go for broke and just claim 1000X?

But if you want to run the numbers your way, that's fine. The point stands that the NT is far better attested than even the second-best attested work of antiquity.

Which still isn't that great.

[Vance]

We have 2 and 1/2 times as many total Greek manuscripts for the NT as we do for the Iliad;

AND if we make a bunch more copies you could inflate that number even more.

[Vance]

Vance,

In general, even Bart Ehrman, who is an agnostic and is hostile to the evangelical view of the Bible, agrees with such text-critical scholars as the Alands.

So?

My original post in this thread was simply explaining how the evangelical view of the Bible does differ significantly from the usual LDS view.

OBVIOUSLY!!!!!!

[Zakuska]

That is exactly why Jesus died. He suffered the punishment of the ungodly and lived the perfect righteous life in the place of his people. God can justify the ungodly because their sins are punished in Christ and the righteousness of God in counted to them.

Isaiah 53

10 Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;

he has put him to grief;[g]

when his soul makes[h] an offering for guilt...

11 by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,

make many to be ACCOUNTED righteous,

and he shall bear their iniquity

Romans 4:5-6

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works

The belief of a Christian must be belief in a God who justifies the ungodly by counting that person righteous apart from works. Where does this righteousness come from? If you read Romans 1:16-17 and Romans 3:21 you will find that Paul is talking about the righteousness of God not the righteousness of man. It can't be mans because he is ungodly and without any good works.

Intresting that Paul would quote a Psalm about "Godly" people receiving Gods mercy, in support of God Justifying "Ungoldy" people!!!?

Psalm 32

1 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

2 Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

3 When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.

4 For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.

5 I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

6 For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou mayest be found: surely in the floods of great waters they shall not come nigh unto him.

7 Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me from trouble; thou shalt compass me about with songs of deliverance. Selah.

8 I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine eye.

9 Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.

10 Many sorrows shall be to the wicked: but he that trusteth in the Lord, mercy shall compass him about.

11 Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, ye righteous: and shout for joy, all ye that are upright in heart.

I thought God justified the "Ungoldy" apart from their works? Yet here David performs a work, (ie "repentance") or the second principle of the Gospel.

LDS - Articles of Faith

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

PS. Verse 6 throws a wrench in your interpretation of Romans 4:5-6. I thought everyone, at least according to you was "ungodly". Yet David is saying that the Godly people confess their sins?

Edited August 9, 2012 by Zakuska

[Vance]

It can't be mans because he is ungodly and without any good works.

Still TOTALLY misunderstanding what Paul is saying.

Jesus and others disagrees with your position.

Matt 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

Matt 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

1 Pet 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

. . .

4:18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

2 Pet 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

1 Jn 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

. . .

12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Vance

[Zakuska]

Thanks vance... Don't forget this one either...

Heb 12

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

PS. Check out the Godhead in this verse...

Heb 12

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

Hmmm... Christ Speaking on Earth and God the Father speaking from Heaven. Yep... that sure is one homoousios being alright.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Zakuska