Did the Church scribes tamper with the biblical texts?

[OttomanEMPIREOppress]

If Jesus was a real Lord/Teacher, How come he doesn't have his Own wrttings/Gospels to Guide people???

The New Testament is maybe just a Work of Decievers to control the mass....

[corkystorky]

@OttomanEMPIREOppress When a seed dies, it produces many seeds...The method of teaching is not limited to writing, in this case the entire gospel was preached to him by word of mouth. Eventually the apostles preached by word of mouth, but since they won't stay for long, things had to be in writing for the sake of the next generations. 2 Thes 2:15 "so then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

[corkystorky]

@OttomanEMPIREOppress if you are referring to Jesus himself writing in the papyrus with a signature, that cannot be because...he is the incarnate Word of God. 2) He later sent the Holy Spirit to be with his disciples to remind them of everything he taught them. 3) the words he spoke to them are spirit and they are life. --- And, deception to control the mass? Walking in the light is deception? Is its end for the good or for the bad?

[dunklaw]

Would anyone drink a glass of water with 2% cyanide.

[Rafaael75]

oh excellent, who is this scholar?

[erikfowler]

If the Bible is not true, then we are all off the hook with God. If it is True, and we don't believe that Jesus is/was who he claimed to be, we are all in a world of trouble.

[ReyLoo]

um...if you don't have the originals you can't determine if changes were significant or not...THE END of this insignificant debate. To Christians & all other Faith followers & all you Atheist...what are we going to do about our world with your dearly held perception of TRUTH? Regardless of what is, how are you applying it to fix the TRUE ILLS of our world. Muslims/Jews/Christians/Atheis­t how is your view going to create a PEACEFUL & JUST WORLD? Chattering debate is of no value without this aim.

[jcmmanuel]

@ReyLoo wrote "if you don't have the originals you can't determine if changes were significant or not."

That is a very strange conclusion and certainly not a scholarly one. There's many ancient books without original manuscripts. The value of such historical documents does not depend on the question whether or not we have autographs, but on comparison of the text with the cultural data of its supposed time frame.

[ReyLoo]

@jcmmanuel : It's not strange at all...it's not rocket science what I'm saying...If you don't have the originals you simply can't even make a statement one way or the other as to whether the changes were significant or not...there's no debate to be held. That being said,,,this in no way implies the value of such historical documents depend on the question of original manuscripts...i never made such an assertion. My point was stop STATING AS FACT changes were significant or not significant.

[jcmmanuel]

@ReyLoo : This is simply not how historical arguments are being constituted, how their value is determined etc. - it's nothing like, for instance, evidence in the exact sciences or so. Historical texts are not very much affected by errors for instance, because it is the narrative itself that's being scrutinized for it's authenticity, etc. - it works that way, and that's what Wallace is saying here.

[ReyLoo]

@jcmmanuel: @jcmmanuel: "historical arguments" is a bit too broad in terms of what my point was, which was dealing with a more narrowed subject of historical TEXT. Text is very concrete. yes it is an extension of a narrative but in the context of the nature of discussings the Bible's meaning the more exact science criteria must also be drawn upon. i never said this type of criteria should be used solely...but it must be a part of the process and discussion.

[ReyLoo]

@jcmmanuel : Again this was not an issue of authenticity...it was the question "can transcribing significantly effect the meaning of text?"

[guitarstrummr]

It is easiest to change a story when it is not widely known.

Therefore, it would have been easiest to change the manuscripts during the first few years after they were written.

The smarter question is: how do we know that during the most volatile time period of the Biblical texts (before any manuscripts we have), the claims of the text were not altered?

The correct answer: we do not know. But if we apply the rational above, we would expect that was the time when they were most altered.