The Real Jesus - Refuting the Myths (David Lutweiler 1 of 4)

[zetetic0void]

part2... "Human" is a type of filter of Reality just like 'ant' "form" is a filter of percieving Reality (I use 'Reality' with a capital to represent the full ultimate true Reality which encompasses 'all' ... "God" if you wish to use that word). Added to this, "culture" and "social characteristic" is another filter of "Ultimate Reality". One must essentially realize these things if one wants to see in the direction of full "Ultimate Reality". You must filter "culture out of the Bible.

[zetetic0void]

The very real fact of the matter is that the Biblcail texts were copies of copies of copies. And at that, they are translations of copies of translations of copies of copies. And these weren't Xerox copies but human scribe copies of copies of copies of copies.

The original creators of the ideas behind the texts may have been expressing true "revelations" of thier feelings of truth in relation to not only be "human formations" within Reality but also of being within specific cultures. cont>

[jcr4runner]

All ancient texts come from copies or copies of copies etc.

Even some modern texts have no extant autograph.

What is your point? -- that we cannot trust any text prior to the invention of the printing press?

The Bible, in fact, has to MOST and EARLIEST documentary evidence of any ancient text.

[muzakgeek]

I agree with zetetic0void, here. And while your refutation is correct - we don't have the autographs / originals of a lot of ancient texts - the important distinction is that none of those other texts (modern or ancient) claim to be the inerrant, inspired & recorded words of the creator of the universe... whereas the Bible certainly does. The very fact that in your reply, you compare the Bible to "all ancient texts" practically proves his point - it's just a book written & copied by men.

[jcr4runner]

Inspiration does not mean that men did not write and copy the Bible by hand.

The fact that the Bible has so many more and earlier manuscripts (in fact many thousands of times over) than any other ancient text points to a providential preservation. It's even more remarkable in light of the fact that the Roman Empire actually tried to destroy all copies in the early centuries.

So I don't agree with you. It's not like any other book.

[muzakgeek]

I would like to point out a few things:

1. The thousands of manuscripts we have are (mostly) dated hundreds of years after the originals were penned.

2. Additionally, the manuscripts are also all different and contain errors. So, if the original words were miraculously inspired by God, he certainly didn't perform the miracle of accurately / inerrantly preserving them.

3. The popularity of any ancient text does not verify the authenticity of its contents. Contemporaneous evidence is needed.

[jcr4runner]

I'd also like to point out a few things.

1. Most manuscripts from ancient times have one or a dozen manuscripts.

2. The reason for the numerous differences are the thousands of manuscripts.

3. Textual critics can use this data to arrive at a manuscript that is probably 99 percent similar to the original.

4. The very early (second century) fragments that we have are similar to the later (fourth century) complete manuscripts. This indicates a preservation from the original autographs.

[jcr4runner]

5. I'd encourage anyone who is skeptical or doubtful about this to examine the manuscripts for themselves. There are two good works on this both by Philip Comfort.

Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament (This is an overview of the earliest papyri)

The Text of the Earliest New testament Greek Manuscripts (This has the Greek text and English translations)

The NT we have today is the exact text of the second and third century and almost certainly of the first century.

[muzakgeek]

"Almost certainly of the 1st century"?

I have seen no scholarly consensus on this point. From what I have read, most textual critics have known for years that the number of any one manuscript version (despite its age) does not verify the original it was copied from.

If an error is made in an early manuscript and that one happens to be the one most copied, it therefore does not constitute an accurate representation of the autograph.

P.S. - I have not read Comfort's books.

[jcr4runner]

Well, let's back up and describe what differences we are talking about here. Literally 98 to 99 percent of scribal errors we are talking in these early manuscripts about deal with spelling errors, grammatical errors, one or two words that are omitted or edited, word order that is changed or reversed, and so on.

In fact, in the entire NT there are only two or three passages (ones longer than a few sentences) that are in dispute.

[jcr4runner]

The remaining one or two percent of these errors are called "significant" in that they affect the meaning of the text.

For instance a variant that has "Christ Jesus" rather than Jesus Christ" is NOT significant. But a variant that has Christ the Lord" is significant in that it has a different meaning.

We can even resolve many of these. And even if these were to be unresolved, nowhere does a major article of the Christian faith hinge on a disputed passage.

[jcr4runner]

What we are talking about is a NT with a 2 percent significant variants, which can be resolved most of the time.

If we include ALL significant NT variants (even the minor ones) you can literally fit them all on one page.

A conservative Textual Critical view is that the received text is 98 to 99.9 percent accurate to the original. The liberals estimate it's 85 to 95 percent accurate.

Of course, I am a conservative. Even with the EXTREME liberal view we are not talking about a different Bible.

[jcr4runner]

P.S. That 85 to 95 percent gap depends on how we treat two longer passages -- the ending of Mark and the so-called "Pericope Adulterae."

The other thing you have to remember is that to assume unreliability of the texts, you must do so out of conjecture. There is no manuscript evidence to suggest that.

You have to take the view that: "We don't have the originals so we don't know."

But ALL reconstruction of ancient texts is conducted without the originals.

So this is not new news.

[jcr4runner]

"From what I have read, most textual critics ..."

You need to distinguish between liberal critics and conservatives. The vast amount of biblical criticism is done by conservatives since we outnumber the liberals by about 7 to 1.

The liberal media pays attention of course to the liberal theologians. You just need to look beyond the veneer and check out guys like Dan Wallace and William Lane Craig -- these are world-class scholars who are conservatives.

[jcr4runner]

A bit more on your #2 --

2. There are thousands of NT manuscripts and over 100 fragments from 115 to 325 AD. There are minor differences in the best texts which shows a remarkable preservation.

The evangelical doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy of the NT does NOT require a word for word letter for letter accuracy to the original Greek manuscripts (otherwise how could we dare make a translation?)

What is preserved is an accurate sentence meaning.

[muzakgeek]

However, the autographs are, in fact gone. And for anyone to trust that the translations of copies made centuries after the originals were penned - during a period of overwhelming illiteracy - are wholly accurate and infallible is a fallacy.

Besides the numerous translational and copying errors, there are clear additions and changes that have been made and included. With the originals gone, additions & errors could be made by scribes during the copying process without review or reprisal.

[jcr4runner]

As I just wrote, it's conjecture. TC is a fairly reliable science. You can conduct copyist experiments with modern day untrained scribes that will bear out the accuracy of the scribal tradition.

A good example of this is comparing the Dead Sea Scroll MSS with the earliest extant Hebrew Masoretic texts of almost 1000 years later. This discovery showed how accurate the copyists were over many centuries.

(There are no "translational" errors in the Greek Greek MSS!)

[jcr4runner]

The other thing you have to realize is that TC existed at the time of Jesus. Scribes were doing manuscript redaction and recension all the time.

There is even a big discussion over texts among the church fathers writings beginning in the second century -- so it is hardly true that mistakes could have gone unnoticed.

And again -- we are not talking about "different Bibles" -- but only small variants of a small percentage of the entire NT text.

[jaysicksix6]

let me guess..republicans?

[sohobod]

My point is that God "killed" everyone else on the plane (and presumably, along with the child's parents). That doesn't seem very nice, to me. It's a bit like a robber who breaks into a house and kills everyone except the youngest child. No sane person would say that the robber was a "decent chap" because he'd spared one life.

[fatfist]

All you sinners fail to see the love and triumphant power of our lord Jesus Christ.

Did you know that in 1971 a plane crashed over a mountain in Chile and 173 people died, but 1 baby survived.

Can't you see the miracle and work of the love of Jesus saving the baby's life? How blind can you be to that? Without our loving lord, the baby would have died. Truly a holy miracle and indeed proof that Jesus exists and his love is eternal.

Jesus loves you.

[sohobod]

But he killed the rest of the 173.

[jcr4runner]

And some day God will "kill" you too.

Everyone dies. What is your point?

Fatfist was trying to point out an example of a phenomenon that shows the providential hand of God in our everyday world.

[ExposingTheGOP]

Interesting, Jesus didn't see it fit to save the 173 people?  Tell me how miraculous THAT is.

[jcr4runner]

If everyone was saved from death, and no one ever died, there would be no such thing as a miracle.

What's your point?

[noelmacho]

you are the on that is blind

[bishop8000]

Not a word about the actual evidence, just appeal to authority after appeal to authority.

[ORACLE063]

a myth about a myth?

[theunraveler]

John Henry Ludlum..who is that? i tried wiki and it score no hits on this guy...is he legit? wat journal articles did he write?

[jcr4runner]

Most of his work is unpublished, but he wrote an influential treatment criticizing Marcan priority.

Google "Ludlum Marcan priority" -- his articles are quoted in a few works.

[mrspogadaeus]

What a great testimony!

[sebreathnach]

Yale University would say that , wouldn't it? How could the Jesuits colonise the world without the Bible to hide behind?

[jcr4runner]

He's been an elder in a church that teaches Reformed theology. He's also one of the founders of a couple of educational ministries and Bible schools. He's not a major theologian or anything like that.

He's in the DVD because I wanted him to tell about his friend, John H. Ludlum, who is also unknown to most, but was by 1951 the greatest scholar to come out of Yale Divinity school.

Then David Lutweiler's interviews were so good that I just had to add all of them.

[Kabane52]

Who is David Lutweiler?