Did the Church scribes tamper with the biblical texts?

From our series entitled "The Battle to Discredit the Bible" This clip answers the question: How do we know that the church scribes didn't tamper with the text so that what we have got now is not what the apostles wrote?

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Ankerberg
• Bible

[AgApE010]

@dunklaw

It's just a word. It means the collection of manuscripts that we have.

[dunklaw]

@AgApE010 Manuscript TRADITION - sounds a bit Pharisaical to me.

[AgApE010]

@dunklaw

Why does it have to be cyanide? The questionable verses in the Bible aren't teaching poisonous heresies. They are just extensions of verses and commentaries that got incorporated into the manuscript tradition.

[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?

[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."

[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....

[dunklaw]

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

[ReyLoo]

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

[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.

[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.