Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
You are most welcome. The so called "science" of textual criticism is a pathetic joke and ends up with NO inspired and inerrant Scriptures in any language, and a growing apostasy from all sound doctrine.
The neutral method of Bible study leads to skepticism concerning the New Testament text. This was true long before the days of Westcott and Hort. As early is 1771 Griesbach wrote, "The New Testament abounds in more losses, additions, and interpolations, purposely introduced then any other book." Griesbach's outlook was shared by J. L. Hug, who in 1808 advanced the theory that in the second century the New Testament text had become deeply degenerate and corrupt and that all extant New Testament texts were but editorial revisions of this corrupted text.
As early as 1908 Rendel Harris declared that the New Testament text had not at all been settled but was "more than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled." Two years later Conybeare gave it as his opinion that "the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there ever was one that deserves to be so called, is for ever irrecoverable."
H. Greeven (1960) also has acknowledged the uncertainty of the neutral method of New Testament textual criticism. "In general," he says, "the whole thing is limited to probability judgments; the original text of the New Testament, according to its nature, must be and remains a hypothesis."
Robert M. Grant (1963) adopts a still more despairing attitude. "The primary goal of New Testament textual study," he tells us, "remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote. We have already suggested that to achieve this goal is well-nigh impossible." Grant also says: "It is generally recognized that the original text of the Bible cannot be recovered."
"...every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that WE SIMPLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A DEFINITIVE DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE BEST TEXT IS; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default" (Eldon Epp, "The Twentieth-Century Interlude in NT Textual Criticism," Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, p. 87).
"As New Testament textual criticism moves into the twenty-first century, it must shed whatever remains of its innocence, for nothing is simple anymore. Modernity may have led many to assume that a straightforward goal of reaching a single original text of the New Testament--or even a text as close as possible to that original--was achievable. Now, however, REALITY AND MATURITY REQUIRE THAT TEXTUAL CRITICISM FACE UNSETTLING FACTS, CHIEF AMONG THEM THAT THE TERM 'ORIGINAL' HAS EXPLODED INTO A COMPLEX AND HIGHLY UNMANAGEABLE MULTIVALENT ENTITY. Whatever tidy boundaries textual criticism may have presumed in the past have now been shattered, and its parameters have moved markedly not only to the rear and toward the front, but also sideways, as fresh dimensions of originality emerge from behind the variant readings and from other manuscript phenomena" (E. Jay Epps, "The Multivalence of the Term 'Original Text' In New Testament Textual Criticism," Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 245-281; this article is based on a paper presented at the New Testament Textual Criticism Section, Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Orlando, Florida, November 1998).
George Barna, president of Barna Research Group, reported that a study exploring the religious beliefs of the 12 largest denominations in America highlights the downward theological drift that has taken place in Christian churches in recent years. The study found that an alarmingly high number of church members have beliefs that fall far short of orthodox Christianity. ONLY 41 PERCENT OF ALL ADULTS SURVEYED BELIEVED IN THE TOTAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE. Only 40 percent believed Christ was sinless, and only 27 percent believed Satan to be real.
Will Kinney
|
2Co 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight: )
Brother Will, if the practitioners of this "science" were to apply the methods of said "science" to the resurrected Body of Jesus Christ today, what would they find? A perfectly healthy man with deep puncture scars at His wrists and a puncture wound scar at His side and a look of DEEP disapproval on His face. With no empiric foundation of a previous OBSERVABLE occurrence, even the most fervent Christian scientist would have to conclude that, with no evidence of the method of reanimation, no theory or fact as to "tissue regeneration"(The Body of Jesus never decomposed)we would have to conclude he never died. I'm a former mortician and know everything there is to know about dead folks.
This leads to a conclusion of just exactly there being nothing new under the sun:the "swoon" theory of the Romans and athiest/agnostics today.
Edward Hills did it much better than I but there is much we have to accept about the Scriptures that is by faith. One of the most essential verses, one that encompasses so many doctrinal questions, is I John 5:7 and there is so little evidence of it. By their own convoluted rules the quotation of the verse by Cyprian in the second century don't count. 252 manuscripts for I Timothy 3:16 reading "God" don't count, they take the one "he who" because it is "older".
I am sure, by faith I know this, somewhere in the world is a complete NT in Greek from the first century AD and it matches the KJV. It'll never be found, because we walk by FAITH and not by the SIGHT something like this would afford. Ask yourself this: If you had the original manuscripts for the NT in your hands, would your faith be greater, or the same?
In an age of faith ALONE God will provide no empiric evidence of ANYTHING, otherwise it is no MORE faith. In the Tribulation evidence will be all over the place.
By then, it will be too late. You will have provide WORKS for your salvation.
Grace and peace
Tony