The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.

by whereami 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TTWSYF

  What is interesting to me [that no one has addressed yet] is that the early church did not have much in the way of written scriptures. Most evidence will suggest that the oral tradition was the big thing in the early Judaism and the Catholic church. That is why the bible was not totally confirmed until 381ad.[by the Catholics]

  For those who believe that the 'great apostasy' happened in the 1st couple of centuries. my question would be

  How could you think the bible is the word of God? I mean there are good things written in the Mormon bible and the Koran, but most Christians do not believe they are God's inspired word. Why would God give his word to fakers?

  dc
• 

  PSacramento

  The oldest copy of any manuscript is dates to 135-150 AD and that is from the Gospel of John, whichmeans the original was ciruclating before that.

  Paul's letters are dated to the first few decades after Christ and some Date Mark to lat 50's early 60's.

  So a written tradtion was around before the second century, to complement and record the oral one.
• 

  whereami

  Again, none of his views were new and they had been discussed over and over, but for Bart, personally, it seems that they need to be voiced again.

  PSac you keep mentioning this as if it means something. Can you please expalin this?
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  Saying that these debates have been ongoing seems to imply that debate has been welcome. It hasn't. It isn't. Believers believe and belief isn't open to debate.
• 

  PSacramento

  PSac you keep mentioning this as if it means something. Can you please expalin this?

  Many of Bart's issues like the supposed contridictions, missing passages, disregarding of certain gospels and ancient writings, have been dealt with before and I think that Bart felt that they needed to be addressed again or that he had soemthing new to bring to the argument.
• 

  whereami

  So because he chooses to do these things he wrong?

  He's wrong to discuss something that has already been discussed?

  This is his field of expertise, why shouldn't he? Last I checked he continues to teach at Chapel Hill and continues to fill his classes on these subjects.

  Maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you're upset he's bringing out these skeletons in christianity's closet again and being quite successful at it.

  It almost sounds like the Jw that says "yes, yes that's been explained already, that's how we used to think, we now have new light, no need to dwell in the past".
• 

  slimboyfat

  Many of Bart's issues like the supposed contridictions, missing passages, disregarding of certain gospels and ancient writings, have been dealt with before and I think that Bart felt that they needed to be addressed again or that he had something new to bring to the argument.

  There are few arguments on heated issues that have not been "dealt" with from various perspectives, but have those who believe the Bible is inspired got any convincing responses to the serious problems that textual criticism over the past few hundred years has raised? Not that I have seen.

  Bart Ehrman's views on the formation of the NT canon are mainstream compared with David Trobisch. I think this is an excellent book.

  http://www.amazon.com/First-New-Testament-David-Trobisch/dp/0195112407/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299895243&sr=8-1