The Bible: The Difference Between the Original Autographs and Original Texts

The Gospel Coalition ^ | 12/11/2015

[UCANSEE2]

IF any of these things are true about the Bible, are they not also true of the Quran(Koran), The Torah, etc. ?

[ealgeone]

Of the many copies and fragments of manuscripts we have available we find a very, very high degree of accuracy between them.

I think we can have a very, very high degree of confidence we have the original words as originally written.

[huldah1776]

It’s based on how many older copies there are, I think, because of this: “currently we possess more than 5,500 manuscripts of the New Testament in Greek alone. No other document of antiquity even comes close.”

As for The Torah, the Scribes would have been tenacious at copying with perfectionism. Have no idea about any others, nor are they worthy.

[SeekAndFind]

I think the problem with most skeptics is this ... their argument is since we do not have the original autograph, we can never be sure that what we have today :

1) Has not been corrupted ( i.e. copyists ADDING things to the original that was not there, hence, bringing in new doctrine that was not in the original ).

2) Has not been transmitted erroneously

[af_vet_1981]

What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them . . . in thousands of ways.

If Ehrman is correct, then he has uncovered the single thread that would unravel the entire garment of the Christian faith. There is no need to critique the content of the New Testament if we don't even have the New Testament.

This is why it is fundamental to have one holy catholic apostolic church from the First Century until this hour.

[Hostage]

> “We have only error-ridden copies”

Let’s see a professional third party unbiased exposition os said errors because to my knowledge the conformance of scripture is remarkably preserved, so much so that it is a testament to divine inspiration.

[Verginius Rufus]

If an error occurred early enough there is no guarantee that any of the manuscripts has the original reading--and if one does, how do we know which one? Most if not all of the variants do not involve any major point of belief.

What is the right reading in Luke 2.14: eudokias (genitive) or eudokia (nominative)? This is the origin of the difference between the Catholic and Protestant translations. Is it "peace among human beings of good will (eudokias)" or "peace, good will among human beings (eudokia)"?

Both versions have the support of many early manuscripts as well as from quotations in the Church Fathers.

[Verginius Rufus]

If an error occurred early enough there is no guarantee that any of the manuscripts has the original reading--and if one does, how do we know which one? Most if not all of the variants do not involve any major point of belief.

What is the right reading in Luke 2.14: eudokias (genitive) or eudokia (nominative)? This is the origin of the difference between the Catholic and Protestant translations. Is it "peace among human beings of good will (eudokias)" or "peace, good will among human beings (eudokia)"?

Both versions have the support of many early manuscripts as well as from quotations in the Church Fathers.

[AndyTheBear]

This article is quackery. Here is a good explanation of how we know the New Testament is reliable for example.

[sauropod]

read

[SeekAndFind]

RE: This is why it is fundamental to have one holy catholic apostolic church from the First Century until this hour.

How did the holy catholic apostolic church ensure that what was copied was indeed faithful to the original seeing how far flung the Roman empire was and how many copies there were circulating out there?

Was there a CENTRAL place during the early first century that informed every Christian in the Roman Empire that THIS ONE COPY (say) is the basis by which all copies have to be based on?

[SoConPubbie]

This is why it is fundamental to have one holy catholic apostolic church from the First Century until this hour.

Extremely Weak.

[ealgeone]

And yet, the vulgate got Luke 1:28 wrong.

[ColdSteelTalon]

I would not trust Bart Erhman... at all.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: This article is quackery

how is the article in opposition to the arguments in the link you just provided?

[AndyTheBear]

...eek. Sorry did not read past first paragraph before saying that. Please let me amend my assertion: the kind of critism he is addressing is quackery.

[Jack023]

You want the authentic Bible? The real thing? It’s the King James Bible!

[SaveFerris]

+1

[BornToBeAmerican]

Meaning to offence, but God our Loving Father knew that all of this would happen: misspellings, doctrine changes etc.

So he gave it to his Son, Jesus to say: “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John 14:26

Without the Holy Spirit, not a single word of the Holy Scriptures can ever be understood. Is there any wonder that no one can agree.

The Spirit brings the Holy Scriptures to Life