A curious problem, and a curious solution

[polonius]

Fundamentalists use interesting reasoning when arguing that the the New Testament is "God breathed" and thus proof for any point and cannot be in error.

When a strongly suspected error is identified, they can claim that only the original autographs (original editions) are completely true. If an error is found it must have been introduced by a later copyist.

However, to so argue, one has to concede that one cannot prove any scripture is an autograph and not a copy and therefore subject to error.

Thus fundamentalists cannot credibly establish that a scriptural passage which they quote is infallible proof of their point.

[Tcg]

Where in this do you see someone saying that error have been introduced by later copyist?

Matt Slick from CARM says it:

"Inerrancy means that all that is written in the inspired documents is without error. Now, there is a comment worth mentioning here. Inspiration and inerrancy applies to the original writings, not to the copies. In other words, it is the original writings that are without error. The copies, sadly, have copyist errors in them."

https://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible

RESPONSE: If that is true, then you really can'treally be sure of any scripture, can you?

Of course not. If any of it could be suspect, all of it is.

Are you really saying that Matthew's claim that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod (d 4 BC), and Luke's claim that Jesus was born during the 6 AD census both may be copyist's errors?

I provided a quote that indicates quite clearly that your OP is not a straw man argument. It documents that Matt Slick of CARM holds the view you expressed in the OP.

As a former fundamentalist, I'm surprised that anyone who has studied Christian doctrinal statements would take exception to your statement. It's commonly argued that the doctrine of inerrancy is described as referring only to the original autographs and not what we posses today.

As far as the authors of Matthew and Luke disagreement over the timing of Jesus' birth, sure, both could be copyists errors.

What about Jesus' Resurrection? Might that be a copyist's error too?

Anything is possible. This would require a number of copyist's errors throughout the New Testament. However, the fact that this is unlikely to be due to copyist's errors doesn't mean there is any reason to accept it as factual.

If so, should we disregard scripture as being intrinsically unreliable?

Not for this reason alone, but yes.

[rikuoamero]

Fundamentalists use interesting reasoning when arguing that the the New Testament is "God breathed" and thus proof for any point and cannot be in error.

When a strongly suspected error is identified, they can claim that only the original autographs (original editions) are completely true. If an error is found it must have been introduced by a later copyist.

Who makes this argument? I have never heard it come from any self-described fundamentalist

The young earth creationist types, for a start. From Answers In Genesis
"Section 2: Basics
The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science."
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

Where in this do you see someone saying that error have been introduced by later copyist? Where is the claim that the original autographs are considerably different from the current scriptures, thereby allowing that the originals are accurate while the current copies are not?

Many Christians, including fundamentalists, believe that the scripture are God-breathed. I have never heard a fundamentalist makes use of the argument presented in the opening post. It appears to be a straw man.

Readers will notice that the only part that the quote from AiG doesn't address regarding what OP said said, is OP's last line (the part about errors being in later copies). Other than that, AiG's statement is completely in line with what OP said.

So I must ask...why are you so incredulous as to OP's claim? Will you acknowledge that OP is not talking nonsense, that there are people who do think as OP says?

[polonius]

Tcg posted

Quote:


What about Jesus' Resurrection? Might that be a copyist's error too?


Anything is possible. This would require a number of copyist's errors throughout the New Testament. However, the fact that this is unlikely to be due to copyist's errors doesn't mean there is any reason to accept it as factual.


Quote:


If so, should we disregard scripture as being intrinsically unreliable?


Not for this reason alone, but yes.

RESPONSE: Jesus was crucified in about 30 A.D. When was the first scriptural report of his “Resurrection� written?

Was the writer a witness?

[Tcg]

Tcg posted

Quote:


What about Jesus' Resurrection? Might that be a copyist's error too?


Anything is possible. This would require a number of copyist's errors throughout the New Testament. However, the fact that this is unlikely to be due to copyist's errors doesn't mean there is any reason to accept it as factual.


Quote:


If so, should we disregard scripture as being intrinsically unreliable?


Not for this reason alone, but yes.

RESPONSE: Jesus was crucified in about 30 A.D. When was the first scriptural report of his “Resurrection� written?

Was the writer a witness?

I'm not sure how these questions address the issues of copyists errors?

If you are suggesting that the answers to them do so, I'd suggest you simply state why you think that is the case.

[brianbbs67]

Its not the copyists' spelling. grammar, or syntax, that causes the consternation, its the additions to scripture at later times, sometimes, a hundred years or more, that cause concern. The biggest concern is that these things are not Clearly marked for the average reader. Like Mark 16:9 to the end. There are a minimum of 25 instances of this in the NT and at least 3 in the OT. All done by Catholic scribes.

[bjs]

Its not the copyists' spelling. grammar, or syntax, that causes the consternation, its the additions to scripture at later times, sometimes, a hundred years or more, that cause concern. The biggest concern is that these things are not Clearly marked for the average reader. Like Mark 16:9 to the end. There are a minimum of 25 instances of this in the NT and at least 3 in the OT. All done by Catholic scribes.

The claim that these are not clearly marked for the average reader is problematic. To take your example of Mark 16:9-20, virtually every modern translation includes a break in the text with a note that says something like, “The most reliable early manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20.� How more clearly marked to you think something should be?

[polonius]

Its not the copyists' spelling. grammar, or syntax, that causes the consternation, its the additions to scripture at later times, sometimes, a hundred years or more, that cause concern. The biggest concern is that these things are not Clearly marked for the average reader. Like Mark 16:9 to the end. There are a minimum of 25 instances of this in the NT and at least 3 in the OT. All done by Catholic scribes.

The claim that these are not clearly marked for the average reader is problematic. To take your example of Mark 16:9-20, virtually every modern translation includes a break in the text with a note that says something like, “The most reliable early manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20.� How more clearly marked to you think something should be?

RESPONSE: I think those who quote scriptures in their articles should be much more complete in the information they provide. In fact, perhaps print in red biblical passages that are either not present in early texts or can be shown to have been altered or added.

[brianbbs67]

Its not the copyists' spelling. grammar, or syntax, that causes the consternation, its the additions to scripture at later times, sometimes, a hundred years or more, that cause concern. The biggest concern is that these things are not Clearly marked for the average reader. Like Mark 16:9 to the end. There are a minimum of 25 instances of this in the NT and at least 3 in the OT. All done by Catholic scribes.

The claim that these are not clearly marked for the average reader is problematic. To take your example of Mark 16:9-20, virtually every modern translation includes a break in the text with a note that says something like, “The most reliable early manuscripts do not include Mark 16:9-20.� How more clearly marked to you think something should be?

I must admit my ignorance here. I knew not what the M and NU text were for a long time. I just accepted what I had been told. That is my bad. But, my point is, the text should reflect it so the footnote doesn't have to be explored. Most don't read or understand the footnotes because no preacher or priest ever points them to them. These things have been common knowledge of the priestly class for 2000 years. Yet, not a peep. That is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst. Maybe a Pink letter addition for verses added later or were Inspired, so we normal humans could discern the path with full disclosure?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 6 by polonius]

Christ gets his Davidic line thru his "adoptive" father. In Hebrew culture, once adopted, you were of that line. And without limiting God, Could He have not put David's DNA into Yeshua?

Christ gets the legitimate line through Joseph, but the DNA comes through Mary's line, through Nahum, rather than Solomon. The priestly line and the king line are both in Mary's lineage.

[shnarkle]

Its not the copyists' spelling. grammar, or syntax, that causes the consternation, its the additions to scripture at later times, sometimes, a hundred years or more, that cause concern. The biggest concern is that these things are not Clearly marked for the average reader. Like Mark 16:9 to the end. There are a minimum of 25 instances of this in the NT and at least 3 in the OT. All done by Catholic scribes.

Most of the errors are in the earliest texts, and they are in fact scribal errors. For example, the letters omicron and sigma with a horizontal line over them indicates an abbreviation for "God", but there are examples where the horizontal line is in fact bleeding through the pages which causes errors.

The earliest scribes couldn't even understand what they were copying. They could only make the letters. Some couldn't even write their own names. Some of the worst errors are the earliest.

There is no shortage of books by learned scholars dealing with this topic.