How reliable is the scriptures we have?

[polonius]

Before we examine any religious belief system, lets consider it's writings.

Lets start with the Gospel of Matthew.

From Introduction to Matthew in the New American Bible (Catholic) US Catholic Conference of Bishops.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories."

What we call the Gospel of Matthew is unsigned and didn't have a name until the second century when if that named by Papius, not the brightest Church Father.

“Eusebius of Caesarea - On Papias - original Greek Text with English translation�
From Historia Ecclesiastica, 3. 39.
13. For he (Papius) appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses. But it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Irenæus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.

[onewithhim]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01191a.htm
Quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia attesting to the Bible text being "Corrected."

The African bishops willingly allowed corrections to be made in a copy of the Sacred Scriptures, or even a reference, when necessary, to the Greek text. With some exceptions, it was the Septuagint text that prevailed, for the Old Testament, until the fourth century. In the case of the New, the manuscripts were of the western type. (See Bible, Canon.) On this basis there arose a variety of translations and interpretations. This well-established fact as to the existence of a number of versions of the Bible in Africa does not imply, however, that there was no one version more widely used and more generally received than the rest, i.e. the version which is found nearly complete in the works of St. Cyprian. Yet even this version was not without rivals. Apart from the discrepancies to be found in two quotations of the same text in the works of two different authors, and sometimes of the same author, we now know that of several books of Scripture there were versions wholly independent of each other. No fewer than three different versions of Daniel are to be found in use in Africa during the third century; in the middle of the fourth, the Donatist Tychonius uses and collates two versions of the Apocalypse.

Would you kindly say what your point is?

[Red Wolf]

[Replying to post 21 by onewithhim]

The point is evident....the Scriptures are not reliable because they were edited in antiquity.

[PinSeeker]

There is overwhelming evidence that the Bible we have today is the same that existed in "antiquity"... what we know today as the Old Testament, in Jesus's day, and the New Testament, as of at the earliest, 100 A.D. Through the millennia/centuries since then, the Holy Spirit has been maintaining the integrity of the Word of God -- through and despite the efforts of men -- just as He superintended the original writing -- again, through the efforts of men -- of it.

So, in answer to the OP, 100%. Human opinions are what they are, but God doesn't make mistakes or fail in upholding and preserving what is of Him. The grass withers, and the flower fades, but the Word of our God endures forever (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24-25).

Grace and peace to you.

[Red Wolf]

[Replying to post 23 by PinSeeker]

I'm sure you know about Eusebius who wrote a Church History in the 4th century.
The following are from Eusebius' book...
Even back then it was well known that the Scriptures had been corrupted.

Eusebius
The Church History Paul L. Maier (1999)
 
 
They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study “geometry� [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above. Some of them study the geometry of Euclid and revere Aristotle and Theophrastus, and some virtually worship Galen. In using the arts of unbelievers for their heresy, they corrupt the simple faith of the Scriptures and claim to have corrected them.
 
That I am not slandering them anyone will learn who compares their writings, which are in great discord, for those of Asclepiades do not agree with those of Theodotus. Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their “corrected� –though really corrupted-texts. Nor do these agree with the texts of Hermophilus, while those of Apolloniades are not even consistent among themselves, earlier copies differing greatly from later ones subjected to a second corruption. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed. They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction.

[PinSeeker]

I'm sure you know about Eusebius who wrote a Church History in the 4th century.

Yes, I know quite a bit about Eusebius, having done some study on him and his writings -- and critiques of his writings over the centuries. For the most part, Eusebius does a good job telling us where he got his information, and he generally uses sources that earlier writers trusted. Unfortunately, he doesn’t always do a good job distinguishing between good sources and bad sources. Therein lies the problem. That’s why nineteenth century bishop Joseph Barber Lightfoot argued that Eusebius’ greatest flaw is his seemingly blind acceptance of all source materials. But he did contribute quite a bit.

Even back then it was well known that the Scriptures had been corrupted.

Well, even back then, it was thought by many that the Scriptures had been corrupted, and the same as true now. As we read in Ecclesiastes concerning sin, there is nothing new under the sun. Many doubted then, and many doubt now; such will always be the case (until the Lord returns). As I said, the grass withers, and the flower fades, but the Word of our God endures forever.

Grace and peace to you.

[Red Wolf]

[Replying to post 25 by PinSeeker]

Absolute Proof the Gospels Do Not Contain the Exact Words of Jesus.
There is proof that the Gospels do NOT contain the exact words spoken by Jesus.

In Matthew's Gospel, Matthew has Jesus using the phrase ""KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"" 31 times.

None of the other Gospel writers ever use the phrase ""KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"".
The other Gospel writers prefer to use ""KINGDOM OF GOD"" in parallel passages.

So when Jesus was preaching did he say ""KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"" or did Jesus say ""KINGDOM OF GOD""?????

Proverbs 30:6
Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.


Matthew was very careful to use the phrase ""KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"" 31 times in his Gospel.
Yet in four instances, Matthew 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, and 21:43 the text of Matthew's Gospel uses the phrase ""KINGDOM OF GOD""
Do you suppose that these verses are the work of a later editor who was not as careful to say ""KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"" but instead wrote ""KINGDOM OF GOD"" ????

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 21 by onewithhim]

The point is evident....the Scriptures are not reliable because they were edited in antiquity.

Wouldn't we have to personally examine these various versions of books in order to draw conclusions?

There are other scholars who say that the versions we have today follow very closely the Dead Sea Scrolls, which go back the farthest.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 24 by Red Wolf]

I do agree that various passages have been corrupted, but modern scholars have done a pretty good job of being able to figure out what happened. The book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman is an interesting read.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 26 by Red Wolf]

So what? "Kingdom of heaven" and "Kingdom of God" mean the same thing.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 26 by Red Wolf]

So what? "Kingdom of heaven" and "Kingdom of God" mean the same thing.

The quoted words are those actually spoken by Jesus, or they are not. It is wrong to put false words into his mouth. If it doesn't matter to change one word of three spoken by Jesus, how are we to have confidence in any of the other passages that allegedly quote his words? I don't think we can.