|
Ten items appear below:
Comments on Biology and the
Bible
Kirk Straughen (Investigator
96, 2004 May) I
am responding to Anonymous'
article in
No. 95, page 48: In my opinion the accuracy of certain parts of the
Bible
appears to hinge on uncertain interpretations.
From conversations with
Christians I have
formed the impression that many believers consider the Holy Spirit as
playing
an active role in the production and interpretation of Scripture. This
assumption would make sense if the Bible, as some Christians claim, is
the most important book ever written – God could not afford errors in
translation
or other misunderstandings and unauthorised additions to creep in and
adulterate
allegedly sacred manuscripts.
Consequently, when Anonymous suggests the Hebrew word in Leviticus 11:13-19 be translated as "flying creatures" rather than fowls and so on, we are entitled to ask why the Holy Spirit did not guide the translators in their deliberations so they arrived at this conclusion, and thereby eliminate the appearance of error?
Similar questions arise
with the fabulous
beasts, such as unicorns, mentioned in the King James Version, and the
alleged forgery – Mark 16:9-20 (appearing as a footnote in the Revised
Standard Version) – if the translation is wrong or parts of the Bible a
forgery, then why did God permit its word to fall into error? (The King
James Version is still used by many Christians.)
Finally, Anonymous says:
"When investigating
the accuracy of the Bible were concerned with the accuracy of the
original,
not the forged additions." (page 53).
The truth of the matter is
that we don't
have access to the originals. Many of the most ancient copies are based
on other texts and oral traditions that have been lost, perhaps
forever,
so in some cases it may not be possible to know which parts of
Scripture
are original and which are later additions:
"We cannot really know
whether the men and
women who authored and edited the Bible were individuals working alone
or members of a "school" or "tradition." Indeed, biblical scholarship
has
detected layer upon layer of additions and deletions, revisions and
redactions,
and so it is likely that the biblical text was worked and reworked by
countless
hands over the centuries." (J. Kirsch: page 321 in The Harlot by the
Side
of the Road, Rider, UK, 1997.)
Examples of the lost manuscripts mentioned in the Bible are as follows:
The Book of the Wars of
the Lord – mentioned
in Num. 21:14
The Book of Jashar – mentioned in Joshua 10: 13 The Chronicles of Nathan – mentioned in I Chr. 29:29 The Chronicles of Gad – mentioned in I Chr. 29:29 The Acts of Solomon – mentioned in I Kings 11:41
Moreover, the authors of
Scripture are long
dead, and therefore can't be questioned – what they meant and what we
think
they meant when they used certain words may be two entirely different
things.
The only thing I think
we
can be reasonably
sure of is that fallible humans wrote Scripture in a prescientific age,
and that some errors in the Bible are due to the limited and inaccurate
knowledge of the times.
TRANSMISSION
OF SCRIPTURE
Anonymous (Investigator 97, 2004
July)
PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE AND EVIL Kirk Straughen speculates
concerning the
Bible that, "God could not afford errors in translation and other
misunderstandings
and unauthorised additions…" (Investigator 96, p28)
Such an idea is not in the
Bible. Nor do
Christians teach it:
While the Holy Spirit so
guided and controlled
revelation and inspiration that the Bible is infallible (does not tend
to error) and inerrant (it is without error) in the original writings
as
they came from the hands of the authors, He did not exercise the same
kind
of supervision over its transmission. And yet He exercised such a
general
oversight and supervision over the text that it is essentially today
what
it was when originally written. (Kerr 1981 p. 5)
God's response to evil – as indicated in the Bible – is not to squash evil immediately but to let all sorts of evil run its course until humans learn that their concepts of right and wrong are mistaken. Meanwhile, as humans go about their harmful ethical and moral decisions – mistakenly supposing them to be right – God has programs underway to undo the consequences. An obvious example is the "good news of salvation" whereby, according to the Bible, unnumbered humans receive forgiveness and eternal life. This general response to
human evil applies
also to the preservation of the "Word of God" when humans perform the
evil
of altering it. The alterations reach a certain level while all the
time
the means and procedures exist to identify and correct them.
ISAIAH One procedure to preserve
"Holy Scripture"
is the preservation of ancient scrolls and parchments which can be
checked
against each other and against later copies. (Parchment was the skin of
goats or sheep, i.e. leather, and was a common writing material. It was
more durable than papyrus.)
The Dead Sea Scrolls
(discovered 1947 to
1956) included a Hebrew scroll of Isaiah written in the 2nd
Century BCE. Geisler & Nix (1968) compared the Dead Sea Scroll of
Isaiah
53 with the Masoretic Text (the Old Testament in Hebrew) transcribed
about
1,000 CE. Chapter 53 has 166 words. In 1,100 years only one word, the
word "light" was added.
For much of the Old
Testament the error-level
in transmission is no greater than Isaiah 53.
Some critics complain of five "lost manuscripts" that the Bible mentions such as "The Acts of Solomon". (1 Kings 11:41) When I quote science journals to prove particular statements in the Bible no one considers such science journals to be mine, or part of my work, with an obligation on me to preserve them. Similarly, being quoted or referred to in the Bible does not make a document part of the Scriptures with an obligation on Jews or Christians to preserve it. NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICS As regards the New
Testament we have about
5,400 ancient Greek manuscripts, pages thereof, or scraps thereof.
Between
all of them there are thousands of variations in words (omitted or
included
or spelling changed) and also instances of whole verses included or
omitted.
Enter the textual critics.
Textual critics are fellows who compare(d) the ancient manuscripts to work out what was in the original i.e. in the "autographs" or first version by the original writers. The major 19th century textual critics included Griesbach (1745-1812), Lachman (1793-1851), Tischendorf (1815-1874), Wordsworth (1807-1885), Westcott (1825-1901), Hort (1828-1892). These researchers used different criteria in determining the original wording of the Scriptures. Lachman, for example, relied principally on the oldest manuscripts. Another method relied principally on what the majority of manuscripts contained. The New Dictionary of
Theology says:
The original text can
then be reconstructed
only by careful comparative study of surviving copies. Usually, but not
invariably, earlier copies have suffered less from alteration than
later
ones. The scribal habits of individual copyists and schools of copyists
must be studied; the main types of error must be identified, a
distinction
being made between those that are due to imperfect reading of a
master-copy
and those that arise from imperfect hearing where the copying is done
from
dictation.
The Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament has a section titled A Concordance of Various Readings. Here the layman can easily check "Various readings" for each New Testament Greek verse. He can, for each word, check the evidence whether it occurred in the original Scriptures.
It's been estimated that
1/500th
of the New Testament wording – i.e. what was in the original Greek – is
still seriously disputed. Since manuscript discoveries have not stopped
the situation can only get better.
RELEVANCE TO BIBLE UNDERSTANDING The bits of the Bible
where the original
wording is still in doubt assume importance only in fine points of
doctrine.
When I research the
accuracy of the Bible,
by checking its statements against scientific discovery, every English
Bible translation is adequate most of the time. If they are adequate
for
that, they are also adequate for understanding God, salvation,
decisions
of right and wrong, Bible themes, and virtually everything else in the
Bible that most people ponder about.
COMPARISONS The oldest known
surviving
copies of many
ancient authors were transcribed over 1000 years after the originals.
Consider:
WRITER OLDEST COPY
Herodotus 485-425
BCE c.900 CE
Sophocles 496-405 BCE c.1100 CE Thucydides 460-400 BCE c.900 CE Demosthenes 383-322 BCE c.1000 CE Aristotle 382-322 BCE c.1100 CE Julius Caesar 100-44 BCE c.900 CE Tacitus 55-120 CE c.1100 CE Pliny 62-113 CE c.850 CE Seutonius 75-160 CE c.900 CE <> Much of the work of many ancient writers is lost. For example: <>Sophocles: "He wrote well
over 100 items…of
which only the Ichneutae survives, as well as seven major plays…"
(Magnussen
1990)
<>
Tacitus: "of probably 18
books only eight
have come down to us entire, four are fragmentary, and the others
lost."
(Magnussen 1990)
The oldest surviving
manuscripts of the Bible,
or fragments of manuscripts, are from 120s CE for the New Testament and
about 150 BCE for the Old Testament. (See Investigator 77,
pp 20-24)
THE FUTURE The originals, the
autographs, of "Holy Scripture"
are not necessarily gone forever.
The Old Testament
repeatedly mentions the "Book of the Law" a definite book preserved and
added to by various prophets
and from which copies were made. (Exodus 17:14; 34:27; Deuteronomy
17:18;
31:9-11, 19, 22, 24; Joshua 1:8; 8:30-35; 23:6; 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25;
etc)
In the New Testament Paul
wrote to Titus, "When you come, bring…also the books, and above all the
parchments." (4:13)
Great importance was attached to the originals and transcribed copies. We don't know what became of them. It's possible, therefore, they are hidden and await future discovery. CONCLUSION Some ancient copyists of
Scripture made errors
accidentally. Some made changes deliberately. Never, however, were
significant
parts of the message rendered unclear. There were always surviving
works
of other copyists from which comparisons could be made and most changes
identified. Nor has the existence of "various readings" significantly
hindered
investigation into the accuracy of the Bible.
Comparison of the Bible
with other popular
ancient books shows a degree of preservation often considered
miraculous.
We have reason to agree with Isaiah who wrote:
The grass withers, the
flower fades;
But the word of our God will stand forever. (40:8) Ferguson, S B et al (Editors) 1988 New Dictionary of Theology, Inter-Varsity, England, p 93 Geissler, N L & Nix, W E 1968 A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody, USA Kerr, W F 1981 Kerr's Handbook of the Bible, Ronald N Haynes Publishers, California Magnusson, M (General editor) 1990 Chambers Biographical Dictionary, Chambers, England Wigram, G V Englishman's Greek Concordance of the New Testament, Ninth Edition, Samuel Bagsters & Sons, London Comments
on the
"Transmission of Scripture" Kirk Straughen (Investigator 98, 2004 September)I am unable to agree with
Anonymous' Transmission
of Scripture (# 97, p. 42). He quotes Kerr (page 42) who,
in part says, "the [Biblical] text is essentially today what it was
when
originally written." However, how do we know this is true when we don't
have access to the originals? Although we certainly do have very early
documents they are, as his quotation from the New Dictionary of
Theology
(page
44)
admits,
only "surviving copies."
Who has seen the original
autographs? Have
you seen them, have Biblical scholars seen them, has Anonymous seen
them?
Some copyists may have had a theological axe to grind and altered
scripture
from the lost originals in critical places.
We need the original
manuscripts
to make sure this hasn't happened.
Take Genesis for example –
most scholars
agree it contains two different creation myths that have been joined
together.
How much was added or deleted in the process? Perhaps these two myths
were
themselves compiled from even earlier texts that have been lost.
Without
being able to peruse the original documents I can't see how
anyone
can be sure.
According to the apologist
Norman Geisler
(quoted by McKinsey), there are about 5000 ancient New Testament
manuscripts
with over 200,000 variants. How can scholars know which one of
the
variants is the original, let alone reconstruct the original gospel in
its entirety from them? Consider the following example:
"Truly, truly, I
say to
you, the cock will not
crow, till you have denied me three times." (John 13:38)
And immediately the
cock
crowed a second time.
And Peter remembered how Jesus said to him, "Before the cock crows
twice,
you will deny me three times." (Mark 14:72)
How do we decide which version is correct? Because the gospels of Matthew and Luke agree with that of John should we decide on the basis of a majority? Alternatively, the gospel of Mark is usually considered the oldest, so should we decide that it is closer to the original and therefore more accurate? But to do so is to assume that our version of Mark was based on the original document or at least on an accurate copy, and this may not be so. Indeed, the authors of the other gospels may have had access to more accurate texts than were available to the author of Mark. If this is the case then they may be right and Mark wrong. Concerning the lost texts
– Anonymous says "being quoted or referred to in the Bible does not
make a document part
of the Scriptures..." Some Christians may argue that if a particular
text
has not been included in the Bible it's not the Word of God, and we can
know this because it's not in the Bible. This, however, is merely
circular
reasoning. Indeed, if we don't have the text then it's impossible to
assess
its worth, so how can we know?
Apologists often claim
that differences between
ancient Biblical texts do not seriously affect basic Christian beliefs.
However:
"This optimism may be
misplaced. We have
two early papyri which overlap across seventy verses of John's Gospel,
and even if the plain errors of their copyists are excluded, they
differ
at no less than seventy small places. Unlike Catullus's love-poems or
Juvenal's
satires, the Christian scriptures were a battlefield for textual
alteration-and
rewriting in the first hundred years of their life."
(Fox, Robin
Lane: The
Unauthorized Version,
page
139)
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "all scripture is inspired by God." This statement is clearly false in view of the many errors the Bible contains, for how can God inspire an error? Considering all of the above, I find it exceedingly strange that although God supposedly made sure the originals were accurate (and where is the evidence for this apart from someone's say so?), He, She or It took no further interest in the accurate transmission of the texts knowing they would be copied by fallible men. Bibliography Fox, Robin Lane: The Unauthorized Version, Penguin Books, London, 1992 McKinsey, C. Dennis The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, Prometheus Books, New York, 1995. Anonymous (Investigator
99, 2004
November) I previously explained the work of "textual critics" who compare thousands of old manuscripts to restore the original Bible text. (Investigator 97) Kirk Straughen (#98)
ignored the explanation
and insists we can't be sure of the original text unless we actually
inspect
the original.
By rejecting the work of
"textual critics"
Straughen rejects a scientific discipline that's been operating and
refined
for centuries. He has acted like believers in the paranormal who reject
science in order to maintain their belief – like believers in
levitation,
for example, who have to ignore the science of physics.
When I investigate the
Bible I test the accuracy
of Bible statements by comparing them with scientific discovery. I've
done
this in many scientific disciplines such as astronomy and zoology. To
test
the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible – an important question
since
the Bible says "the word of our God is forever" – I likewise went to
the
relevant scientific discipline, in this case "textual criticism". This
confirmed that the modern text is over 99% reliable.
We don't need the
autographs (the first finished
effort by an author) to be sure of the content if we have many copies
by
different people.
To deny this in the case
of the Bible – where
we have thousands of old manuscripts or parts thereof – is to cast
greater
doubt on all ancient authors where the number of copies are few.
I listed some other
ancient writers and showed
that our oldest copies of Aristotle, Caesar, Pliny, etc, were made 800
to 1300 years after the originals. If we accept Straughen's argument
that
we need to check the autographs before we accept anything then most
written
history would have to be ignored or discarded.
The 200,000 variants in
5,000 old Bible manuscripts
are mostly spelling variations. This huge number adds to, rather than
subtracts
from, the exactness with which we can reconstruct the originals.
Consider a simple analogy:
An office manager
hand-writes a note from which his secretaries make copies using
typewriters.
Under time pressure they make a few mistakes.
Employees who receive a
copy make comparisons
and find the following variants with differences shown in bold:
From the many copies and
variants the employees
know an original exists and they can estimate its wording. In this
example
they'd probably adopt the "d" version. Added evidence would be if each
copy included the time it was typed!
If we accept Straughen's
complaint that the
autographs must be examined before we regard the copies as faithful,
and
apply this complaint consistently, then we have to reject everything in
print.
We rarely use the autograph of any document. Every book in every library is not the original. The original, if it exists, is a typed manuscript in someone's drawer or safe. Straughen's claim that the
Bible has contradictions
is a separate complaint, logically distinct from the question of
whether
modern copies reflect the autographs.
So we'll discuss that another time. The restoration of original wording from multiple variants is, I repeat, a scientific discipline: The original text can
then be reconstructed
only by careful comparative study of surviving copies. Usually, but not
invariably, earlier copies have suffered less from alteration than
later
ones. The scribal habits of individual copyists and schools of copyists
must be studied; the main types of error must be identified, a
distinction
being made between those that are due to imperfect reading of a
master-copy
and those that arise from imperfect hearing where the copying is done
from
dictation. (New Dictionary of Theology, 1988, p. 93)
A Final Reply Kirk Straughen (Investigator 100, 2005 January)
In his reply
(#99, p. 35) Anonymous
suggests that I reject the work of textual critics. This is an
overstatement
of my position. Those Biblical scholars who claim that Scripture varies
little from the originals may be correct. I am not rejecting their
conclusions,
merely suggesting that this position could be over-optimistic (perhaps
I should have made this clearer in my earlier articles).
That the Biblical text we have today is different from the earliest versions found (the originals?) in places is undeniable. Matthew 6:28, for example, says in part: "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin." (RSV)
The 4th century
Codex Sinaiticus,
however, contained a variation that had been erased, and was only
revealed
by ultra-violet light. The scholar T. C. Skeat who analyzed the codex
was
able to reconstruct (in his opinion) the original text, which runs:
"Consider
the lilies of the field: they neither card nor spin."
Without this early text we
would not be aware
of the error in our modern Bibles. However, is this the earliest text –
the original, the first one ever written? If it is, then well and good,
but if there is an even earlier version that we do not have, can we be
certain that it, too, does not differ?
Another example is as follows: "At John 8:1-11,
however, we are faced
with a famous addition which is not the author's. In our Bibles
nowadays,
we read Jesus's moving defense of the adulterous woman who was about to
be stoned for her sins... The episode is missing from the surviving
fourth-century
codices which underpin the rest of the New Testament text; it is not
known
in any early papyrus or any quotation by an early Christian author,
although
the subject was relevant to so much which they discussed." (R. L. Fox:
The
Unauthorized Version, p142-143).
Clearly, some copyists were not hesitant about putting words into the mouth of Christ. What else may have been added during earlier periods for which we have no history? Once again I ask what I think is a reasonable question – If we don't have the original texts, how can we be absolutely certain that our copies are identical to them?
I apologize to Anonymous
if I seem to be
ignoring his explanations; it's just that I am unable to agree with his
conclusions. Whether I'm being as irrational as other believers I'll
leave
for my readers to judge.
Bibliography Fox, Robin Lane The Unauthorized Version. Penguin Books. London, 1992Response
to TRANSMISSION
RELIABLE
David Nicholls (Investigator
100, 2005
January)
I feel I must comment
about the article 'Transmission
Reliable' (Investigator #99).
Linking religious history
with natural history
and applying the same rules of investigation is a case of telling a big
enough lie and it will be believed (by some). Even natural history can
suffer from fraud, deception and bias. Australia occupying Terre
nullius;
the Japanese altering history books by exclusion of war atrocities; the
American Declaration of Independence most likely drafted by Thomas
Paine
and not Jefferson; etc.
It is fraudulent to claim
the history we
know is a correct and actual version of the past. Some history is
evidenced
well some is not. Even so, many of the nuances will remain a mystery to
us always. We accept that which we know as it is convenient and has no
ramifications of importance in most cases.
Religion is a different kettle of fish entirely. Through repetitious and adult authorative indoctrination, mentally defenceless children are brainwashed via their culture believing their particular religion contains absolute truth. They then, because of the hardwiring of the brain and nothing else, are stuck with it for life. The disastrously negative results of this should be obvious to even the most basic thinker. We have the evidence of 10,000 religions down through history employing mistake, fraud and opportunism as our guide. We can couple this with the human propensity to believe stuff with little evidence and it becomes very obvious it is the unwise and unwary who are willing to be fooled by such shallow 'logic'. Most religions sprang about when surrounded by scant knowledge of the natural world and when superstition was rampant. Interestingly, the onset of scientific method initiated the destruction of mainstream religions and it is now only those attempting to return to the Dark Ages that hang grimly on by way of evolution denial. Thousands of copies of Biblical manuscripts is about as relevant as hundreds of thousands of copies of Communion – a book recording people being allegedly abducted by aliens. The 99% accuracy figure is fanciful. Even if it were 100%, as with Communion copies, it is meaningless. They are both made up of people telling dubious, beyond natural stories. The inclusion of historical names, places and dates are equally meaningless. I wonder if Anonymous accepts the words of first-hand witnesses in Communion and therefore accepts these people are not experiencing a psychological aberration but were actually abducted and experimented on as they say. After all, Communion fits the criteria he has so far laid out. The alleged authors of New Testament manuscripts are a mystery. We do not know who they were other than by their first names. We do not know with any certainty when they wrote the alleged manuscripts. Unlike many of the natural historians we know nothing about them. The greatest damming evidence (or lack of it) is the non-recording of alleged miraculous events by natural historians and no actual original manuscripts. One would think that if a god/man came to Earth and did wonderful things, that the recording of such events would have been revered and protected like no other. If a god wished that future humanity might benefit from its words and not allow them to collapse into a heap of ambiguity, as is extant, it would have made sure of that. REPLY TO STRAUGHEN'S "FINAL REPLY" Anonymous (Investigator 101, 2005 March) Mr Straughen (Investigator
100) gives two
examples of ancient manuscripts where Bible verses vary in content.
Determining what the
original was, if it's
currently possible in Straughen's two examples, is the job of the
textual
critics.
Both examples are also
quite innocuous. Whether
lilies of the field "neither toil nor spin" or "neither card
nor
spin" (Matthew 6:28) is irrelevant to the surrounding message of
conquering
anxiety. Indeed anxiety is a major health problem affecting 20% of
people
and causes many emotional and physical illnesses – and Jesus shows how
to control it.
Straughen also wants to be
"absolutely certain"
that today's Bibles are identical to copies made prior to the ancient
manuscripts
that are still available.
The earliest fragments of
the New Testament
currently known are from the 120s AD. Straughen imagines or fears that
even earlier – when some of the original writers or people who knew
them
were still alive – changes were made that we cannot check. That the
original
writers and their immediate successors were less concerned with
accurate
copying than later generations is implausible and is what I just called
it – imagination.
Perhaps Straughen should
list the verses
he thinks were tampered with prior to the 120s AD and then future
manuscript
discoveries may prove him right or wrong. We can also reason
inductively –
recognise that 18th and 19th century skeptical
claims
of high levels of tampering in the previous 15 centuries are refuted
and
generalize this result further back to the 1st century AD.
ADDENDUM–TRANSMISSION OF SCRIPTURE
K Straughen (Investigator 102, 2005
May)
I have found some interesting articles on the Internet that deal with the above subject, whose titles and URLs appear below: The Textual
Reliability
of the New Testament
www.bowness.demon.co.uk?reli2.htm How we got the New
Testament: Historicity
of its Canonization
www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Text/bible_howNT.htm The Real Bible: Who's
Got It?
www.atheists.org/christianity/realbible.htm I have presented this
information for persons
who may wish to pursue the subject further.
TRANSMISSION
OF SCRIPTURE
REPLY TO NICHOLLS Anonymous (Investigator 101, 2005 March)
David Nicholls claims, "mentally defenceless children are brainwashed [into] believing their particular religion".
Firstly, the Bible says
the "whole world"
is deceived, not just the religious world. We see the truth of this in
thousands of conflicting religions, superstitions, self-damaging
decisions,
political disagreements and in defunct anti-biblical ideologies like
racism,
eugenics, Nazism and Communism.
Secondly Nicholls has a
model of humans as
being "brainwashed" in childhood and therefore unable to change. This
is
refuted every time any adult converts to a religion or to atheism or
back
again.
Numerous helping
professions such as counselling, mediation,
teaching
and psychotherapy presume change is possible – otherwise such
professions
are a scam. The biblical model too is of changeable humans. Every New
Testament
advice
on life-style and ethics only makes sense if humans are able to change.
Next Mr Nicholls disagrees
that today's Bibles
reflect the content of the original documents that became the Bible. He
says the "99% accuracy figure is fanciful" and compares it to Communion
(a book about alien abductions).
Mr Nicholls may have
misunderstood that the
99% accuracy refers to the accuracy of transmission, not to the
accuracy
of content.
For example, suppose I
write a silly message
as follows: "The witch flew David's soul to purgatory on her
broomstick."
I send it far and wide via the Internet and it goes into many
languages.
One day the message returns to me in Russian and, translated, it says:
"The witch flew David's soul to purgatory on her broomstick." The
transmission
has been 100% accurate. But the content has little or no accuracy – the
message is false.
To get the 99% accuracy of
transmission
for the Bible I went to the relevant science, in this case Textual
Criticism,
as explained in my discussion with Mr Straughen. (Investigator 97-99)
This proved that modern
Bibles reflect the
content of the original documents. It does not, however, prove that the
content is correct in what it states – except for those few Bible
verses
that predict that the Scriptures will survive and go to all humankind.
For example:
The grass withers, the
flower fades,
But the word of our God is forever. Whether any other statements in the Bible are correct is a separate issue because, as shown by my "witch" example, it's possible for transmission to be 100% accurate when what is stated is 0% accurate. My usual procedure is to
test individual
Bible statements by going to the relevant scientific discipline – such
as astronomy and physics to evaluate the threat from asteroids, or
medical
science for the dangers of immorality, or Textual Criticism for the
accuracy
of transmission of Scripture. If science proves a Bible statement
correct,
then critics can only reject that Bible point and be consistent about
it
if they reject science as well.
"TRANSMISSION" DEBATE FINISHED Editor The article by Anonymous, Transmission of Scripture Reply To Nicholls (#101), received a 1,800-word response from Mr Nicholls.
The response included the
words:
"Therefore, concerning
the statement, 'The
transmission of the scriptures is reliable'; only one conclusion can be
reached. The transmission may be reliable from date X but there is no
credible
reason to accept they correctly represent alleged events in toto before
date X."
This appears a fitting conclusion to the "Transmission of Scripture" debate.
Therefore although Mr
Nicholl's article is
published in #102 it will not be tacked onto the "Transmission" debate
on Investigator's website.
It will either stand alone
or – if Anonymous
responds – be the start of a separate discussion.
See also the similar topic to the Transmission debate: HISTORY DESTROYED, CREATED AND REWRITTEN 111 Many
debates – Skeptics vs Anon — on
this website: |