Haven't you heard this before from non-religious people? "Oh, the Bible has been copied and translated so many times in the past 2ooo years, no one can really know what the original manuscripts said."
What is frustrating is that this critique is made so often and is simply accepted as common knowledge when the science of textual criticism would lead to very different conclusions. The historical integrity of the biblical manuscripts is not a matter of religious faith or theological speculation. It's supported by evidence and reason.
See this useful article.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Is the Bible Reliable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Correct, but it still doesn't necessarily make it either true or right.
D-P,
Your observation is correct. But you've changed the subject, which is OK for a conversation but a grave error in a debate.
In my post, I was not arguing for the truthfulness of the scriptures. That is a different issue altogether. I was disputing what is known as a "straw man" argument that is commonly assumed to be true, this notion that we don't really know what the original biblical texts contained. Very many people begin with that presupposition, an assumption that is scientifically and historically wrong.
Post a Comment